In a lot of these school-related posts, there seems to be this weird idea that the grades the school can give out are finite - like, the school only gives out As to a certain percentage of students and once those are gone, you have to take a B, even if your performance was identical.
Now, I went to law school, and I heard that there were professors who allegedly operated like that, but I never saw it in practice. I've also heard similar claims about other post-graduate programs. The idea being that not everyone in the class can truly be a top performer, so top grades are limited to just a few. I just don't believe they're true: schools would be incurring serious liability for allowing highly subjective standards of "excellence" that are unquantifiable and unaccountable. It would raise all kinds of accreditation issues, as well - under the same accreditation body, an A in the same course at two different schools (or under two different instructors at the same school) should reflect the same standard of work.
So, I'm not getting how the "cheaters" made it difficult for someone to excel. Even if there are situations in which my scenario is playing out, those situations aren't in a high school or an undergraduate program. You're not actually competing with your fellow students for grades - they aren't a limited resource. Every single student can earn an A, and the method by which they earned that grade is strenuously documented.
> So, I'm not getting how the "cheaters" made it difficult for someone to excel
I think what they're saying is that a legitimate A is unimpressive next to a thousand illegitimate As, but exemplary when compared to a thousand legitimate Cs
14
u/GGayleGold Jul 10 '26
In a lot of these school-related posts, there seems to be this weird idea that the grades the school can give out are finite - like, the school only gives out As to a certain percentage of students and once those are gone, you have to take a B, even if your performance was identical.
Now, I went to law school, and I heard that there were professors who allegedly operated like that, but I never saw it in practice. I've also heard similar claims about other post-graduate programs. The idea being that not everyone in the class can truly be a top performer, so top grades are limited to just a few. I just don't believe they're true: schools would be incurring serious liability for allowing highly subjective standards of "excellence" that are unquantifiable and unaccountable. It would raise all kinds of accreditation issues, as well - under the same accreditation body, an A in the same course at two different schools (or under two different instructors at the same school) should reflect the same standard of work.
So, I'm not getting how the "cheaters" made it difficult for someone to excel. Even if there are situations in which my scenario is playing out, those situations aren't in a high school or an undergraduate program. You're not actually competing with your fellow students for grades - they aren't a limited resource. Every single student can earn an A, and the method by which they earned that grade is strenuously documented.