DrFaustus666

Seadub:

I do not want to start a flame war here. But here's the deal.

First, you forgot option c, I didn't work AT ALL in my freshman and sophomore years because I was an arrogant SOB who didn't give a rat's butt about my grades in classes other than those related to my major. No lie: I deliberately failed and had to repeat Freshman English 101 just because I thought the prof was a flaming idiot.

That didn't stop me from, later in life, from reconsidering, and working on English on my own time. I studied vocab, literature, poetry, rhetoric, philosophy, drama, etc. etc., and EVENTUALLY developed superior skills in English, if the GRE is any measure (and that is debatable). I scored 800 on the GRE-Verbal, for the record.

My point is that one's four undergraduate years in college do not inalterably and immutably determine one's fate. One's early grades do not set in stone tablets whether one is EVER eligible or qualified for advanced studies. I grant you, a 3.5 or better in all subjects the first time around is WISER. But not everybody is wise when they are 18 or 19 years old. Some of us were spoiled brats.

But the world is made of many kinds of people, and, if you didn't read it in my previous post: in my undergraduate first two years, though I was 18 yrs old, I had the maturity of about an 8-year-old. Should that disqualify me from EVER aspiring to advanced learning? I say NO. Should it force me to prove myself by taking a harder road? Of course it should!

Finally, I'd be a lot more concerned at how my physician did in Medical School, how well he/she is regarded by his/her peers, whether he/she is Board-Certified or not ... than I would about whether or not he/she spent most of his/her freshman and sophomore years screwing around because he/she thought partying was more important than studying.

Seadub:

I do not want to start a flame war here. But here's the deal.

First, you forgot option c, I didn't work AT ALL in my freshman and sophomore years because I was an arrogant SOB who didn't give a rat's butt about my grades in classes other than those related to my major. No lie: I deliberately failed and had to repeat Freshman English 101 just because I thought the prof was a flaming idiot.

That didn't stop me from, later in life, from reconsidering, and working on English on my own time. I studied vocab, literature, poetry, rhetoric, philosophy, drama, etc. etc., and EVENTUALLY developed superior skills in English, if the GRE is any measure (and that is debatable). I scored 800 on the GRE-Verbal, for the record.

My point is that one's four undergraduate years in college do not inalterably and immutably determine one's fate. One's early grades do not set in stone tablets whether one is EVER eligible or qualified for advanced studies. I grant you, a 3.5 or better in all subjects the first time around is WISER. But not everybody is wise when they are 18 or 19 years old. Some of us were spoiled brats.

But the world is made of many kinds of people, and, if you didn't read it in my previous post: in my undergraduate first two years, though I was 18 yrs old, I had the maturity of about an 8-year-old. Should that disqualify me from EVER aspiring to advanced learning? I say NO. Should it force me to prove myself by taking a harder road? Of course it should!

Finally, I'd be a lot more concerned at how my physician did in Medical School, how well he/she is regarded by his/her peers, whether he/she is Board-Certified or not ... than I would about whether or not he/she spent most of his/her freshman and sophomore years screwing around because he/she thought partying was more important than studying.

Seadub:

I do not want to start a flame war here. But here's the deal.

First, you forgot option c, I didn't work AT ALL in my freshman and sophomore years because I was an arrogant SOB who didn't give a rat's butt about my grades in classes other than those related to my major. No lie: I deliberately failed and had to repeat Freshman English 101 just because I thought the prof was a flaming idiot.

That didn't stop me from, later in life, from reconsidering, and working on English on my own time. I studied vocab, literature, poetry, rhetoric, philosophy, drama, etc. etc., and EVENTUALLY developed superior skills in English, if the GRE is any measure (and that is debatable). I scored 800 on the GRE-Verbal, for the record.

My point is that one's four undergraduate years in college do not inalterably and immutably determine one's fate. One's early grades do not set in stone tablets whether one is EVER eligible or qualified for advanced studies. I grant you, a 3.5 or better in all subjects the first time around is WISER. But not everybody is wise when they are 18 or 19 years old. Some of us were spoiled brats.

But the world is made of many kinds of people, and, if you didn't read it in my previous post: in my undergraduate first two years, though I was 18 yrs old, I had the maturity of about an 8-year-old. Should that disqualify me from EVER aspiring to advanced learning? I say NO. Should it force me to prove myself by taking a harder road? Of course it should!

Finally, I'd be a lot more concerned at how my physician did in Medical School, how well he/she is regarded by his/her peers, whether he/she is Board-Certified or not ... than I would about whether or not he/she spent most of his/her freshman and sophomore years screwing around because he/she thought partying was more important than studying.