[a.partridge]

(Original post by Oh my Ms. Coffey)
Your penis size is not dictated by how many A's you have.

I would predict a slight inverse correlation to be fair :P


effectively every neg is a validation of the hypothesis

[internet tough guy]

(Original post by t0ffee)
Punished by what? Grad schemes? People around you feeling good because you are emotionally intelligent enough to get on and make other people feel good? The Nobel prize when you invent something amazing? Your uni lecturer when you present a really good essay? Having an insightful intellectual discourse with someone over a few bottles of wine?

The point is there are different ways to express your intelligence. Past grades are only that interesting if you want to show how well you did at school. Most people really don't care how you did at school - why on earth would they?!

Exactly, I have no idea what OP is complaining about. If anything TSR leans more towards being snobbish in favour of high intelligence/academic acheivement.

[Octohedral]

(Original post by a.partridge)
What part are you referring to?

What I don't like is the ethos that all knowledge has to count to some kind of exam to be valid - like for instance I did sciences at A level but in my spare time I spent a lot of time reading about philosophy and finance among other things while making no attempt to gain formal credit for it. I am repeatedly shocked at university when I meet people that have multiple A*s in all kinds of things that don't seem to actually know anything that wasn't on the curriculum of their subjects.

Just the fact that I would respect someone doing a 5th A-level, rather than finding it weird.

I totally agree about exams not being everything, I just find a formal framework can be useful if you really care about the subject. Grades for the sake of extra grades are pointless.

[a.partridge]

(Original post by Norton1)
The CEO of Cisco has two degrees, so he probably is someone that would value education.

both from mediocre universities though - probably wouldnt have been a 5 A equivalent of his day eh

[Tsunami2011]

Yeah you're right, after all getting a job at a top law firm or an investment bank is limited to the peasants /sarcasm.

[Octohedral]

(Original post by internet tough guy)
Exactly, I have no idea what OP is complaining about. If anything TSR leans more towards being snobbish in favour of high intelligence/academic acheivement.

I repped the guy you quoted - he made a good point

I guess I just wanted to rant, because I think 'you are arrogant' equates to 'I am jealous', and I don't think that's a good message to give to our children.

[internet tough guy]

(Original post by Octohedral)

I think society has become far too overindulgent - at school we literally weren't allowed to do well because it would 'upset the other children'. Gifted and talented courses were opened to everyone in the interest of 'fairness'. Well, how about helping the other children, and giving them something to aspire to?

Thoughts?

Strong misuse of the word, 'literally', I doubt teachers at your school were forcing pupils to fail their exams on purpose

[Octohedral]

(Original post by internet tough guy)
Strong misuse of the word, 'literally', I doubt teachers at your school were forcing pupils to fail their exams on purpose

No, I used it in its commonly understood colloquial sense.

Edit: I actually was literally refused entry into an exam for the quoted reason

[Tsunami2011]

(Original post by internet tough guy)
Strong misuse of the word, 'literally', I doubt teachers at your school were forcing pupils to fail their exams on purpose

ironic and literally are probably the two most misused words in the English dictionary.

[internet tough guy]

(Original post by Octohedral)
No, I used it in its commonly understood colloquial sense.

Edit: I actually was literally refused entry into an exam for the quoted reason

I find that quite hard to believe. What was the context behind you being refused entry, and was it an official gcse/a-level exam?

[Octohedral]

(Original post by Tsunami2011)
ironic and literally are probably the two most misused words in the English dictionary.

Well that's ironic, because I was using the word literally literally.

Sorry, it's been a long day.

[Octohedral]

(Original post by internet tough guy)
I find that quite hard to believe. What was the context behind you being refused entry, and was it an official gcse/a-level exam?

Nah, level 6 SATS, when in year 6 (so we were only entered for up to level 5, but I wanted to try the harder paper).

It's ok, I've just about got over it

[O'Donovan]

Dumb people are just more likeable. I mean; there's always the loveable idiot, but never a loveable genius. I always lie about my grades because I don't want anyone to know which of the two I am.

[Reader 79]

(Original post by Octohedral)
I think society has become far too overindulgent - at school we literally weren't allowed to do well because it would 'upset the other children'. Gifted and talented courses were opened to everyone in the interest of 'fairness'. Well, how about helping the other children, and giving them something to aspire to?

You've highlighted an interesting issue here - the fact that very often, it's the schools and teachers themselves who penalise intelligence.

From what you've said, it sounds like your school was one of those comprehensives which levelled down and limited opportunity, giving the good comprehensives a bad name in the process. I don't want to hijack this thread by turning it into yet another one on the merits and failings of grammar schools (which seems to be a perennial topic on here), but this anti-aspirational ethos is one of three reasons why people like me want grammars back.

I think the problem lies in the philosophy of comprehensive education, which is interpreted in two incompatible ways.

When the comprehensive system was first introduced, its aim was ostensibly to provide "grammar-school education for all" by removing the stigma of 'failing' the 11+ and having equal expectations of all children, not just the academic ones. Many schools - I would hope most - try their best to achieve this aim. They don't always succeed, but they try.

A minority, however, seem to believe that, just as the 11+ damaged self-esteem, so too will the achievement of some children caused the others to feel inferior.

Thus, they see it as their duty to ensure equality of outcome by holding the more able back.

Opening the Gifted and Talented programme to everyone, as happened in your school, defeats the very point of it.

In the same vein, many heads have even abandoned setting by ability, because, in the words of one, it 'creates hierarchy'.

So what they've actually done is provide, not "grammar-school education for all", but "secondary-modern education for all". Instead of levelling up, they've levelled down. Instead of giving opportunity to everyone, they've taken it away from anyone.

And the really sad thing about this is that they're blind to what they've done.

[gintoki]

Because we live in a stupid society which gives solely merits to looks.

Our society is like this unfortunately, instead of admiring academic success which is something people work hard for, they admire looks which was given by the hands of birth.

[green.tea]

When people think theyre judging intelligence what theyre really judging is boredom threshold.

I vote for letting top 10% iq's do whatever they want to a degree on account of the fact that people dont appreciate genius at the time and that minds are best fed as and when they become hungry. Let the gifted focus on developing naturally rather than forcing one size fits all dullness down their throats.

[green.tea]

(Original post by gintoki)
Because we live in a stupid society which gives solely merits to looks.

Our society is like this unfortunately, instead of admiring academic success which is something people work hard for, they admire looks which was given by the hands of birth.

Way it should be. Not just in terms of looks tho. Being smart and working hard is fine. Being smart and deciding that means you can usually scrape through exams without turning up to class and with a half hour read just before so you can focus on doing other stuff is also fine and you cant say its not considering the number of geniuses who did their stuff on the side. Average people who work so hard that they dont enjoy life are stupid. They should take their natural place in society and be happy.

[cambio wechsel]

(Original post by a.partridge)
I would predict a slight inverse correlation

your big words leave me baffled.

[gintoki]

(Original post by green.tea)
Average people who work so hard that they dont enjoy life are stupid. They should take their natural place in society and be happy.

That is the attitude of a quitter and why people really end up as average. Average people can become above average through hard work. I've seen many geniuses being unsuccessful academically-wise because even though they knew about the stuff, they were too lazy to actually do the work they were supposed to.

Don't know if you like football but we have a great example of how 2 different people reached greatness with different means. Messi with pure geniality and talent and C.Ronaldo with pure hard work. Simply the best footballers nowadays.

[green.tea]

(Original post by gintoki)
That is the attitude of a quitter and why people really end up as average. Average people can become above average through hard work. I've seen many geniuses being unsuccessful academically-wise because even though they knew about the stuff, they were too lazy to actually do the work they were supposed to.

Don't know if you like football but we have a great example of how 2 different people reached greatness with different means. Messi with pure geniality and talent and C.Ronaldo with pure hard work. Simply the best footballers nowadays.

I dont follow football. Can you put in terms a snooker fan would understand?