Id support this, poor people who cannot afford music, we will get financial aid and it will pay for it, and rich greedy people who can afford it but who choose not to, will be forced to pay.
This so far is the best idea/solution to the problem yet.
We are millions, in fact hundreds of millions, why should we go to jail to protect the rights of thousands of people who dont really matter?
Why should any of us care of some office clerks and record company CEOs lose their job? Maybe if they earn their money doing some work that matters they wont have to defend intellectual property.
I dont agree with minority rules, its against democracy, time to move to China or Iraq.
We have both the best and worst. In our richest schools, our private elite schools, and our ivy league schools we have the best, but our public schools are terrible.
I visualize everything I read as well, the difference is I visualize it faster.
Too bad all the visualizing in the world doesnt help with math.
Now, I do programming, but I'm looking into going into clergy. Theology is the only thing left for someone like me... Hey, it was either that or bartending. Maybe I can do both. Programming is rote and boring. Research holds no attractiveness to me. Now, God does, and so do women.
You sound alot like me, Try taking a class on philosophy, you might like it, and its more useful than theology.
"If you weren't mature when you took the test you probably won't be on the first day of college."
What I'm saying is you might not be mature at 14-16 which is the most important time to be preparing for the SAT. You might be mature at 18 but that doesnt make up for you being immature as a kid and not taking school seriously.
You might take school seriously at 18 but if you didnt take school seriously all along its too late to get a 1500 on the SAT.
" It can just as much be a tool for a poor kid in a lousy highschool to climb up. It is unfortunate that kids from poor and lousy schools are less likely to do well in college,"
Its not that poor people are less likely to do well in college, you see thats a myth, someone who didnt do well in highschool might get all As in college.
"The worse the school the easier it is for a kid to make an effort and stand out from his classmates with even a half-way decent SAT score. The fact that the kid made the effort makes him a good candidate for college despite the lousy highschool he came from. Good colleges will pick a good kid from a lousy highschool over a great kid from a top highschool."
Thats not true, colleges do not take the top 10% from every school, if they did that, then even I couldnt argue against that, but theydo judge you on test scores.
Here in mass we have something called MCAS, it doesnt matter if you went to a poor school or a rich school, if you fail the MCAS test you cannot go to college, the MCAS test says you must know a certain level of English and Math.
Lucky for me I graduated before the MCAS came into existance, because thats a filtering device if I ever saw one.
I dont think the SATs really work mainly because kids from crappy schools arent as well balanced as kids from good schools. I dont know math very well, mainly because I taught myself just about everything I know and I never put much focus on math, I felt alot of it was useless.
Of course now I cant handle calculus in college, this is the direct result of myself, and due to my lack of money in being able to afford a tutor.
You see, I dont have a problem learning math today, but the lack of math skills would keep me from ever getting over 1200 or so on my SATs.
The SATs therefore doesnt calculate a persons knowledge because a person cannot get a 1500 just by knowing one subject really well, like English or Science, a person must know alittle of this, and alittle of that, and be well balanced, people arent usually naturally balanced, people must be taught to be balanced, trained, etc.
I'm not naturally good with math, I could have learned it well enough to get a 600-700 in the Math section had I gone to good schools, I can already get a 700-800 on the English section.
This means the only reason I cant get a 1500 is because I'm not balanced enough, perhaps I could get a 1000 on the reading section if it werent limited to 800, but by design the SATs assumes everyone was "taught" certain materials in a balanced fashion.
Same goes for a self taught Math genius, who may be able to get 1000 on the Math section but because its capped at 800, they cant.
I know someone who said they had the same problem as me, a genius in Math but weak English, if the SAT is to be useful it shouldnt punish people who arent well balanced in their knowledge because in college balance doesnt matter.
This is why I can do well in College, I dont have to try to be well balanced, I get to focus on what I'm good at.
Yeah but someone who is immature at 16-17 might be mature at 19-20, I mean the person is still developing, their brain isnt finished growing, some people dont mature until 23-24, so its normal to see people act immature as kids, its actually abnormal to act like an adult at 16, yes some kids mature sooner but it doesnt mean they are smarter.
I hate the fact that people treat these kids smarter just because they figure the system out or have someone explain it to them at a young age, they are more mature, and they deserve credit for being mature maybe through scholarships and stuff, but maturity doesnt mean they will be smart enough to handle Harvard.
I was smart growing up, just immature, see my point?
I do think SAT is a tool to filter out the poor, alot of rich kids who are even more immature than I was, got into schools like Harvard and Yale, think George W Bush.
I dont think its fair that certain people have advantages on the SATs, and that I because I was born poor and didnt become a man at 13 years old, that I'm not even given a chance to get into Harvard.
Honestly I'd prefer an IQ test, along with a review of each students portfolio of work, to judge them on the quality of work they produce and how intelligent they are, instead of how well they were taught or how quickly they learned to value education.
Artists promoters arent needed anymore, so now they are STEALING money from artists, artists get 40 cents per CD sold while the promoter gets about $14. The consumer pays $14.50
The RIAA goes out of business and loses its monopoly on the industry.
Artists make money on tours, at clubs, having concerts. CD sales are for the record companies, the artists dont usually see a penny.
Why should an artist need to pay a record company back now? Record companies dont do anything anymore, we dont need them anymore.
Artists have the internet and P2P companies now, the problem is, record companies cant stand competition, so they want to fight the technology.
I say let the record companies burn in hell, all of them, their musicians will continue to make music when they are gone, most of these musicians will actually make more money, the quality of the music will most likely be the same because currently its not like record companies are recordinng music in surround sound.
Concerts are what really matters, shitty musicians like Britney Spears wouldnt survive because their concerts suck, Musicians like Michael Jackson would return to the spotlight, the overall talent would be on display, not just how much money a person paid a producer to help them write and make stuff, they need talent to do it on stage.
This is good for us because we'd get more music, kinda like how the comedy industry works, most comedians make money at shows, they dont make their money selling CDs and Videos, not unless they are extremely good.
Look at regular TV, its free, thats the only reason why its so successful.
Look at the internet, its free, and its successful.
Then you have the music industry, which isnt free, and the RIAA controls almost 100 percent of the industry, this is the probblem. Cable is a niche market which you dont need to watch tv, theres pay sites on the net, which you dont really need, but they fill a niche,
The RIAA controls every type of music imaginable, and has a monopoly, they dont let independent music on MTV, so they wonder why people pirate their music?
Why not let some free Music get play on MTV and maybe people wouldnt pirate the RIAA so much anymore.
Honestly most of the music I listen to is from independent artists anyway.
I'll make music, so will every other musician, do you know why? The musicians dont make money selling CDs, we make money selling concert tickets!
I'd spread my music all over the net, just so I can sellout at all my concerts and make $20,000 in a day, about the same amount I'd make in a year selling CDs if I made anything at all.
Theres no shortage of wannabe musicians, some which have talent, I suggest you go outside more, theres free concerts all the time all over the place, because musicians are desperate for fans.
Fans matter more than CD sales, CD sales only matter to record companies, Fans go to concerts, buy Tshirts, and give musicians the big money.
A musician is not a doctor or engineer, you arent trained to do it, you can take a kid and give him a mic and this kid could be the best singer of all time (Think Michael Jackson),
Under this Model we will have increased supply, the quality will be just as good, but because there will be more to choose from, YOU might not like alot of the new music flooding the market, this doesnt change the fact that there will be alot of music you will like.
Whats wrong with increasing the supply? Music is not a profession its an art.
I thought music was an art? All about the consumer?
Who gives a damn about selling CDs? No one but the RIAA, Musicians tour and give concerts and would make more money without the RIAA around, Fans would be given more concerts and better overall deals along with cheaper music.
Looks like both the creators of art and the consumers of art win with P2P, if we are a democracy and not a plutocracy, we should have a vote on it and if the people decide on P2P, the laws should be changed.
Outlawing P2P in my opinion does more harm to the industry than making it legal, musicians cant make money because of the contracts with the RIAA not allowing them to use P2P to advertise their concerts.
You see, P2P makes a musician popular enough to give concerts, and this is where the real money is made.
College students wont pay for music, but we will pay to go to a concert, I go to the movies more now that P2P exists than I did before it existed, I'll be going to see the Matrix, and I WILL buy software if its at a decent price,
People who think P2P makes the industry lose money, they are right the guys in suits who dont create anything lose money, and I hope they all go bankrupt, but the musician gains money and the consumer gains quality service, better concerts, and can get music at a better price.
What ever happened to democracy? the DMCA wasnt requested by anyone but CEOs and lobbyists who dont even make music.
I dont know if I whine, I only tell people who care what grade I got.
If you ask me how I'm doing in school or I think you care I might tell you, but you dont see me on slashdot complaining that I got a 75 on one of my papers.
I dont know, maybe some people do whine, I never had that problem. I especially wont tell another student (competition) what grade I got if its anything less than an 90%.
well without that ego, what keeps you doing your best? I mean ego is a big part of it.
You claim having the ego is bad, but its the only thing keeping me from procrastination and settling for anything else, I believe I'm smarter than that and better than that and wont accept anything less than an A.
Now, if I get a B I wont commit suicide, but I wont but I wont be happy about it because its not the absolute best I can do, i try to do my absolute best at anything I do, so that if I do bad I can at least say I gave it my best shot.
"Grades are a fucking joke. There are a ton of people that can get great grades in HS just by working hard that then show up in college and can't handle the increased difficulty of the material and amount of work. These people do poorly on the SATs because they aren't allowed to spend 3x as long as everyone else working on the material. "
Grades are still a better judge of potential than the SATs. I think we should use a portfolio system but still, your grades do allow a college to know you work hard and that you arent lazy, this means they can put you in remedial classes and you'll be able to catch up and handle the workload, thats important, they want you to stay in and graduate.
Harvard and Yale have incredibly high graduation rates. 97%+ when I was looking at colleges. Do you even know what you're talking about or do you just make shit up as you go along? Also, if someone is able to work hard for the SATs, why can't they work hard in college?
The SATs are one test, Harvard and Yale also have higher than average suicide rates, and high transfer rates, so the statistics are debateable at least.
You seem bitter about your disadvantaged upbringing. Both my parents work for the government. Not fabulous pay. I got a great SAT and LSAT score without a tutor. Suck it up and do the work necessary to give yourself the opportunities you want.
You had two parents, either they told you how important the SATs were, or you are mature for a kid and figured it out on your own, not everyone figures, some figure it out after its too late, who can they blame? 50% on lack of parent support/lack of school support, and 50% on themselves for not growing up fast enough. But neither of these things have anything to do with intelligence or how hard a person works
I didnt take the SATs because even if I took it, I wouldnt get a high enough score to go to Harvard, so why does it matter? Also my academic record was not spotless.
The only reason to link "poor" and "not thinking about the SAT" is if you want an excuse to remain "oppressed".
Its not just because I was poor, its because I had bad teachers and parents who never explained to me that I needed to take the SATs. I simply wasnt mature enough at the time.
If you want to get out of a crap school and into a good school then the SAT is exactly what you should think about. If that's not what you wanted then don't blame the SAT.
At the time I hated school and thought it was pointless. This is the attitude everyone has when they go to a shitty school.
No matter how poor you are you can always study "Beat the SAT" books on your own at the library for free.
Once again, I was a kid and didnt know any better, I admit I was stupid, theres no need for you to rub it in.
The SAT is tries to predict college performance. A poor person who goes out of his way to study SAT guides at the library, who cares about the SAT and works hard on it is an excellent candidate to do well in college.
At most the SAT measures maturity level in a poor student, not intelligence, not potential, maturitiy level. If you mature earlier, or if you have parents who force you to take the SATs, well then you'll take it, if you hate school and want to quit, never go back etc, you arent thinking about college or the SATS.
Yes you can tell me now and I agree SATs are important, but as a kid, well I was a kid and I didnt like school
Its up to you to get good grades, not the teacher, you do whatever it takes to do your assignment and you move on, you do your best on every assignment and you'll always get at least over an 80.
This is how you keep your B average, if you always get over an 80 on every assignment, and if you always get over a 90 thats even better.
Thats basically it, you give the teacher exactly what they want and the closer you are to what they want or expect, the better your grade.
Most people skim the reading for exams, I just read the summaries, memorize the points and usually its those points from the summary that end up being on the exam.
College isnt really about being smart, its about doing your work accurately, if you do precisely what the teacher asks, and its accurate, you usually get a good grade.
Sometimes the teacher gives a challenging paper thats simply not easy to do, I got a 75 on one of my papers, but you can make up for that if all your other papers are over 90.
Slashdot Mirror
50 people can share files and even if just one of those 50 has access to files, they all do.
They dont need this kinda setup.
Tuition is high yes, but id be willing to go along and pay for this considering i pay for alot of other things i dont use in my college fees.
Id support this, poor people who cannot afford music, we will get financial aid and it will pay for it, and rich greedy people who can afford it but who choose not to, will be forced to pay.
This so far is the best idea/solution to the problem yet.
We are millions, in fact hundreds of millions, why should we go to jail to protect the rights of thousands of people who dont really matter?
Why should any of us care of some office clerks and record company CEOs lose their job? Maybe if they earn their money doing some work that matters they wont have to defend intellectual property.
I dont agree with minority rules, its against democracy, time to move to China or Iraq.
You should have failed that class.
Consider yourself lucky.
perfect for ex-cons and people under house arrest
" our education system is one of the best. "
We have both the best and worst. In our richest schools, our private elite schools, and our ivy league schools we have the best, but our public schools are terrible.
Success in life, having a family, friends, a place to live, and enough money to properly raise your kids and pay your bills without stress.
But it is individual, some people dont want any of this stuff. I ust know what I want.
I visualize everything I read as well, the difference is I visualize it faster.
Too bad all the visualizing in the world doesnt help with math.
Now, I do programming, but I'm looking into going into clergy. Theology is the only thing left for someone like me... Hey, it was either that or bartending. Maybe I can do both. Programming is rote and boring. Research holds no attractiveness to me. Now, God does, and so do women.
You sound alot like me, Try taking a class on philosophy, you might like it, and its more useful than theology.
"If you weren't mature when you took the test you probably won't be on the first day of college."
What I'm saying is you might not be mature at 14-16 which is the most important time to be preparing for the SAT. You might be mature at 18 but that doesnt make up for you being immature as a kid and not taking school seriously.
You might take school seriously at 18 but if you didnt take school seriously all along its too late to get a 1500 on the SAT.
"
It can just as much be a tool for a poor kid in a lousy highschool to climb up. It is unfortunate that kids from poor and lousy schools are less likely to do well in college,"
Its not that poor people are less likely to do well in college, you see thats a myth, someone who didnt do well in highschool might get all As in college.
"The worse the school the easier it is for a kid to make an effort and stand out from his classmates with even a half-way decent SAT score. The fact that the kid made the effort makes him a good candidate for college despite the lousy highschool he came from. Good colleges will pick a good kid from a lousy highschool over a great kid from a top highschool."
Thats not true, colleges do not take the top 10% from every school, if they did that, then even I couldnt argue against that, but theydo judge you on test scores.
Here in mass we have something called MCAS, it doesnt matter if you went to a poor school or a rich school, if you fail the MCAS test you cannot go to college, the MCAS test says you must know a certain level of English and Math.
Lucky for me I graduated before the MCAS came into existance, because thats a filtering device if I ever saw one.
I dont think the SATs really work mainly because kids from crappy schools arent as well balanced as kids from good schools. I dont know math very well, mainly because I taught myself just about everything I know and I never put much focus on math, I felt alot of it was useless.
Of course now I cant handle calculus in college, this is the direct result of myself, and due to my lack of money in being able to afford a tutor.
You see, I dont have a problem learning math today, but the lack of math skills would keep me from ever getting over 1200 or so on my SATs.
The SATs therefore doesnt calculate a persons knowledge because a person cannot get a 1500 just by knowing one subject really well, like English or Science, a person must know alittle of this, and alittle of that, and be well balanced, people arent usually naturally balanced, people must be taught to be balanced, trained, etc.
I'm not naturally good with math, I could have learned it well enough to get a 600-700 in the Math section had I gone to good schools, I can already get a 700-800 on the English section.
This means the only reason I cant get a 1500 is because I'm not balanced enough, perhaps I could get a 1000 on the reading section if it werent limited to 800, but by design the SATs assumes everyone was "taught" certain materials in a balanced fashion.
Same goes for a self taught Math genius, who may be able to get 1000 on the Math section but because its capped at 800, they cant.
I know someone who said they had the same problem as me, a genius in Math but weak English, if the SAT is to be useful it shouldnt punish people who arent well balanced in their knowledge because in college balance doesnt matter.
This is why I can do well in College, I dont have to try to be well balanced, I get to focus on what I'm good at.
Yeah but someone who is immature at 16-17 might be mature at 19-20, I mean the person is still developing, their brain isnt finished growing, some people dont mature until 23-24, so its normal to see people act immature as kids, its actually abnormal to act like an adult at 16, yes some kids mature sooner but it doesnt mean they are smarter.
I hate the fact that people treat these kids smarter just because they figure the system out or have someone explain it to them at a young age, they are more mature, and they deserve credit for being mature maybe through scholarships and stuff, but maturity doesnt mean they will be smart enough to handle Harvard.
I was smart growing up, just immature, see my point?
I do think SAT is a tool to filter out the poor, alot of rich kids who are even more immature than I was, got into schools like Harvard and Yale, think George W Bush.
I dont think its fair that certain people have advantages on the SATs, and that I because I was born poor and didnt become a man at 13 years old, that I'm not even given a chance to get into Harvard.
Honestly I'd prefer an IQ test, along with a review of each students portfolio of work, to judge them on the quality of work they produce and how intelligent they are, instead of how well they were taught or how quickly they learned to value education.
Thats just my opinion.
It should be.
"compensation for artists & artist-promoters."
Artists promoters arent needed anymore, so now they are STEALING money from artists, artists get 40 cents per CD sold while the promoter gets about $14. The consumer pays $14.50
Is this fair?
Actually if not for the RIAA i'd be able to put my music on the radio, id make more money.
All the billions the RIAA and Hilary Rosen makes, belongs to the musicians, they rob the musician more than the P2P pirates.
The RIAA goes out of business and loses its monopoly on the industry.
Artists make money on tours, at clubs, having concerts. CD sales are for the record companies, the artists dont usually see a penny.
Why should an artist need to pay a record company back now? Record companies dont do anything anymore, we dont need them anymore.
Artists have the internet and P2P companies now, the problem is, record companies cant stand competition, so they want to fight the technology.
I say let the record companies burn in hell, all of them, their musicians will continue to make music when they are gone, most of these musicians will actually make more money, the quality of the music will most likely be the same because currently its not like record companies are recordinng music in surround sound.
Concerts are what really matters, shitty musicians like Britney Spears wouldnt survive because their concerts suck, Musicians like Michael Jackson would return to the spotlight, the overall talent would be on display, not just how much money a person paid a producer to help them write and make stuff, they need talent to do it on stage.
This is good for us because we'd get more music, kinda like how the comedy industry works, most comedians make money at shows, they dont make their money selling CDs and Videos, not unless they are extremely good.
Look at regular TV, its free, thats the only reason why its so successful.
Look at the internet, its free, and its successful.
Then you have the music industry, which isnt free, and the RIAA controls almost 100 percent of the industry, this is the probblem. Cable is a niche market which you dont need to watch tv, theres pay sites on the net, which you dont really need, but they fill a niche,
The RIAA controls every type of music imaginable, and has a monopoly, they dont let independent music on MTV, so they wonder why people pirate their music?
Why not let some free Music get play on MTV and maybe people wouldnt pirate the RIAA so much anymore.
Honestly most of the music I listen to is from independent artists anyway.
I'll make music, so will every other musician, do you know why? The musicians dont make money selling CDs, we make money selling concert tickets!
I'd spread my music all over the net, just so I can sellout at all my concerts and make $20,000 in a day, about the same amount I'd make in a year selling CDs if I made anything at all.
Theres no shortage of wannabe musicians, some which have talent, I suggest you go outside more, theres free concerts all the time all over the place, because musicians are desperate for fans.
Fans matter more than CD sales, CD sales only matter to record companies, Fans go to concerts, buy Tshirts, and give musicians the big money.
A musician is not a doctor or engineer, you arent trained to do it, you can take a kid and give him a mic and this kid could be the best singer of all time (Think Michael Jackson),
Under this Model we will have increased supply, the quality will be just as good, but because there will be more to choose from, YOU might not like alot of the new music flooding the market, this doesnt change the fact that there will be alot of music you will like.
Whats wrong with increasing the supply? Music is not a profession its an art.
I thought music was an art? All about the consumer?
Who gives a damn about selling CDs? No one but the RIAA, Musicians tour and give concerts and would make more money without the RIAA around, Fans would be given more concerts and better overall deals along with cheaper music.
Looks like both the creators of art and the consumers of art win with P2P, if we are a democracy and not a plutocracy, we should have a vote on it and if the people decide on P2P, the laws should be changed.
Outlawing P2P in my opinion does more harm to the industry than making it legal, musicians cant make money because of the contracts with the RIAA not allowing them to use P2P to advertise their concerts.
You see, P2P makes a musician popular enough to give concerts, and this is where the real money is made.
College students wont pay for music, but we will pay to go to a concert, I go to the movies more now that P2P exists than I did before it existed, I'll be going to see the Matrix, and I WILL buy software if its at a decent price,
People who think P2P makes the industry lose money, they are right the guys in suits who dont create anything lose money, and I hope they all go bankrupt, but the musician gains money and the consumer gains quality service, better concerts, and can get music at a better price.
What ever happened to democracy? the DMCA wasnt requested by anyone but CEOs and lobbyists who dont even make music.
I dont know if I whine, I only tell people who care what grade I got.
If you ask me how I'm doing in school or I think you care I might tell you, but you dont see me on slashdot complaining that I got a 75 on one of my papers.
I dont know, maybe some people do whine, I never had that problem. I especially wont tell another student (competition) what grade I got if its anything less than an 90%.
well without that ego, what keeps you doing your best? I mean ego is a big part of it.
You claim having the ego is bad, but its the only thing keeping me from procrastination and settling for anything else, I believe I'm smarter than that and better than that and wont accept anything less than an A.
Now, if I get a B I wont commit suicide, but I wont but I wont be happy about it because its not the absolute best I can do, i try to do my absolute best at anything I do, so that if I do bad I can at least say I gave it my best shot.
"Grades are a fucking joke. There are a ton of people that can get great grades in HS just by working hard that then show up in college and can't handle the increased difficulty of the material and amount of work. These people do poorly on the SATs because they aren't allowed to spend 3x as long as everyone else working on the material.
"
Grades are still a better judge of potential than the SATs. I think we should use a portfolio system but still, your grades do allow a college to know you work hard and that you arent lazy, this means they can put you in remedial classes and you'll be able to catch up and handle the workload, thats important, they want you to stay in and graduate.
Harvard and Yale have incredibly high graduation rates. 97%+ when I was looking at colleges. Do you even know what you're talking about or do you just make shit up as you go along? Also, if someone is able to work hard for the SATs, why can't they work hard in college?
The SATs are one test, Harvard and Yale also have higher than average suicide rates, and high transfer rates, so the statistics are debateable at least.
You seem bitter about your disadvantaged upbringing. Both my parents work for the government. Not fabulous pay. I got a great SAT and LSAT score without a tutor. Suck it up and do the work necessary to give yourself the opportunities you want.
You had two parents, either they told you how important the SATs were, or you are mature for a kid and figured it out on your own, not everyone figures, some figure it out after its too late, who can they blame? 50% on lack of parent support/lack of school support, and 50% on themselves for not growing up fast enough. But neither of these things have anything to do with intelligence or how hard a person works
I didnt take the SATs because even if I took it, I wouldnt get a high enough score to go to Harvard, so why does it matter? Also my academic record was not spotless.
The only reason to link "poor" and "not thinking about the SAT" is if you want an excuse to remain "oppressed".
Its not just because I was poor, its because I had bad teachers and parents who never explained to me that I needed to take the SATs. I simply wasnt mature enough at the time.
If you want to get out of a crap school and into a good school then the SAT is exactly what you should think about. If that's not what you wanted then don't blame the SAT.
At the time I hated school and thought it was pointless. This is the attitude everyone has when they go to a shitty school.
No matter how poor you are you can always study "Beat the SAT" books on your own at the library for free.
Once again, I was a kid and didnt know any better, I admit I was stupid, theres no need for you to rub it in.
The SAT is tries to predict college performance. A poor person who goes out of his way to study SAT guides at the library, who cares about the SAT and works hard on it is an excellent candidate to do well in college.
At most the SAT measures maturity level in a poor student, not intelligence, not potential, maturitiy level. If you mature earlier, or if you have parents who force you to take the SATs, well then you'll take it, if you hate school and want to quit, never go back etc, you arent thinking about college or the SATS.
Yes you can tell me now and I agree SATs are important, but as a kid, well I was a kid and I didnt like school
Its a huge deal if you are trying to go to Harvard.
What if you want to go to Graduate school? Competition is fierce, you need a 3.5 or above to get into certain schools.
Its up to you to get good grades, not the teacher, you do whatever it takes to do your assignment and you move on, you do your best on every assignment and you'll always get at least over an 80.
This is how you keep your B average, if you always get over an 80 on every assignment, and if you always get over a 90 thats even better.
Thats basically it, you give the teacher exactly what they want and the closer you are to what they want or expect, the better your grade.
Most people skim the reading for exams, I just read the summaries, memorize the points and usually its those points from the summary that end up being on the exam.
College isnt really about being smart, its about doing your work accurately, if you do precisely what the teacher asks, and its accurate, you usually get a good grade.
Sometimes the teacher gives a challenging paper thats simply not easy to do, I got a 75 on one of my papers, but you can make up for that if all your other papers are over 90.