An A/A* student is not a ‘smart’ person

Couldn't be less true. Pre-degree exams especially do not reflect anything other than regurgitating information, even in essay based subjects. It's not even a case of memory its just a case of how well someone can complete a specific exam. GCSE/A-Levels are entirely geared towards exams and grades and are not there as a marker of intelligence or to encourage learning at all.

i didnt say that. i said that how clever you are is not reflected on the grades you get. never denied the fact that a lower ability student would get a lower grade than a higher ability student, i was talking about intelligence in real life.

correlation does not mean causation.
it might be that a larger vocabulary could be an indication that you have higher intelligence but its not a fact but rather speculation. i could be good at maths, doesnt determine whether im smart or not, same with most things.
if you were referring languages to the language a levels, my answer would be that you dont need to do a language a level to prove you know a language, so saying people are smarter because they did well in a language A level would be unfair considering there are people who are also very good at languages that havent done a level languages

correlation does not mean causation.
it might be that a larger vocabulary could be an indication that you have higher intelligence but its not a fact but rather speculation. i could be good at maths, doesnt determine whether im smart or not, same with most things.
if you were referring languages to the language a levels, my answer would be that you dont need to do a language a level to prove you know a language, so saying people are smarter because they did well in a language A level would be unfair considering there are people who are also very good at languages that havent done a level languages

Average is the keyword here.... Although I'll comment anyway. Money factors into it but method of making it is extremely important. My NW is at approx 250k at 23 but 175k of was earned through such a braindead way (cryptocurrency) it means nothing. The 75k means a bit cause it was earned conventionally. If fba is reselling on amazon it doesn't really show anything about intelligence, just like me being loaded from cryptocurrency.

Probably because a lot of people can coast through GCSEs without learning what hard work is.

At the very least people who achieve high grades are generally pragmatic, they know what they need to do to score a high mark (mention an equal number of substantive points to marks in question with key words/make sure to have the correct balance of different types of content in an essay) and do it.

Would you call someone who finds the steps needed to achieve some goal and executes those steps well smart?

I disagree with this. To an extent, you're right but it's not just 'regurgitating information'. There's a lot of (perhaps, on the easy side) problem-solving which differentiates top students.

What A levels do you take/have taken? And what exam board?

I see where you're coming from but its partially to do with what constitutes intelligence or smartness as well. I don't think exams allow for everyone with intelligence to convey that very well. And while you can say someone who gets top grades is smart, it would be wrong to say others are not. And the formulaic nature of some exams allow for people who, in studying a subject which perhaps isn't their strongest, to still get good grades. Of course this does not mean they're not smart, more that the final grade doesn't reflect their ability in that specific subject necessarily.

I just meant knowing languages in general, like if you met someone who could speak loads and loads of languages (a poly-something) wouldn't you be really impressed and think they are really smart?

Well, it obviously reflects academic intelligence which is what's being addressed? Not intelligence in real life...?

Personally, I would consider someone who displays a good handle in any field as smart. Smart people are not necessarily good at everything. They might only be good in one specific area. (eg. savants)

maths/fm/phys ("did" history too)

you didnt say average
you said that you are more intelligent than people who didnt get 3 A*s, i can name plenty of people who are probably smarter than you and didnt get all A*s

if you then found out that the person who knows loads of languages got run over because they werent looking both ways, would you still be calling them smart?
you cant determine if someone is smart based off of 1 skill

well no because the whole thread is debating whether students who get high grades are smart. i dont think a thread would be needed if we were debating whether people who get A*s are academicly clever.

ok so lets assume i was amazing at programming, so good that you would say im smart.
then i get runover by a car because im too dumb to look both ways when crossing the road
you still gunna call me smart?

Soz thought I did, fully agree that obviously there are loads of exceptions. The simplest way to look at it is this:

All things being equal, on average is someone with A*A*A MORE intelligent than someone with 3A*? Of course not, therefore they must be less intelligent (or absolutely precisely exactly the same).

Some people have also said about A-levels being massive memory tests which is very true but when everything else is equal than obviously better grades = more intelligent.

I kinda agree here - getting top grades means you're decent and of course, there's much better indicators as people have said (degrees etc.) but I don't personally think getting A* is very trivial. Sure, there's much better indicators and exams are quite formulaic (so doesn't differentiate the top from the clever) but it differentiates the average with the smart (above average).

if you then found out that the person who knows loads of languages got run over because they werent looking both ways, would you still be calling them smart?
you cant determine if someone is smart based off of 1 skill

well no because the whole thread is debating whether students who get high grades are smart. i dont think a thread would be needed if we were debating whether people who get A*s are academicly clever.

ok so lets assume i was amazing at programming, so good that you would say im smart.
then i get runover by a car because im too dumb to look both ways when crossing the road
you still gunna call me smart?

I did bio, chem and history. I guess maths, fm and physics mark schemes aren't specific (never seen them), but the bio AQA one, for example, is terribly specific

I see what you mean here, I don't doubt A* achievers are intelligent people who can apply themselves well. My concern is more with the fact that there are many others, perhaps with greater subject knowledge, who will not get these grades in an exam situation because of finding it stressful or the formatting of the exam being disadvantageous towards their abilities. So, I think I mean A* students are smart, but to see them as the only intelligent ones and/or the most intelligent isn't useful.