15-year-old Cambridge undergrad, 2009, will be 2nd youngest for 200 years

It could be lupus

Well if this is the case, that means that everyone in the world is capable from the minute they are born to get into oxbridge. Looking forward to seeing you in Cambridge in the near future, as you have no excuse as you seem to have been let into this "secret" that everyone is equal intelligence wise.

Yes, a clear sign of intelligence here. Well done

Don't get me started on Oxbridge, and yes everyone, from the moment they are born has the mental capacity to gain entry to oxbridge. Its not hard, well society restricts everyone from applying.

And no, people arn't intelligently equal thorughout their life, but nevertheless there is very little difference between me, you, everyone on the planet in terms of our "brain potential" when we are born.

Reply 142

mfb3000

I just looked up the Terrorfication guys posts - he's just about to start his GCSE year.

And? think before you respond to that.

Reply 143

mfb3000

Terrorfication

And? think before you respond to that.

A couple of things.

Firstly, what are you doing in the Cambridge forum? You're not an applicant or current student or alumnus. You're just trolling.

Secondly, it gives you an excuse, albeit a small one, for being blinkered and moronic. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are too young and haven't had enough time in education to know why you're wrong, rather than the other option which is that you are a, well, an illogical fool.

The kind of environmentalism that you're trying to push makes about as much sense as the idea that everyone is born physically equal and that it is just the environment that dictates peoples final level of aptitude at sport or athletics.

Reply 144

I'm surprised by how ready people are to take a critical or pessimistic attitude towards the prospect of a person going to University at 15. I don't think the difference between 15 and 17-18 is as big as people like to make out. Also the differences in question aren't really differences that would necessarily affect his ability to fit in, handle the stress and adjust. Niall will have already adjusted to a couple of years of associating with students who are older than him, because he has taken so many exams early. In a college environment he will also have had an experience which isn't too far off from University in terms of autonomy. The fact that he grew up in a single parent home will mean that he's probably more comfortable than others at taking care of himself, and from things his school friends and the articles have suggested - he is already well used to working his socks off.
The level of juvenile behaviour you see in a group of 15 year olds is more to do with peer influence. If you stick a 15 yr old boy in with some 18 yr olds, he will begin to adjust his behaviour in order to mimic that of his peers.

As for this talk of being too young to have similar experiences and not being able to fit in: people are forgetting that the main factor which binds people at University together in friendship is having a common life. Living in a Cambridge college, most of Niall's life will be very similar to that of those around him. Cambridge has a hell of alot more social activities on than those related to clubbing or drinking. Each night of the week you're forced to choose between 5 or 6 interesting talks/debates/films/plays/society activities... the drinking isn't going to matter at all! And his day to day experiences will be similar to those living in his staircase, going to his lectures and sharing his supervisions. Therefore he will easily be able to share those things with others and bond with them.
I think people simply dislike it when they see something which breaks the norm, and they try and find a point to attack in order to express that dislike of deviance, rather than simply thinking about the situation in an open minded fashion!

It also seems people in this thread haven't all read the article which mentioned that he was brought up by a single Mum (important point for Terrorfication who suggested that Neil got where he was because of his class background: this is obviously rubbish seeing as his coming from a single parent home negates this entirely)

llys

Yes - twin or adoption studies would be easier to interpret. I just remembered this particular study because nobody was interested when I made a topic about it some time ago. :bawling:

Aw. I found the article interesting :yep:

I'm planning to research something loosely related to that for my MPhil.

Reply 145

mfb3000

A couple of things.

Firstly, what are you doing in the Cambridge forum? You're not an applicant or current student or alumnus. You're just trolling.

Secondly, it gives you an excuse, albeit a small one, for being blinkered and moronic. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are too young and haven't had enough time in education to know why you're wrong, rather than the other option which is that you are a, well, an illogical fool.

The kind of environmentalism that you're trying to push makes about as much sense as the idea that everyone is born physically equal and that it is just the environment that dictates peoples final level of aptitude at sport or athletics.

Im in the cambridge forum to see if you really need to be "intelligent" to gain an offer, and you don't.

Green - why would that be incorrect? for example, if i was born with slightly less athleticism than a peer that only makes a negligible difference in what we can achieve. At the end of the day, for example, if I was nurtured to build on my figure and attend regular coaching sessions as well as work on my fitness, that would immediately raise my game compared to my peer who lets say, wasn't nurtured similarly. Im not talking on Usain Bolt's level here, im talking 99% of the population. Overwhelmingly, someone's final level of aptitude in anything is determined by their environment and the way they are nurtured by society, media, family and friends etc... Obviously this is to a much simpler, linear pattern in other organisms.

If anything you are narrow minded. My open-mindedness has caused your verbal distribution of moronic and blinkered whereas you are for not considering my valid point. You are moronic for being ageist, you are blinkered for going to cambridge "i assume" and not being able to consider situational ethics to any sensible degree. Do you not think that an upbringing can negate any minor birth inequalities in "intelligence" or physical potency?

And no amount of time in "education" will affect philosophical points like these. I notice that, as i am disgusted that someone who has been "educated" (the word means nothing these days) for at least three years longer than me, can not present his ideas or give any more thought to it than a fifteen year old.

A major loophole in society is the fact that a narrow minded robot can get through his/her education through constant hard work and lacking in a thoughtful approach to their life, reach a top university and get a top paying job, but fail to contribute progressionally to society although it was very possible that they could had they been nurtured to not just memorise from a book.

Reply 146

Craghyrax

I'm surprised by how ready people are to take a critical or pessimistic attitude towards the prospect of a person going to University at 15. I don't think the difference between 15 and 17-18 is as big as people like to make out. Also the differences in question aren't really differences that would necessarily affect his ability to fit in, handle the stress and adjust. Niall will have already adjusted to a couple of years of associating with students who are older than him, because he has taken so many exams early. In a college environment he will also have had an experience which isn't too far off from University in terms of autonomy. The fact that he grew up in a single parent home will mean that he's probably more comfortable than others at taking care of himself, and from things his school friends and the articles have suggested - he is already well used to working his socks off.
The level of juvenile behaviour you see in a group of 15 year olds is more to do with peer influence. If you stick a 15 yr old boy in with some 18 yr olds, he will begin to adjust his behaviour in order to mimic that of his peers.

As for this talk of being too young to have similar experiences and not being able to fit in: people are forgetting that the main factor which binds people at University together in friendship is having a common life. Living in a Cambridge college, most of Niall's life will be very similar to that of those around him. Cambridge has a hell of alot more social activities on than those related to clubbing or drinking. Each night of the week you're forced to choose between 5 or 6 interesting talks/debates/films/plays/society activities... the drinking isn't going to matter at all! And his day to day experiences will be similar to those living in his staircase, going to his lectures and sharing his supervisions. Therefore he will easily be able to share those things with others and bond with them.
I think people simply dislike it when they see something which breaks the norm, and they try and find a point to attack in order to express that dislike of deviance, rather than simply thinking about the situation in an open minded fashion!

It also seems people in this thread haven't all read the article which mentioned that he was brought up by a single Mum (important point for Terrorfication who suggested that Neil got where he was because of his class background: this is obviously rubbish seeing as his coming from a single parent home negates this entirely)

Aw. I found the article interesting

I'm planning to research something loosely related to that for my MPhil.

Just because you were raised by a single parent does not mean you have had inequality in any other area of your life. Sometimes having two parents can be worse than having a single parent. I am estimating that that single parent was very good one indeed. For all you could know he could have had an extremely priveleged upbringing in terms of his educational bandwidth provided by his school, tutor's, family, friends etc...

Reply 147

Terrorfication

Just because you were raised by a single parent does not mean you have had inequality in any other area of your life. Sometimes having two parents can be worse than having a single parent. I am estimating that that single parent was very good one indeed. For all you could know he could have had an extremely priveleged upbringing in terms of his educational bandwidth provided by his school, tutor's, family, friends etc...

That's certainly possible, but equally you have no evidence other than prejudice with which to assume that he has had unusual levels of support or circumstancial favour.

Reply 148

It could be lupus

12

Terrorfication

Im in the cambridge forum to see if you really need to be "intelligent" to gain an offer, and you don't.

Why would you need to check that? As you said before, we are all of equal intelligence, just that we have been raised in a better environment.

Green - why would that be incorrect? for example, if i was born with slightly less athleticism than a peer that only makes a negligible difference in what we can achieve. At the end of the day, for example, if I was nurtured to build on my figure and attend regular coaching sessions as well as work on my fitness, that would immediately raise my game compared to my peer who lets say, wasn't nurtured similarly. Im not talking on Usain Bolt's level here, im talking 99% of the population. Overwhelmingly, someone's final level of aptitude in anything is determined by their environment and the way they are nurtured by society, media, family and friends etc... Obviously this is to a much simpler, linear pattern in other organisms.

Ever heard of survival of the fittest, darwinism, genes? From the above I am guessing you are a creationist? :rolleyes:

If anything you are narrow minded. My open-mindedness has caused your verbal distribution of moronic and blinkered whereas you are for not considering my valid point. You are moronic for being ageist, you are blinkered for going to cambridge "i assume" and not being able to consider situational ethics to any sensible degree. Do you not think that an upbringing can negate any minor birth inequalities in "intelligence" or physical potency?

Ok we are all being ageist. Since you are so smart compared to all of us, when are you heading off to uni? Must be this year, because someone of your intelligence at your age is bound to be smart enough to get into uni this year. But then again, intelligence doesn't exist... :rolleyes:

And no amount of time in "education" will affect philosophical points like these. I notice that, as i am disgusted that someone who has been "educated" (the word means nothing these days) for at least three years longer than me, can not present his ideas or give any more thought to it than a fifteen year old.

Fantastic...

A major loophole in society is the fact that a narrow minded robot can get through his/her education through constant hard work and lacking in a thoughtful approach to their life, reach a top university and get a top paying job, but fail to contribute progressionally to society although it was very possible that they could had they been nurtured to not just memorise from a book.

Ah, but surely everyone has equal intelligence. Therefore, all we have to do to get through our education is some hard work like everyone else, making everyone including you and I to be narrow minded robots. :yep:

Reply 149

User182034

15

Craghyrax

That's certainly possible, but equally you have no evidence other than prejudice with which to assume that he has had unusual levels of support or circumstancial favour.

Quoting this one as your post above it is too long and I'm too lazy to go advanced.

I do get your point about it not being to do with class etc that he's got where he has, but I am still shocked at the inequality in the system (not to take anything away from him, he must have worked very hard to achieve this and he must be extremely motivated). I believe he went to a state school and this is where the inequality is-it's a postcode lottery which decides how you get treated (both as a SEN/''Gifted and talented'' child). Some schools will embrace achievement/talent and allow children to take extra qualifications, skip years or vear away from set schemes. However, others like to keep everyone at the same level and don't provide opportunities like that.

For example, my sixth form in Blackpool wouldn't accept that I had covered GCSE work while being educated at home (despite having education reports and work to prove it) so I had to sit through GCSE resit classes and fight to take higher tier exams before progressing to A levels. My sister has gone to a different school in a different town and has been given a chance to take A levels without GCSEs. The inequality exists within the state system which seemsvery contradictory.

Reply 150

leala4628

I do get your point about it not being to do with class etc that he's got where he has, but I am still shocked at the inequality in the system...

Yes, I know. And I'm socialist, so its kind of a given that I'd already be sensitive to those problems. I was just attacking Terrorfication because all of his 'arguments' were based totally on bias, assumption and several plain scientific inaccuracies. I'm not sure if you've read all of his posts in this thread?

Also my point wasn't actually that it wasn't to do with class that he's got where he has, but that Terrorfication had absolutely no evidence with which to assume that he knew it was, and the only information we did have to hand (such as the fact that he went to a state school and has a single mother) would call such an assumption into question, if anything. But since we don't actually know the necessary details about his background, any attempt to argue one way or the other is ridiculous.

Reply 151

around

13

I hate to say it but I agree with Terrorfication on certain points. Differences at birth in terms of IQ/atheleticism/whatever are largely negligible for the vast majority of the population compared to your upbringing, education, etc etc. Being born with potential also doesn't mean that you've got it immediately made either - for every Tendulkar there's at least one Vinod Kambli.

Reply 152

I think the consensus [in the social sciences and psychology] is generally for nature and nurture, with perennial squabbling about degrees. Terrorfication insisted that it was only the latter.

Reply 153

The West Wing

18

Craghyrax

I think the consensus [in the social sciences and psychology] is generally for nature and

nurture, with perennial squabbling about degrees. Terrorfication insisted that it was only the latter.

Right, and much of this differential is perspective and political views.

The most crucial thing is that BOTH nature and nurture are heavily inherited and can be perceived as predeterministic. People whose parents have low educational standard probably won't be encouraged as much towards academic success, as well as having genetic makeup less conducive towards 'success'. In this sense the dualism of nature vs nurture is completely unimportant, because either way it's determinstic and 'unfair'.

Variables which DO make an impact are things like bad teaching, unfair examination methods (some are argued to be racially biased or sexist) and unfair admissions criteria. Ironically, the more you normalise these things, the more important genetics becomes in explaining the distribution.

Reply 154