http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

“I think it’s incorrect to assume that getting A’s and A+’s requires a lot of extra effort from the student, effort that the student can put elsewhere.”

It really depends. While many gifted students can manage A+ grades with minimal effort, in general it takes a great deal of dedication and nose to the grindmill. I’ve seen students take pride in sleeping only 20 hours a week to maintain their high grades, and all the extra-curriculars they feel necessary to get grad school admission. The problem is not so much the hard work in of itself, or that one follows a well-rounded set of courses – but rather that the motivation is often university policy, and grade maintenance, rather than genuine excitement. And that can have a depleting effect on one’s personality and core interests.

KZ made some excellent points as well, including:
The purpose of undergraduate education is to prepare well rounded individuals who can apply themselves in multitude of ways. Being well rounded comes from actually learning about Gothic Fiction and struggling for that understanding in a similar fashion as one would strive for understanding Computer Architecture.

I believe taking a broad range of courses is good – the problem is the grade motivation and drive over everything , including one’s non-primary interests is fatiguing. Aiming for a sure A+ goes well beyond the dedication level required merely for a decent understanding and enjoyment of material. It requires poring over texts for subtle inflections and comparisons, meticulously double checking bibliographies, making sure every assignment is triple proof read and carefully formatted – in general, making sure the entire course is conducted professionally; every concept , no matter how mundane thoroughly done. I suppose it could be argued that such skill is good to develop going into grad school – but again, it’s a very wearying exercise, and can kill the joy of even what on the surface is a welcome diversion from one’s primary field.
Personally speaking, I don’t see much wrong with a broad range of courses – it’s the compulsion that one has to push oneself to get the grade, rather than at one’s natural level of interest in the subject material. It isn’t simply a compulsion born in admission policies, or university course offerings – but also of the high value society places upon attaining distinctions, and the weight of such expectations placed on the academically talented.

Despite the disreputable source :), I feel what the unabomber says has some merit:

“Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by “curiosity,” that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problem that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they couldn’t give a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The “curiosity” explanation for the scientists’ motive just doesn’t stand up.” –Unabomber’s Manifesto

The second is another quote from disciplined minds:

“Students finishing the ordeal of professional training often appear to be pressured and troubled, as if under some sort of unrelenting duress whose source they can’t pinpoint. Anyone who has been around a university graduate department or other professional school has undoubtedly seen many such students. These students end up doing much of their work while in a state of physical and mental fatigue, precluding the creativity and enjoyment that were once their priority. They are no longer the upbeat students who entered the professional training program. Students who were adamant in not wanting to become cogs in the machine, students who would join the system only on their own terms, students who stood solidly behind their own goals for society — many of these students now have a tired, defeated look about them, and an outlook to match. Many are now quite willing to incorporate themselves into one or another hierarchy, and to put up no resistance there, overt or covert, as they help do the work that furthers their new employers’ goals.

The willingness shown by the new graduate to function harmoniously with the system is usually not the disingenuous kind shown by people who have fundamental reservations but who are reluctantly going along with the only choice available. The new graduate often feigns reluctance so as to maintain appearances, but it is usually painfully obvious that deep down something has changed. The individual has taken a step toward adopting the worldview of the system and goals compatible with the system. Students who once spoke critically of the system are now either silent or fearfully “fair and responsible” in their criticism. They are careful not to be provocative — not to do or say anything that might displease individuals in authority. Any opposition is now sufficiently abstract and theoretical to not be provocative.”

I wrote the effects of courses etc. specifically on those that are going for graduate school and its long-term effect on their research motivation. I agree that for those going into other professions, other considerations come into play and maybe the current system is near-optimal (though I would disagree there as well).

I certainly did not mean to say that aiming for good grades has to be inherently uninteresting, unexciting etc. for the student. And agreed, professors can put in effort to make the courses interesting and fun.

Sure, a student should take a wide variety of courses as I listed in the example, and even find most of them interesting and fun. Nothing wrong with that. But if the student gets, say, an “A+” in every such course, I would be very very hesitant to buy the explanation that he was “simply interested and excited” about each such course. There are several reasons for that:

First, an “A+”, by definition, is given to less than 5% of the class. So trivially every student who is interested and excited will not get an A+ grade. What nets the A+ grade for the student is overwhelming effort. Lets say, hypothetically, that this is prompted by overwhelming interest. And so if someone gets an A+ for most of his undergraduate courses, it would seem that he is overwhelmingly more interested in such a large variety of courses than anyone else. Either he is a modern-day renaissance man, or there are other forces at play than interest and excitement.

Second, in our current world, for the 18-24 crowd, I have to say that there are tons of more interesting things than most, if not all, interesting courses. Ever watched an episode of prison break? house? lost? hanging out with friends? going out? sports? I could go on and on. I find it hard to believe that a student “driven by interest only” would find such a large variety of courses overwhelmingly interesting, but none of the above pursuits? I would think that students might find some courses interesting, as well as some of the above.

In my opinion, for a student following his interests, a GPA of 3.0 (B) to 3.3 (B+) is what I would expect. For really gifted students, perhaps up to 3.7. But a 3.90+ GPA just requires too much effort for me to accept the interest motive. So I disagree with you – there is an inherent tussle in getting an A+ grade in over 15 courses, and pursuing your interests.

A more reasonable explanation is that the student is imply responding to the short-term incentives the current institutional structure is providing them: a great GPA goes a long way towards admission to graduate school, which in itself is a good way for material prosperity. It is not a co-incidence that most academics all over the world come from the middle class.

It’s an ugly scene at a narrow gate for every student.