In my welding class we're doing projects, meaning that we have to draw out a plan and make a bill of materials before we can enter the shop again.
After four days of deliberation in the classroom my friend and I presented our plans to our welding teacher. It was a drawing of a square of sheet metal being heated by an oxygen-acetylene torch, "until red-hot", and the next frame showed a hand holding a raw ribeye steak, and the last frame showed the steak sizzling on the metal.
With serious and satisfied grins on our faces we awaited his approval. ... and it came. We're both completely baffled by this, but who are we to question such an opportunity?
Tomorrow we're going to bring in some bacon to test with. we have four weeks to work on projects so you can probably imagine how much meat we're going to cook before we test our skills on a steak.
Most of the time, 100% in school is considered to be a great achievement, but think about it, that's just doing everything the way it was expected of you to do it. Unless you end up with above 100%, which is extremely rare, grades are simply reporting how much you failed.
It teaches us that a certain margin of failure is acceptable, as long as we stay above 50%. What kind of a lesson is that? If only school could grade from an achievable level of what is expected, so we could find our path based on where it is we exceed, rather than where we fail the least.
I also find that grades simply don't adequately judge a student's talent. There is so much that simply isn't graded, and frankly what is graded doesn't serve much good in life. Raw information doesn't normally surface outside school walls. Equations, literature, science, human history... While I don't disagree that these things should be taught, it's the learning skills that matter, not the data itself. Output alone can't adequately determine how these skills have developed, especially when the material being taught is incredibly dull, and the student begins to understand that the raw data and the output itself is useless.
This is why so many students are below 100%. The ones who have 100% always seem to think that every piece of information will be absolutely vital to know throughout the entire course of their lifetime. It's not true, and in a perfect world this lack of understanding could be measured and graded properly.
Am I the only one who absolutely hates it when people say sorry to me about shit nothing? If a person brushes up against me, it's just such a freaking trivial occurrence that "sorry" seems very out of place.
"It's not a big deal. Really, I'm fine."
What are they afraid of? Without that apology am I going to hold a grudge? It's ok, I already assume it wasn't intentional, and even considering somebody intentionally brushed against me, I don't think I could be angry about it.
How untrusting do they have to be to think that I might turn on them if I'm not vindicated for the injustice of being brushed against?
What's up with apologizing anyway? Apologizing is definitely not intended for unintentional occurrences, it's supposed to be for changes of heart. Get it right, people. Save the apologies for when they matter, otherwise they're worthless. Apology inflation, you might say. Don't apologize for trivial shit.
Some people I know even apologize for predicaments I put myself in. Like if I decide to walk down a crowded isle and I have to scoot around shit, I SEE THE FUCKING ISLE, I know what's there, don't apologize for the fact that I took the isle anyway.