The statistical community values skillful explanations in almost every setting except the classroom. Students are typically graded for correctness, completeness, and (sometimes) participation, but not for craftsmanship. That's a missed opportunity.
Statisticians and computer scientists often use the term "gold standard" for the best possible benchmark you could have when trying to estimate something. I often hear statisticians questioning the benchmark though, saying that "it's not really a gold standard" because it isn't perfect. My response is that the term "gold standard" should still apply. Moreso even, because the actual gold standard of matching currency to gold reserves isn't perfect either...