<p>The biggest problem is that many people mistake deep learning for grinding. For example, a guy who does math problems all day could be considered a “textureless math grind.” Maybe he is just practicing algorithms acquired in class (your and QM’s definition of grinding and necessary to some extent), but he also could be trying to look for gaps in knowledge, looking at concepts in a different way, looking at ways to apply concepts to disparate fields or practical applications, or some other form of deep thinking. These deep thinking activities are what sets one up for a paradigm-shifting discovery. It also makes it much easier to present your work in an exciting way when you have thought about it in a lot of different ways.</p>
<p>However, many people just lump all of these activities into the “textureless grind” category.</p>
<p>Actually, collegealum314, practicing algorithms presented in class wasn’t my definition of “working very assiduously.” (See #2118)</p>
<p>I took the term to apply to someone who worked uninterruptedly. I have been using it in that sense of myself–when I’m doing new things, but keeping my nose to the grindstone (or to the “very assiduous working-stone”?). I should do more of that, really.</p>
<p>The student who must copy down and try to memorize every word from a Prof’s lecture may be operating under an undiagnosed LD. This turned out to have been the situation with an older college classmate who tried to write everything our class’ Profs would say in the advanced poli-sci and history seminars we took because he had a hard time focusing on the class otherwise. </p>
<p>He’s always wondered how it was that while he’d have weekly notes spanning several pages, my entire semester’s notes for those classes could fit on two loose leaf sheets front and bank. I also earned much higher grades without expending nearly the same effort he did. If hard work had its rewards, it is he who should have gotten the top grades in our classes. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, it wasn’t until a few years ago that he was diagnosed as having an ADD type LD. Back when we were in college, knowledge and awareness of this LD was still not popularly known among even most upper-middle class parents like his or by many higher-ed professionals. </p>
<p>Upon hearing that, we both had a bit of a Eureka moment as we both knew something was weird…but didn’t know what it was back when we were undergrads.</p>
While we appear to be in a lull, someone please clarify which science or math courses one could succeed in by memorizing the book and/or the lecture notes?
It would be my observation that the term “grind” has been used in a pejorative sense in this thread - hopefully you are not now attempting to say that “working assiduously” would be a negative in a student?</p>
Well, it’s a strategy that many students employ for organic chemistry, certainly. The particular example that I saw in person was for an upper-division biology course for which I was the teaching assistant.</p>
<p>And ADHD, and its precurser names (hyperkinesis, ADD, etc) has been known and treated for decades, and was commonly understood, diagnosed and treated in the 90’s when you went to college. Please stop posting incorrect information.</p>
Based on very poor performance in a college class years ago, and somewhat better performance in an online clas I took for fun a month or so ago, I’d say memorization is certainly a necessary skill for organic chemistry, But I’d say it’s possible to memorize your way to a reasonable performance. But you might have difficulty earning a top grade, and certainly in truly mastering O Chem, without good spatial recognition or awareness skills (or whatever you call it). THat’s why in many places they make a lot of use of plastic models (or now computer generated models I suppose).</p>
<p>OTOH, I’m sure there are some bio classes that are 99% memorization. Of course, what’s wrong with that? Memorization is an important tool in life, if only as a time saver. For example, historians with fantastic memories for quotes and biographies are still very impressive to me. Despite the fact that we now have wikipedia and Google.</p>
<p>For some reason, neither my older college classmate’s upper-middle class parents nor the college knew enough to get him tested during his college years ('92-98). </p>
<p>I’m aware it was well-known among psych professionals…but awareness among the greater public and higher ed professionals was practically nil considering I didn’t start hearing about ADD testing among college kids until after I graduated.</p>
<p>Perhaps you and your cousins are/were unfamiliar with ADHD but please don’t generalize that to the rest of the population. Awareness amongst the general population was NOT probably nil. That is simply untrue. Maybe nil to you but not to others. Just because you were unfamiliar does NOT mean the rest of the general population was as clueless.</p>
<p>I wonder if, when some use “grind,” assiduously, uninterruptedly, etc- which yield a visual of a kid bent over his work, mechanically proceeding- you really mean “not so smart.” I wonder if you should just say it, add that precision. </p>
<p>Calling them grinds- I’m with CAlum, that just the visual doesn’t cover the kids who really dig in, focus, maybe have some lust to keep at it. Not necessarily flaws.</p>
<p>My older college classmate’s family was unaware despite not having finances be a barrier then. A reason why he wasn’t aware of his diagnosis until he’s nearly 40. </p>
<p>Never came up in my family because most of my cousins’ teen/college years were in the '70s and '80 when there was even less public awareness about ADD, ADHD, etc. </p>
<p>Not to mention that during my schooling years in the '80s and early-mid-'90s, some older educators were still highly skeptical of and resistant to providing accommodations under the ADA for known disabilities. </p>
<p>Board of ed had to order them/schools to comply with ADA related state education policies. :(</p>
<p>“Memorization is an important tool in life, if only as a time saver. For example, historians with fantastic memories for quotes and biographies are still very impressive to me.”</p>
<p>I tend to remember numbers (phone, SS, credit cards) but can’t remember people’s names in a crunch which my family members find annoying. I don’t know if there is a specific area of the brain for numbers vs names? </p>
<p>I suspect Mollie’s comment has more to do with the amount of time one might spend in memorization of entire pieces of text as opposed to learning the concept and being able to restate it in your own words. It does take a lot more effort remembering something word for word unless you have one of those eidetic memories and just can’t forget stuff?</p>
<p>Jym, Why all the anger? I think Cobrat was right… many of us knew very little about ADD and ADHD back in the 90s… Heck, I know very little about these things today.</p>
<p>As for someone thinking that I abandoned another CC acct to create this one, just not true. If anyone is that interested, email me and I can tell you a little bit about myself… I am a real person.</p>
<p>As for Luck, I understand what you guys are saying… that Luck wouldn’t have been admited unless he was able to handle the workload at Stanford… I get that. But you have to remember that he was\is considered not only the best player in his class but perhaps a “once in a generation” type talent. At MIT, perhaps not. At the IVY’s maybe. At Stanford, extremely likely. If he has national avg SATs, grades, etc., the guy is getting in.</p>
<p>Too funny, tpg. Same with my brother. Long strings of numbers from decades ago, passages, specifications, addresses, etc, but had to keep notes to put names to faces. Brilliant guy, just that recognition issue with faces. And only in certain contexts. (The detail memory served him very well in his engineering work.)</p>
<p>Fwiw, I didn’t detect anger. And anyone can Google to see how long hyperactivity and it’s sisters have been recognized. Whether or not they were on our radar or that of friends and family.</p>
If I meet a group of people I’d be lucky to remember one or two names. It’s not helpful. </p>
<p>I’m pretty good with numbers. And I used to be able to remember all sorts of movies, and actors, and large numbers of lines from many movies, lyrics to lots of songs, musicians on many albums, etc. But my memory on that seems to be slipping. Despite my efforts in Lumosity.</p>
<p>LF - I go “whatshisname/hername” and i get “we can’t read your mind” but my kids show up wanting to charge something online and I recite the entire number, expiration, CVV code and they are like whats wrong with you and why do you remember this stuff. </p>
<p>I do wonder how well Marilu Henner did in college (wikipedia says she was at UChicago but does not say anything about graduation). She says she can remember everything that happened everyday of her life (highly superior autobiographical memory (HSAM)).</p>
<p>Google doesn’t always necessarily present an accurate or representative picture of a given situation. It can be like wikipedia…great at times and sometimes wildly inaccurate depending on who did the editing/writing. </p>
<p>As for jym626, I’m wondering if the fact she’s in the psych profession may be a factor in assuming greater public awareness…especially those who aren’t psych professionals or who were aware of any issues requiring seeing a psych professional than what actually existed. </p>
<p>My older college classmate’s parents certainly weren’t aware, my college in that period didn’t seem to be aware despite what turned out to have been red flags if they/his parents were aware of them, and several younger alums with ADD from my college have noted that our college and schools/colleges in general has made much strides in awareness and providing accommodations/help when needed after I graduated.</p>
<p>No anger peeps, or whoever you now are. Just find the constant over generalizations and dispelling of incorrect info as if it was fact rather irksome. And thank you, lookingforward. You are spot on.</p>
<p>"If he has national avg SATs, grades, etc., the guy is getting in. "</p>
<p>National average in SAT is under 1500. Extremely unlikely to make the cut at Stanford. He would have probably opted for NFL after year one or two at Stanford if he came in with 1500 SAT scores.</p>
<p>They were not doing well as a program when Luck joined Stanford. His dad said he was going to there for academics.</p>