A recent conversation on Twitter got me thinking about the concept of failure. It didn't take long and I was back in college. Well, at least mentally. I remembered all those, at times painful, exams with the resulting grades: A's, B's, C's and the occasional D's and F's.

Getting an 'A' was fantastic, 'B' meant good, 'C' stood for average, 'D' meant bad and the 'F' stood for failure and meant that I had really flunked that exam. It didn't mean that I knew nothing, it just meant that I didn't know enough. All correct, i.e. 100%, was the ultimate goal and the way there was divided into different zones: 0 - 60% = F, - 69% = D, - 79% = C, - 89% = B, -100% = A. This system worked, because beginning and end were clearly defined, there were no unknowns. At least not for those grading :-)

This grading system therefore does not encourage us to develop something new, as that would mean including unknowns! I studied economics. College and grad school taught me the existing principles and theories and made sure that I understood them. Developing new theories was not part of the curriculum.

What does this have to do with Columbus?

When Columbus set sail in Spain in 1492, his destination was India. He never reached India, but 'discovered' America instead. In theory he should have gotten an 'F' from Queen Isabella, because he clearly didn't reach the predefined goal.

But Queen Isabella didn't flunk Columbus, because she quickly realized that he had 'discovered' a new continent, which at the end proved to be more valuable for the Spanish Empire than another sailing route to India. And that most certainly did not deserve an 'F'.