@HRSMom I may be mistaken but I think it is supposed to be" grade grabber" (or similar meaning) in context, as in someone who studies for the grade, not the knowledge
It’s not a good student that teachers like.
Yeh. I think this one by a former poster, Northstarmom, gets a grasp on it:
"A grade grubber will bend over backward to do whatever is needed to get an A – because the student wants an A, not because the student has any interest in the material. Once the A is assured, the grade grubber is no longer involved with the material.
The grade grubber will ask for extra credit, etc. in order to raise their grade or will argue with a teacher to try to get an A. The “A” is the prize for the student, not the learning itself.
The grade grubber will choose the easiest teacher who teaches a subject even if the class is a joke and the teacher is a fool. The top student will choose the teacher who teaches the subject best – even if that teacher is the most difficult in the department.
The grade grubber will choose classes based on how the classes will affect their gpa. The top student will choose classes based on what the student will learn and what the student is interested in .
What is foremost in the grade grubber’s mind is, “Will that be on the test? Will that help me get an A?” What is formost on the top student’s mind is an interest in learning for the sake of learning.
Top students certainly do care about grades, and will attempt to get top grades, but not at the expense of learning the subject. Grade grubbers care about grades, not the subject."
It’s generally a pejorative.
@jym626: I didn’t realize that it had been posted before (sorry my bad).
@Lookingforward: My kids attended Stuyvesant High School, which is currently 72% Asian. The difficulty of Asians being admitted to all the ivies and the very tippy-top colleges is a topic that was much talked about. In fact, many Asian families who’s children are admitted to Stuyvesant decline the offer, because with a graduating class of over 900 students, nearly three-quarters of whom are Asian, the chances of the top half of the class being admitted to a handful of selective colleges are slim. As I had never read another article that detailed what Asians were doing incorrectly, I thought the advice outweighed the free advertising. Hence, a good place to start.
gibby,
That article had gotten a lot of critical review and discussion on college consultant forums. Please take it with a very big grain of salt.
At any rate, imo, it’s wrong to assume an As-Am kid is a grade grubber simply because he or she did well. It’s another stereotype and something of a fear tactic. (Including: you’d better pay for my advice or you’ll make all these “mistakes.”)
@gibby If they don’t go to Stuyvesant or any of the other specialized high schools out of that reasoning, where will their kids attend high school of similar caliber to prepare them for the elite colleges? Most of them can’t afford private schools, or can’t move out of the city due to work consideration. So they’re essentially stuck.
@NoVADad99: Many Asian families who’s children are admitted to Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, Brooklyn Tech choose to send their kids to other smaller public schools, where they will almost be assured to be stand-out students at the top of their class – schools like NYC Lab, Eleanor Roosevelt, Townsend Harris, Beacon etc. Stuyvesant even has this disclaimer on their high school profile, but not sure how much colleges pay attention to it:
Again… from a very well respected publication https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/down-grade-grubbing-weasels
Wow this is a really long thread and I just finished reading it. Id like to jump in.
“I don’t cry about racial disparities on the NBA and minorities shouldn’t whine about racial percentages in NASA” -close friend against AA
Anyone supporting affirmative action is racist themselves. Anyone making the argument that Asians are the “overrepresented” 20%, is just supporting race based quotas. So what if Asians are 10% of the population? If they are the most qualified, they should fill up schools and employment! People making the “diversity” excuse should note that though you may think of them this way, not all Asians are the same. The culture of a Cambodian male is not the same as an Indian female or Japanese female.
Yes Harvard hasn’t been found guilty of racism, but its pretty obvious. For example, an African american male gets into all 8 ivy leagues with a 2250 SAT and 3.6 GPA. (African American comes from wealthy family of doctors BTW. This is a true story look it up) While an Asian gets rejected with a 2400 SAT, a 4.7 GPA, first chair violin, varsity sport, and science awards.
I guess the Asian fell right within the stereotypical box. That instrument and science award must’ve killed his application because it shows how “robotic” and “uncultured” he is.
Everything wrong with the system:
- More qualified Asians/whites rejected
- Less qualified minorities accepted
- Its racist to assume minorities can’t accomplish anything on their own.
- True diversity can’t be forced with a quota.
I am also against gender affirmative action. Being an Asian female aspiring to major in STEM, I would feel like a loser knowing I only got into college because I’m female and less qualified then male applicants. Btw Caltech doesnt use affirmative action at all. (It may be coincidental that their school proportions are mostly Asian/white).
Every minority (or feminist) debating for affirmative action is admitting that they are less capable than whites or Asians (or males) of accomplishing things on their own.
I however do believe in socioeconomic affirmative action. If socioeconomic AA didn’t exist, the poor would become more poor. This allows class mobility, so its the only type of AA I support.
How to fix this:
- Create a colorblind college and job application process
- Do not give names, gender, sexuality, residential information
Its honestly not that hard. UCs and Caltech have managed to create a level playing field for all races and they’re doing fine on diversity.
@catlover2000
“I however do believe in socioeconomic affirmative action. If socioeconomic AA didn’t exist, the poor would become more poor. This allows class mobility, so its the only type of AA I support.”
How could this practically be accomplished? Reporting income on the Common App would open up a huge can of worms ie. “If I accepted X here, then how could he/she pay for it?”
This would also either a) create a huge upward spike in poor people accepted or b) create a huge downward trend in poor acceptances. I would be interested to see a study exploring that.
Catlover, you will be better satisfied on the thread folks are usually directed to, when they want to vent about AA: Race and College Admissions.
As for your statements, it might help to find some grounding for your opinions.
@as9934 Most universities actually use socioeconomic affirmative action. I just feel that race based AA is racist and discriminating in itself.
"Schools don’t want students who care too much about their grades. They want kids who love learning”\
Yet, half of Harvard’s admits self-report 4.0s in high school. I wonder how much the admissions policies of these schools encourage “grade grabbing,” and its complement, grade inflation.
They don’t just self-report, they have the transcript.
And you have a whole app package in which to show (not just tell) an interest in learning. When the whole self-presentation in the app (what you did and what you say,) is solid and compelling (not just stats,) these colleges then form their class from those kids. Why is it a surprise so many are 4.0? The large bulk of kids applying to elites is 4.0 or darned close. The schools then weed based on the rest of what comes through- how they kid activated himself, his perspective, his judgment, and more.
Just being 4.0 is far from “it.”
Doesn’t it make logical sense that students who love learning are going to be found with 4.0s?
I just saw this thread today, and I’m surprised by the rancor here about Harvard’s admission decisions. Frankly, a good student has many options for colleges where he or she can get everything they need to be successful. It isn’t as if Harvard is the only option. Harvard has too many good applicants to choose from. Many deserving students will be disappointed, but the blame and cries of unfairness are just not warranted. No one is owed a Harvard education. And Harvard doesn’t claim that SAT scores and grades are a sole determining factor. That is an assumption made by applicants.
Let’s look at this with an extreme hypothetical. Let’s say that the best 2000 applicants (approx the number admitted to Harvard) with 2400 SATs, best ECs, best rigor and grades, honors, and awards were all women, all planning to major in psychology. In my hypothetical case, should Harvard take those 2000 women, and reject all others? Of course not. Harvard is a co-ed school, and if this were the case, would want to include men. Would that mean there’s a quota on women? Or that Harvard would be sexist? The mission is to be co-ed. That is a positive move, to include, and not a negative one - to exclude. One of the Harvard’s goals is to offer a rich learning environment, one factor is building a class of different kinds of students. Additionally, Harvard has many departments, and wants students in various disciplines. Some students in some disciplines will have lower grades than others. Harvard has to fill the athletic teams. Harvard has to admit some wealthy students to get donations that pay for all the goodies that make Harvard great, including financial aid for poorer students. Harvard has a commitment to under represented students and those from poorer backgrounds, and parents without college educations of their own. Most top colleges like to brag that they have students from all 50 states. When you start adding all the above up, it becomes clear that there isn’t room for every great student.
These decisions aren’t personal. If students would see it that way and look at Harvard as a long shot in the first place, that would be a healthier attitude. We all know really brilliant kids who get rejected by Harvard and go on to do great things from another school.
I don’t believe that Harvard uses racist decision making, quite the contrary. I think that complaints to that effect miss the whole picture of what Harvard is trying to accomplish in putting together a class that meets the mission of the school.
“Doesn’t it make logical sense that students who love learning are going to be found with 4.0s?”
I’m guessing that it depends on the school. I’d say, not ideally. If a school doesn’t suffer from grade inflation, or from a sense of promoting its best and brightest, I’d say that straight As suggest the opposite of a love of learning, because it suggests that the student was never really challenged. The student never took a class where he/she was a bit over his head. The student always took courses where he/she was going to get an A.
A 4.0 suggests several possibilities to me: 1. The school hands out grades like candy; 2. There is pressure - subtle or not so subtle - to give the top students, the best prospects, As, even if not quite deserved; 3. The student took a “safe” courseload (this is almost tautologically-true and may manifest itself in different ways).
You don’t know that an A student wasn’t challenged. Or didn’t earn it, fair and square, per traditional expectations.
As a small example, many STEM kids go above their heads and do get A’s. Doesn’t that say they rise to the challenges? Isn’t that why we want to see rigor AND good grades? And AP scores (no matter how many times CC folks say they don’t.) And don’t forget LoRs can also reflect much about a student’s learning style, effort and growth.
I’m wondering if you think all URMs are given A’s like candy and submit shadow apps.
“You don’t know that an A student wasn’t challenged.”
I would say that by definition, the student who only gets As has never taken a course that took him beyond his limits, A student who has never taken a course beyond his limits may have perhaps perfectly gauged his limits, and taken courses that often came to the threshold of his limits, but never exceeded it. Or perhaps he just took a lot of safe courses.
In any particular circumstance, one doesn’t really know one way or other. But I think that the admissions policies of selective schools can encourage practices that result in 4.0s other than actual, complete mastery of all academic material over the course of four years
"I’m wondering if you think all URMs are given A’s like candy and submit shadow apps. "
What does someone’s status as a URM have to do with my speculations?