The Myth of the Super-Successful ‘C’ Student

This caused me to re-read the original article. The one thing i just dont see mentioned is the class warfare of the situation. C students sometimes just dont want to play the game, they see the game as fake & irrelevant. The use of the learning, the pressure to achieve can feel very so what.

I had an elemntary school teacher that very persistently drilled into us the value of school, of trying, of thinking, that opened doors of perception to geekhood & technology, which got me to start to engage, to think about the value. Ehich i had numberous further crisis of faith over, which made it dismaying when i felt like the educational side of the compact was failing, wasnt as real as i'd hoped.

I wouldnt say this is the majority, but there is definitely a whiff of rebellion, & some of it is super smart, edgy, more connected & wise than the A students. Questioning spending time, questioning trying hard, questioning auhority, not seeing it add up in bigger picture. The original article keeps bring like, 'this weakness is actually helpful', taking at face value more or less that C students are probably just lesser than their A colleagues, but that that struggle has upside, which i think masks a far deeper more important truth, of why some C students are C students to start with.

Is the writer so bored they had to invent an imaginary person to condescend to?

>That is not to say C students cannot be successful, but as discussed in the article Normies, Status, and Substack, if they are wildly successful financially and or in terms of social status, it’s due to a combination of luck (like inheriting a family business), timing (being early), or connections (such as knowing the right agent who can land you a highly sought after acting role), not due to raw intellectual horsepower or merit like in STEM or finance.

Isn't this just a lie? I didn't know anyone, didn't inherit anything from my lower class family and wasn't early. I was a D/F student, now I manage engineers. I've had reports with PhDs while I barely passed high school.

This post smacks of smug elitism and worship of academia, which is a failing institution with questionable value to society.

A model that just takes grades and degrees, which is most of the actual data the article presents, as inputs probably does not work. There are so many more attributes to consider: race, tenacity, resilience, etc.