(Original post by Simplicity)
Not really. Certainly, I spent that hour I could be rote learning on learning how to prove stuff. This payed off more than any rote learning I could have done.
The fact that there are more effective uses of your time than rote learning doesn't mean that exam results aren't correlated with intelligence.
Hmm, I doubt you can judge a uni on its first year papers, anyway look at the fourth year papers.
That might be a bit easier if I was a fourth year.
But, it would be largely not a good indication.
My Director of Studies seems to think that it's a reasonable indicator. I'd be inclined to trust his experience over yours.
(Original post by DaveJ)
To be honest, I think sometimes that someone's fellow students who has known them for many years as well as knowing their grades can judge their intelligence better than a tutor who only sees them for around an hour as well as knowing their grades.
I agree that an hour or two isn't enough time, especially when compared to years of knowing someone, but fellow students don't really have much expertise in the area. In many cases they'll have a more accurate impression, but certainly not always. People at my school probably tended to view me as better at maths than I actually am. The interviewers should have a better idea of how to spot talent, even though an interview can't compare to actually knowing the person.
(Original post by Muddy91)
Oh dear oh dear oh dear oh dear. I know a student at cambridge, who had low grades, and a very lucky interview (by his own admission - they asked him things that they thought were not on his syllabus when in fact they were). He is now struggling. Another guy got rejected, who had much better grades, had done much more worthwhile work, and was far cleverer. He's now thriving at a 'lower' uni.
Of course they make mistakes, but this doesn't mean that interviewing doesn't have advantages over not interviewing, or that it isn't true that offers are generally given to the more able applicants.
If oxbridge was so much cleverer than everyone then they wouldn't need 4 teams on university challenge, to demonstrate their dominance. and teams often defeat these 4 teams of 'superior intelligence'.
I can't work out whether this is a joke or not. If not then I have a few points to make:
1) It's more like 40 teams. Each.
2) Spreading the best people over several teams doesn't appear to be the most sensible way to win.
3) University Challenge isn't a test of intelligence.
4) Someone could be generally more intelligent but not as suited to the subject for which they applied.