The Student Room Group

Would you rather be born rich or smart?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Howard
Rich. That way I could afford to employ smart people to make me even richer.


Howard knows! Will be able to get phds for minimum wage soon!
Original post by Hippysnake
I'm guessing you're rich?


Nope!
I was already born smart and poor. :biggrin:

Actually to be fair I'm not that poor.

Come to think of it I'm not that smart either...
Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes
Nope!


wow, that's harsh :frown:.
Original post by frogs r everywhere
Question: Would you want to remain poor and smart (forever), OR would you like to remain rich and unintelligent (forever)?


In that situation, I couldn't get the success I would like should I choose to remain intelligent, therefore if I had unlimited amounts of money for the remainder of my life I would take it. Just look at Joey Essex, he looks like he's having the time of his life.
Original post by Hippysnake
wow, that's harsh :frown:.


Lol okay...

You don't actually think I'm stupid do you?

'Smart' can be in so many things. I was talking about Leonardo Divinci smart or Stephen Hawking smart. On a basic academic level I would say i'm pretty smart, but nothing extrodinary.

Oh and Terence Tao.

Well the list goes on really!
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes
Lol okay...

You don't actually think I'm stupid do you?

'Smart' can be in so many things. I was talking about Leanardo Divinci smart or Stephen Hawking smart. On a basic academic level I would say i'm pretty smart, but nothing extrodinary.


No, not at all. On a cleverness scale from 1 - 10, where 1 is anencephaly and 10 is Einstein and Newton's lovechild, you'd probably be a 6. The average is 3.

Which is damn good. You should be proud!
Reply 68
2.5 mil isn't rich though
Original post by Hippysnake
No, not at all. On a cleverness scale from 1 - 10, where 1 is anencephaly and 10 is Einstein and Newton's lovechild, you'd probably be a 6. The average is 3.

Which is damn good. You should be proud!


Lol whatever you're halirious :rolleyes:

lmao nice scale though.

No I wouldn't say I'm 'pretty smart' because I don't know what we're basing this on. But I would say I'm pretty aware and not ignorant of a lot of knowledge, so I consider that smart. School isn't the best place to base intelligence on really since finding mark schemes and examiner reports and commiting those things to memory lands you in the A/A* region...
Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes
Lol okay...

You don't actually think I'm stupid do you?

'Smart' can be in so many things. I was talking about Leanardo Divinci smart or Stephen Hawking smart. On a basic academic level I would say i'm pretty smart, but nothing extrodinary.




Posted from TSR Mobile

Intelligence is important but it's not as critical as you think.Other qualities like persistence and imagination are just as important.

It's often a radical shift in perceptions of problems and ideas.Intelligence is important,but game changing perceptions of problems or innovative ideas in a field is often what brings mankind progress.

Hawking said something that many physicists thought was impossible, but his idea was exactly what was needed.He not the greatest mathematician or the smartest physicist to ever have lived,but the fact he thinks creatively made him special.
Even if you think your average,if you can come up with an unseen approach to a problem,then your more useful than the average prodigy or genius,so don't be disheartened.
By the way, you are pretty rich in personality :wink::p:).
Original post by re4trfe
2.5 mil isn't rich though


If you have a household net worth of £2.8m you are in the 1%, so I'd classify being worth £2.5m by yourself as rich.
I'd rather be born rich
Reply 73
Original post by Bill_Gates
Howard knows! Will be able to get phds for minimum wage soon!


You ain't whistling Dixie bro!

PHd's are a dime a dozen. There's more unemployed (or underemployed) PHd's walking around than you can shake a stick at.

Certainly in the US - most of them are living in their mom's basement wondering how they'll pay back the $400,000 in non-dischargeable debt (which is accruing interest at 12% a year) on their jobs that are paying $40,000 (if they're lucky)

The PHd market is oversubscribed. The Economist famously wrote this article 5 years ago and things have gotten a lot worse since then:

http://www.economist.com/node/17723223/

I mean, how intelligent do you have to be to end up with a PHd, tons of non-dischargeable debt, and either no job or a job that pays peanuts? LOL! Unfortunately for many folks their foray into the world of doctoral research has proven almost as bad as having a JD from a third tier law school. Shmucks!

I understand things might not be as bad in the UK - I'm speaking on the US (and to a lesser extent Canadian) experience - but for me, you can keep all your fancy diplomas, sheepskins, and the short-lived novelty that being a "doctor" brings with it. I'll just take the cash!
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Howard
You ain't whistling Dixie bro!

PHd's are a dime a dozen. There's more unemployed (or underemployed) PHd's walking around than you can shake a stick at.

Certainly in the US - most of them are living in their mom's basement wondering how they'll pay back the $400,000 in non-dischargeable debt (which is accruing interest at 12% a year) on their jobs that are paying $40,000 (if they're lucky)

The PHd market is oversubscribed. The Economist famously wrote this article 5 years ago and things have gotten a lot worse since then:

http://www.economist.com/node/17723223/

I mean, how intelligent do you have to be to end up with a PHd, tons of non-dischargeable debt, and either no job or a job that pays peanuts? LOL! Unfortunately for many folks their foray into the world of doctoral research has proven almost as bad as having a JD from a third tier law school. Shmucks!

I understand things might not be as bad in the UK - I'm speaking on the US (and to a lesser extent Canadian) experience - but for me, you can keep all your fancy diplomas, sheepskins, and the short-lived novelty that being a "doctor" brings with it. I'll just take the cash!


Pretty much the same here but still largely depends on the field but they're pumping them out like no tomorrow.

Read that article on the economist surprised they came out with the brutal truth.
Reply 75
Original post by re4trfe
2.5 mil isn't rich though


It would solve a few problems though.
Reply 76
Original post by Bill_Gates
Would you rather be born rich or super smart?

rich couple of million
super smart but poor based in the UK

Bill

What we have learnt so far:
-Those who are poor and smart generally know it sucks and would rather be born rich


Rich and stupid.

Much easier to make yourself smart, than it is to make yourself rich.
Original post by MAINE.
Rich and stupid.

Much easier to make yourself smart, than it is to make yourself rich.


Agreed!
No where in the OP was there a comment on your intelligence if you were born rich, so as long as I'm not going to be a complete dumb dumb I'd take the moolah.
Reply 79
Original post by hihihihihi
If you have a household net worth of £2.8m you are in the 1%, so I'd classify being worth £2.5m by yourself as rich.


Original post by Howard
It would solve a few problems though.


Not for long, I'd say to maintain a decent upper class lifestyle you'd need about 5 mil. Just buying a house would like halve 2.5 plus you're thick, so it isn't like you can just get a good job.

Quick Reply

Latest