Sure, maybe you can skate by and manage a decent GPA, but you aren't doing yourself any favors, your basically telling us that you half assed four years of personal development, and you should know that it is probably obvious to those you've worked with and for. The corporate world has its share of people too, skating just like they were. Typically they are the ones not being considered for rapid advancement and grooming for bigger things.

Of course, you may just be exceptional. And it's not like you can't recover from this with hard work. But consider this as you head out on your own: Sometimes you just get lucky, but it's more likely that you will succeed or fail now largely on the back of hard work (and here's the tricky part) applied to the right places. Consider an alternative universe "you" who grabbed hold of college with both hands and squeezed until it gave up as much useful stuff as it could....

That guy would be eating your lunch right now. Not because of the college, per se, but because of the attitude and experience.

Many of the same problems plague colleges that plague high schools though...professors that either don't care or aren't very good at teaching, students that are just there for the degree, books that don't really challenge, and papers that just require following the formula "5 paragraphs, 3 summary sentences". Very little learning took place for me in any of that. The learning I did was from outside of college and was from learning what is considered generally graduate school work for C.S.

I really hope that most people's experiences aren't that way, and that colleges do teach young people. It just wasn't my experience through 3 different colleges. An Oxford style school with mentors and customized content probably would have served me much better than colleges that continue on the same factory system setup that is broken at the lower levels.

The workplace hasn't been difficult for me, but I definitely learn a lot more than I ever did in school. I come across actual challenges that require research and stretch me. Perhaps that's just being a software engineer though.

It's not like I didn't apply myself to anything, just not to schoolwork; except when I found a class interesting. As it turns out, the things I did apply myself to became my career rather than what I had gone to school for.

There's a large difference between "half assed four years of personal development" and simply concentrating more on things that are unrelated to your official studies.

In fact, one of the big reasons I'm striking out on my own (well, as part of a team) now is that I realized my day job was no longer providing me with nearly as much opportunity for personal development as it had during the first few years I worked there.

Edit: And the fact that it's entirely what you make of it isn't what's told to the 18 & 19 year olds heading off to college (at least not in the circle's I was in). What's told to kids is that it's the piece of paper that matters in today's society. Once you get it, you can do anything you want, but make sure you get that piece of paper or all opportunity will shut down for you forever and for always.

What causes these situations is the combined narrative that the piece of paper is what matters alongside the fact that getting that piece of paper is a highly gameable activity.

Even in your circle though, I'm sure the (unfortunate) message was clear that the piece of paper was table stakes, not success. And every university has some variation of this message, repeatedly.

Table stakes get you a seat at the table, that's all. It's the things that aren't shown on that paper that decide what sort of a player you are. And success, in the end, is most of the time dependent on getting good at doing many of the sort of things you describe as struggling with, not because it's what you want to do, but because it's what is necessary to achieve what you are trying to do.

Hopefully this wasn't too off base, Just thought I'd share as well because I related to this so much.

I wish you all the best!

I found an unexpected solution in working with someone else - that is - not working alone on the project. The more social interaction is involved, the less I am affected by procrastination. You have to make yourself visible and accountable to other people, to feel shame if you slack off, to feel energized when you make progress and then discuss it with them. In other words, you need to have a person witnessing you as you work.

Think back - in school and while being employed you always had a teacher or boss to witness your work, you had colleagues, but when you are alone with a project, then all this social stabilizing effect is gone.

We're social creatures. When we work cooperatively with others we gain an enriched sense of accomplishment, even when know we could have done the work ourselves.

I did my best work when we were on the pairing machines. However, we stopped using them as much because some of our work is so siloed. It was a shame. I am always looking to pair with people, but its very difficult I have found. I tried the online things, like the "#PairWithMe" initiative. No dice so far.

I want to thank you so much for writing this. I feel like I've heard this story a million times, but every single time it ends in the author self-diagnosing AD[H]D. This is literally the very first time I've ever heard of someone suspecting they had it and then ruling it out.

It's a relief to hear that there might be other possible causes of common problems.

The guy who cruised though high school and even the early years of college only to crash and burn later on is so common it is a cliche. This is part of the price we pay for not challenging our brightest students.

With dumbed down courses these days it may be possible to get a degree without actually learning much. I know I have met a lot of people with IT degrees who could not program the foobar 'challenge' to save their lives.

I was one of those students in high school, and I could see it going either way (thankfully, I took the hard classes and got my act together).

I am definitely not able to coast...although I'm a product manager, basically involved in everything across the company.

Do yourself a favor and study what you're actually interested in, seriously. Avoid places where you have to or even can coast, because it wastes your time and gets you used to wrong things. Also, such positions are usually dead-ends career-wise.

/* To tell the truth, I spent little time in university classes because they were too slow. I learned the same topics, and some more, myself, and worked a lot with professors on actual research. So I had pretty high [equivalent of] GPA and graduated well without much 'coasting'. */

How do you do this? I mean if a test asks you to solve 3x^2+5+2x=7, how do you solve it without know the quadratic formula or some such?

There is a difference between gaming a test (in the sense of not knowing the material, but still passing) and simply learning the material very rapidly. If you actually know how to do the former, I'd love to hear a concrete explanation of the mechanics of it.

Standardized tests are almost always multiple choice. So, given four (or five) possible answers for x, plug them all in and see which one equals 7. That's arguably faster than using the quadratic formula to solve the problem.

Both of those seem unusual to me and I don't see how that method could possibly be beneficial in assessing knowledge.

Also there will be a lot of "stupid" answers on MC tests like listing three, four, five zeros for a quadratic to see if you understand the basic concept of what you're doing, always read the answers before you start. If you think you're getting five zeros out of a quadratic by some unusual plug and chug of the formula then you've already failed.

Another fun one... the discriminant of this one will be 28, right? Its simpler than solving the whole problem, I did this in my head in a couple seconds even though I'm pretty much asleep. So you'll have a bunch of boring rational number zeros which can't possibly be correct for that discriminant and one whacked out obviously irrational answer and that will be the correct answer.

This also only seems to be an issue for the narrow set of problems where checking the answer is a lot cheaper than solving it. Sounds to me like standardized tests are on the right track, we may just need a few small tweaks.

The first thing any teacher will tell you about UK math tests is write all your workings, because these are marked by a human. So if you're solving some complex statistical thing, and you type 0.535346 instead of 0.545346 so get the wrong answer, but all the steps are right, you get almost all the marks. There are so many places in late high school math where this matters that I can't imagine any use of a test that doesn't have a human look over workings.

Given there's probably only a few questions on each assessed topic, it seems much more important to know whether the student can apply the steps for solving a problem than to just give no marks to someone who makes a minor data entry mistake under exam pressure.

I thought math testing was already pretty bad because revision can be optimised so easily by learning to apply steps (not derive them) and by just doing past papers - but I had no idea anybody actually used an all or nothing approach to assessing these questions.

I don't even understand why you would mark it like that, unless you're only assessing math and other subjects you can feasibly reduce to objective answers. I mean, the point is presumably so a computer can mark it? But if you still bother assessing, say, English or History, presumably you still have to have a human mark them essays?

The goal is to have a score which is a) standardized and objective b) well correlated with mathematical knowledge in the curriculum.

Bsilvereagle identified a flaw with my particular example - students can substitute an easier problem for the real problem. But there are mechanisms to fix that. So given fixes for particular flawed questions like that, it seems like a typical standardized test will provide both (a) and (b).

It would be quite a coincidence if a student could write down the answer to many questions without knowing the intermediate steps, no? (I'm of course assuming security is sufficiently strong, i.e. no cheating.)

If you have memorized the general heuristic to solve any particular equation, its basically that is all there is to solving that equation. What is left after that is to practice that algorithm enough number of times until it just comes to you naturally when you see such equation again.

Richard Feynman, noted people find math difficult because all the while they are focusing on just that 'memorizing that algorithm' part. He used to call this as 'for people who don't know what they are doing'.

In school, or even in college, there are only a finite number of such algorithms to rote memorize. If you do, and practice those problem enough number of time, you can essentially score big marks in the exam.

Unfortunately the same is in software interviews these days. The most common algorithm experts you come across these days, are exactly algorithm experts. These are simply people who can recall all the algorithms they have rote memorized earlier. I know of people who spend dedicated time every day memorizing time and space complexity of many commonly asked interview algorithms on flash cards.

Ironically hiring such candidates at times is almost synonymous with hiring bad candidates.

This is actually possible, if you've been taught to solve problems instead of being taught to apply magic formulas. Of course, one is rarely taught math this way now.

Let me try. Suppose you have 3x^2+5+2x=7. Now, you have no idea how to solve for x. But what you could solve? If you had something like (ax+b)^2 = c, then probably this would be easy for you to solve, right (of course, provided c is not negative, won't get into that now)? We just take square root of both parts, and then it's a simple linear equation. Now, we can notice we can also get rid of a, for simplicity, by dividing both parts by a and get something like (x+b)^2 = c. Which in our example should represent 3x^2+5+2x=7 or alternatively x^2 + 2/3x - 2/3 = 0. But how we find proper b and c?

So, is there a way to make that equation look like that with suitable values? Let's look at (x+b)^2 = x^2 + 2bx + b^2. We have 2bx = 2/3x which means b = 1/3. So we have (x+1/3)^2 on one side, and on the other side we have to get 2/3 and also additional 1/9 which is the b^2, meaning c would be 7/9. So, x + 1/3 is sqrt(7/9) with + or - sign (since square on non-zero root always has 2 options), and x would be that minus 1/3.

As you can see, we used no special magic formula - only thing we needed is how to write (x+b)^2, which is easy to see just by multiplying (x+b)*(x+b) by hand.

You can do cubic equations this way too, but it is considerably more laborious. Look up Cardano and Vieta methods. Doable but I wouldn't enjoy doing it by hand too much.

Remember, the goal of an exam is to measure if you have the knowledge. Whether you got the knowledge by studying hard in a traditional classroom setting as scheduled by a syllabus is irrelevant.

Of course, I do not see it as "gaming" - I see it as learning the right way. IMHO, all learning should start with that and formula should come after - as a shortcut, which you can take but you know if needed you could do it from scratch because you understand where it comes from.

If you're gung-ho enough, expose yourself to the fire so you build up resistance. It's going to be rough once you start hitting walls.

http://www.paulgraham.com/schlep.html