The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Have you ever met someone cleverer than yourself?

Scroll to see replies

Yes, obviously. What a stupid discussion, OP.
Original post by Awesome Genius
It's wrong to think that someone does badly just because they don't put work in lol

It might be true at GCSE level but when you're talking about Oxbridge, it's different.

It's generally true that if you put more work in then you do better but it's not that straight forward.

Some of the people I knew worked very hard, did way more rote learning and revision than me and got a 2:1 whereas I got a first.


OK, let's go over some of the problems here:

1) "Hard work" =/= "rote memorisation". The proof of Fermat's Last Theorem involved a vast amount of hard work, none of which was rote memorisation.
2) There do not exist people for whom hard work is unnecessary to work in any area at a high level. At all. They do not, and have never, existed. At every level, in every discipline, hard work beats "talent" any day of the week. Just ask Terrance Tao.
3) Getting a first from oxbridge isn't as impressive as you seem to think it is. Come back when you've done a PhD, or otherwise actually contributed something to the world, without working hard, and we'll talk.
Yes, every day, all the time.

Original post by BlueSam3


2) There do not exist people for whom hard work is unnecessary to work in any area at a high level. At all. They do not, and have never, existed. At every level, in every discipline, hard work beats "talent" any day of the week. Just ask Terrance Tao.


While Awesome Genius may be talking a lot of nonsense in this thread, at Oxbridge, I'd say natural intelligence is probably more important than how hard you work in terms of exam performance.

Most people in Oxbridge work reasonably hard. In my experience (others may disagree), most of the variation in exam performance is due to natural intelligence. For any given individual, of course working hard will help them to improve their own marks.
Swings and roundabouts isn't it?

I mean it's a trite example but;

You get two guys, one's a total genius but a social retard,
the other's a pretty mediocre student but...pure Alpha.

Who's the 'cleverest'?
Depends on the question?

So yeah, by that token everybody I meet is almost guaranteed to be cleverer than me at loads of things...
(edited 8 years ago)
Really depends on the subject.

I would say that 80% of men I know are more clever than me at understanding sports, driving cars, pleasuring themselves, picking the right beer, and using tools. I have very little knowledge of those areas.

Conversely, I would say that only 15% of the people I know are more clever than me when it comes to Computers and JRPGs. Only about 10% of the people I meet have a better command of grammar and punctuation than I do.

About 40% of people seem to have better social skills, which are at least partly learned. It is arguable that they're more clever than me in this way.

I don't know the percentage on this one, but a lot of people took a foreign language all four years in High School. They probably know more languages than me, and are thus more clever than me at speaking French, Spanish, or Chinese. While I am more clever than them at reading Latin, because that's the only other language I've seriously tried to learn. LOL.

You get the point though, right? Most people are only intelligent in a few areas, and are average or below average in the areas that don't interest them.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 65
Avatar for Josb
Josb
6
Original post by Awesome Genius
It's hard to accept that someone else can be more intelligent than you, isn't it?

It's happened twice to me. An Oxford neurosciences professor and one of my friends from school that I still keep in touch with - he became an academic.

Both were males. Haven't found any females I'd say were as smart as me, yet.


Male academics for me as well.
Yes, ofc. (Do people online count) :h:
Mirror mirror on the wall... Who's the smartest of them all?
At Cambridge there's scarcely a day where I don't meet someone smarter than myself...

But if I have to pick one person: @ILovePancakes is extremely intelligent :h:
Original post by Anon_98
Yes, ofc. (Do people online count) :h:


I'm really not :lol: But...

Spoiler

Original post by Illiberal Liberal
At Cambridge there's scarcely a day where I don't meet someone smarter than myself...

But if I have to pick one person: @ILovePancakes is extremely intelligent :h:


Original post by callum_law
X


How did you get reps for that post... :s-smilie:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Anon_98
How did you get reps for that post... :s-smilie:

Posted from TSR Mobile


It was funny.
Original post by callum_law
It was funny.


I didn't understand the joke..:s-smilie: but okay, I just repped it for you too then. :rofl:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Anon_98
Yes, ofc. (Do people online count) :h:


You're really too kind. :h:
I appreciate the compliment. :mmm:
Original post by Illiberal Liberal
At Cambridge there's scarcely a day where I don't meet someone smarter than myself...

But if I have to pick one person: @ILovePancakes is extremely intelligent :h:

:undefined:lovehug

Even if not true, made me feel better.

Original post by callum_law

Lol **** off. We speak 24/7. He's just making me feel better about my **** day.
Reply 76
Avatar for versari
versari
7
Worth remembering, one truly compassionate person is still worth more than all the clever clogs.......
Original post by ILovePancakes
:lovehug:

Even if not true, made me feel better.

:jumphug:
Original post by dreamlover
The point is to get a 1st at Oxford, irrespective of how much work you put in, you have to be intelligent, most likely highly intelligent. That's as close to a tautology as you can get when it comes to classifying intelligence, it's that hard. And btw, everyone who gets a 1st at Oxford puts hours and hours of work in. By and large, everyone who gets a 2:2 at oxford puts in hours and hours of work. It's just one of those places.


I reckon a portion of academic success is pure luck based on adminstration too, even at places like Oxford. The modules you choose have a huge part in how well you do. The way your modules assess you, it could be a presentation, group essay or exam might help/hinder you. Whether or not the assessed parts focuses on your strongest topic or weakest topic. So even if you were to get a 1st, it cannot be a guaranteed indicator that you are the cleverest. It's more likely that you are fairly talented in a subject, worked very hard and had a bit of luck in your assessments.

So I imagine there are students who end with 2:2 or lower who could realistically be considered more intelligent than some of the luckier students who get a 1st. The same applies across all universities, I reckon there's loads of hidden geniuses who simply didn't get the opportunity, or even think of, going to Oxbridge or a Russell Group.
Original post by william walker
To be honest. No. :biggrin:


Seriously? I've read your posts. :teehee:

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you