Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I feel the thread is true but saying that my school i average state and we get pretty good advice etc. It's my parents whio have done their best to stimulate and push me to achieve what wanted, to study medicine. i partially blame my school for my GCSE's.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Are you basing this on scientific studies or on the Rainman?
    You seem to have liked my illustrative example
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dotty)
    SamTheMan is talking the most sense here. Getting straight A's is more to do with obsessive compulsive disorder than true intelligence. I knew a straight A student who went to University and got a 3rd. Funny really because some of those people who appear like they cant be arsed and get crap grades often has little to do with intellectual ability and more to do with dull and unstimulating material as these people are more likely to be creative, challenging the norm and often the movers and shakers in society unlike the anal play by the rules types. If anyone really thinks that intelligence can be standardized then explain how autistic savants who can have mathematical abilities beyond and PhD could ever wish for without any of the effort usually have an IQ lower than 70.
    Dotty
    Ummm Dotty you're going a bit over the top. I think you'll find it hard to find someone with an IQ less than 70 could have very good mathematical abilities because among the many restrictive areas that IQ tests evaluate, analytical/mathematic ability is one of them.

    However, yes, how well you did at high school has nothing to do with how well you'll do at Uni. I was a straight-A student all through high school, either first, second or third of my class. Yet now at Uni, I'm just in the top third of my year.

    I used to get amazing marks in maths and physics. Now I realise that my mathematical abilities aren't that amazing and I'm actually rather crap at physics.

    I haven't quite found out if it's because my abilities were never THAT great or because I'm just not into my studies as much as I used to be. I know though, that I was a very good purely academic student: I could learn everything by heart, everything seemed simple. I wasn't a rote learner with photographic memory even though I have a good memory. I was just very good with numbers and words in the purely analytical sense. As everything is presented in a simple way in high school, it was all very simple. But once I got to Uni and things are presented in a totally different way, the format wasn't compatible with my way of seeing things. But then again towards the end of sixth form I had a bit of an end of adolescence crisis and just lost interest in studying.

    Just remember that subjects are taught A LOT differently at Uni and Uni is a fresh start: For some people, to prove how good they are in an area they're truly interested in, or for other people, such as myself, to realise they're not as good as they thought they were.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Isn't it simply because at university it's the best of the best (depending on the school)..so it's normal for you to go from the top of your class in high school to the top 25% or so in uni..considering admissions basically weeded out the crap. It doesn't really necessarily have to do with how it's taught at uni, but that everyone else there was top in high school too.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    You seem to have liked my illustrative example
    I saw your post after I mentioned the Rainman. I agree that IQ isn't the a perfect of someone's intelligence, but it's fair to assume that anyone who's several standard deviations from the mean is gifted or mentally retarded. I'm sure there are exceptions, but there are exceptions to every rule.

    However, yes, how well you did at high school has nothing to do with how well you'll do at Uni. I was a straight-A student all through high school, either first, second or third of my class. Yet now at Uni, I'm just in the top third of my year.

    I used to get amazing marks in maths and physics. Now I realise that my mathematical abilities aren't that amazing and I'm actually rather crap at physics.

    I haven't quite found out if it's because my abilities were never THAT great or because I'm just not into my studies as much as I used to be. I know though, that I was a very good purely academic student: I could learn everything by heart, everything seemed simple. But then again towards the end of sixth form I had a bit of an end of adolescence crisis and just lost interest in studying.
    I noticed that in high school two types of students do well: those that are inherently smart and those who work hard. It's completely possible to get top notch grades in high school through hard work alone. But this is usually not possible in uni. Universities require a certain amount of talent, and realistically speaking, anyone who doesn't have that talent isn't going to get good grades no matter how hard they work. And this isn't because these people are creative (instead of using logic), since there are many subjects where creativity is more important than logic (literature, art, music, theater, and even some of the social sciences). It's just that they don't have the necessary academic skills.

    Personally, I got better grades in uni than in high school, but that's because high school work bored me.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by pinkypants)
    What do you think?
    In your opinion, should general attitudes to higher/further education change?
    if you mean most of the future echolons of class will be uni grads yes, uni is for the elite.

    if you mean only the elite go to uni, then im sure you'll find many people like myself from impoversihed backgrounds who nontheless went to uni.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Bismarck - I am talking about scientific studies but actually the Rain man was inspired by a real life savant called Kim Peek.
    SamTheMan I was disapointed when you said you'll find it hard to find someone with an IQ less than 70 who could have very good mathematical abilities because a quick Google would have told you otherwise. I quote an abstract form the Journal of Intelligence (2000)
    This study describes the date calculation skills and performance on other calendar tasks by 10 calendrical savants whose WAIS IQs range from 50 to 97. Their Block Design scores were unexceptional, contrary to the weak central coherence explanation.
    There are plenty of cases of such a low IQ and mathematical (and also often musical, artistic and memory) abilities.
    Dotty
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dotty)
    Bismarck - I am talking about scientific studies but actually the Rain man was inspired by a real life savant called Kim Peek.
    SamTheMan I was disapointed when you said you'll find it hard to find someone with an IQ less than 70 who could have very good mathematical abilities because a quick Google would have told you otherwise. I quote an abstract form the Journal of Intelligence (2000)
    This study describes the date calculation skills and performance on other calendar tasks by 10 calendrical savants whose WAIS IQs range from 50 to 97. Their Block Design scores were unexceptional, contrary to the weak central coherence explanation.
    There are plenty of cases of such a low IQ and mathematical (and also often musical, artistic and memory) abilities.
    Dotty
    I agree that IQ tests are inevitably flawed to an extent but by using the quote you did I think you're confusing arithmetic (modular) with actual mathematical skills.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thats because I only cited one artlcle, there are many others that cover a wider range of abilities. My reason for quoting that article was not to define mathematical skills but to show that an IQ of less than 70 was not unlikely as claimed by SamTheMan.
    Dotty
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dotty)
    Thats because I only cited one artlcle, there are many others that cover a wider range of abilities. My reason for quoting that article was not to define mathematical skills but to show that an IQ of less than 70 was not unlikely as claimed by SamTheMan.
    Dotty
    I didn't expect you to define mathematical skills - if you were to argue your point I'd expect you to give details of one eminent mathematician (certainly not someone with 'date calculation skills') with a low IQ.
    Note that I don't disagree with the fact there might be mathematicians with a low IQ (arguably some mathematicians have interests only for maths or have a medical condition where only certain parts of their brain are affected and so can't do well at all in many sections of the IQ test) - I merely disagree that the quote you gave gives any evidence for the point you're trying to make.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Gaz031 you miss my point. I am not discussing eminent mathematicians and I never mentioned such. You are putting words into my mouth. My point is that SamTheMan stated that you'll find it hard to find someone with an IQ less than 70 who could have very good mathematical abilities. I remarked that this was indeed wrong and notice in my quote you refer to that I highlight an IQ of 50. I think the problem here is more to do with your definition of mathematical abilities. Whether you are doing simple arithmetic or you are a so called eminent mathematician in psychological testing it is all ultimately classed as 'mathematical ability' and people (and animals) all have it to varying degrees. Whether you think it is worthy or not is purely subjective and completely unscientific.
    Dotty
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dotty)
    Gaz031 you miss my point. I am not discussing eminent mathematicians and I never mentioned such. You are putting words into my mouth. My point is that SamTheMan stated that you'll find it hard to find someone with an IQ less than 70 who could have very good mathematical abilities. I remarked that this was indeed wrong and notice in my quote you refer to that I highlight an IQ of 50. I think the problem here is more to do with your definition of mathematical abilities. Whether you are doing simple arithmetic or you are a so called eminent mathematician in psychological testing it is all ultimately classed as 'mathematical ability' and people (and animals) all have it to varying degrees. Whether you think it is worthy or not is purely subjective and completely unscientific.
    Dotty
    I have no interest or training in psychological testing so that will explain my misinterpretation.
    You yourself state that everyone has some sort of mathematical ability (be it date calculation or number counting) - does having an ability in one trivial area really mean they have skills in the subject overall? (they might be able to add numbers but not divide them - are they still have high mathematical ability?)
    I mention that naming an eminent mathematician with a low IQ would back up your point nicely because they are much more likely to have ability in most trivial areas of the subject and thus their ability regardless of IQ will be less subject to debate.

    I think we're going slightly off topic anyhow
    University shouldn't be restricted to just the elite but presently there are far too many people going to university for the wrong reasons to study ridiculous courses.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lauren)
    Attitudes should change towards higher education and make it more elite. Morons who can't achieve at least Cs at A level should not be allowed to waste more tax payers money by going to an institute such as Edge Hill to spend three years doing a watered down version of a degree. All at the expense of people who worked hard at good universities.
    Wasn't Edge Hill a teacher training college?
    (And weren't the degrees awarded by Lancaster University?)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BellaCat)
    Wasn't Edge Hill a teacher training college?
    (And weren't the degrees awarded by Lancaster University?)
    It's "accredited" (whatever that means or however you spell it) by lancaster, and its reputation is mainly centred around teacher training. Everybody I know going there intends to become a teacher.

    It's a population of three (most of my friends are going to manchester or Liverpool uni) so I doubt I can say it is specifically for that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SlyPie)
    huh? In the US it takes 5 years of graduate school to get a PhD...after 4 years of undergrad.. is that what you meant or did you mean 9 years simply for PhD?

    I don't get how you can say you have to work harder to get a PhD when American universities are rated with the best academics in the world..especially ones like Stanford.
    Yes I mean 9 years total in the US, 7 in the UK. To get a BA it's 3 years, masters is an extra year after that (which is needed, unlike in the US), and PhD is 3 years.

    I mean our degrees are more concentrated, so we work harder, but for less time. For post grad study, Harvard is top, Cambridge second, and Stanford third, so do you agree they're all about the same overall?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Stanford actually has a reputation for forcing students to get Ph.D. rather quickly. Good point about the teaching thing. As far as I know, grad students don't teach in British colleges. They also don't have to take classes for ~2 years, which they do in most American colleges.
    Most of my supervisors are PhD students actually. My first Chemistry supervisor got her PhD after two years and one term.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lauren)
    Most of my supervisors are PhD students actually. My first Chemistry supervisor got her PhD after two years and one term.
    If they're Ph.D. students, who do they already have their Ph.D.? :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    University for the "elite"?

    I don't know how many Royal Marines, SAS or National Guard servicemen attended higher education.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SlyPie)
    Oh yeah, you still have to hook me up with good jobs that pay well without working long hours!
    Yes, I know. It's just such a struggle to think of anything you could actually do with a Berkeley education; apart from talk boll0cks that is. :confused:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Astor)
    University for the "elite"?

    I don't know how many Royal Marines, SAS or National Guard servicemen attended higher education.
    95% of the officers I should imagine.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.