An explaination is owed

[ultranos]

As an explanation to the poll from last post, I have something of a pet peeve when it comes to reading fiction. In this case, I was reading the book Ex-Heroes by Peter Clines (which is about superheroes and the zombie apocalypse) when I came to the more in-depth introduction of the character Stealth, the local Batman expy. It got to describing how intelligent and not-taken-seriously-because-she's-attractive she is when it came to the phrase "got a perfect 4.0 and made the dean's list first semester at MIT". This threw me right out of the novel. Why?

a) MIT uses a 5.0 scale.
b) MIT does not have a dean's list.

and, for the record:

c) MIT does not have Latin honors or honors of any sort. You either graduate or you don't.

This sort of thing keeps happening when I read fiction, and the author is trying to establish how intelligent a character is. And 9 times out of 10, they get the details wrong. (The place isn't a typical college. I could probably write a FAQ on the damn topic.) But as I was grumbling, it occurred to me to wonder if the actual truth was more unbelievable. Would having a character get above a 4.0 seem even more super-special, even though it's what actually happens? Hence, the poll.

So what have I found out? Both are pretty unbelievable. So really, writers should probably just stay away from GPAs.

Comments

[havocthecat]

You know, just saying "went to MIT" is pretty much enough.

[ultranos]

You would think that! I sometimes do not understand authors' choices.

[havocthecat]

Yes! I mean, a) RESEARCH, PLS and b) um, MIT alone is pretty fucking awesome.