Implying that being at the top of the class is some aspiration that should be sought after for everybody, debasing life into some competition.
But in my experience teaching, the students who hold the "customer service" arguments are mostly the ones who are asking me if they can leave the lab early because it's half price Margarita night at the local bar (direct quote here, and not the only one of its kind). That's what I meant, sorry if it wasn't clear.
Regularly I get the impression that a lot of grading in the US is rank or curve-based, which seems like total bullshit to me.
The best performing student could still very well provide poor quality work.
A good teacher evaluates students individually and tries to take each of their levels and learning-speeds in to account.
Luckily I have mostly had university classes with 15-30 students, which gives the teachers a lot of space to approach students individually.
This is also a sweeping assumption that you shouldn't have made.
I hate watching others compete amongst themselves (e.g., sports) and I hate participating in all forms of competition, academics or otherwise. It just doesn't turn me on. Rather, it makes me feel uncomfortable.
With that being said, I graduated near the top of my CS class and now make over six figures per year, so I guess one can "succeed" (whatever the fuck that means) even when one finds all forms of competition reprehensible.
I did what I did to start and support a family. I didn't do what I did for the high one gets when one feels superior to everyone else on something that, in the end, is totally unimportant (pale-blue-dot, remember?).
It's all bullshit.
"I have never competed with Peter Naur. (I was raised somewhat puritanically: we had to try our hardest and give the most, but we were not allowed to compete. I am still grateful to my parents for this education.)"
We can't expect to be in the top 1% of achievers, because by definition everyone can't. So you end up with 99% of the population that has failed to live up to expectations and deal with the economic and psychological consequences of that. Always, with no exceptions ever, as a matter of statistical fact. That's just stupid and unhealthy.
People should be encouraged to go above and beyond, but making it an expectation of all students is just stupid. If all students could do it, it wouldn't be above and beyond.
We should be looking at absolute measures of competency instead. This eliminates the problem of the A student who didn't actually learn the material, as well as the C student who is perfectly qualified. I would love to see schools raise the standards for "Pass" to a useful level of competency, then grade everything pass-fail. The very best students could still shine on the basis of the quality of their research.
Similarly, striving to be the best doesn't mean you're trying to put others down, it means you're trying to improve yourself. That unless others do likewise you'll improve on a relative basis is not the important thing, rather that you'll improve compared to your old self.
tl;dr Compete with yourself.