This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Cambridge Chat Thread - it's over 90,000!

My point was that some people are naturally better musicians and athletes due to their genetics, and some people are naturally better at academics due to their genetics.

The empirical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that this isn't the case. Or at least that there are so many important socio-economic determining factors that it would be nigh on impossible to design an experiment to prove or disprove this hypothesis without contravening basic research ethics (namely by having some sample children raised outside of a society :p:

)

Reply 9041

alex_hk90

19

Original post by Craghyrax

The empirical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that this isn't the case. Or at least that there are so many important socio-economic determining factors that it would be nigh on impossible to design an experiment to prove or disprove this hypothesis without contravening basic research ethics (namely by having some sample children raised outside of a society :p:

)

If we accept this hypothesis (that academic ability is predominately unrelated to genetics), then does that also mean that people with learning difficulties have them predominately due to their environment rather than their genetics?

Reply 9042

Craghyrax

17

Original post by alex_hk90

If we accept this hypothesis (that academic ability is predominately unrelated to genetics), then does that also mean that people with learning difficulties have them predominately due to their environment rather than their genetics?

That's quite a ludicrous oversimplification.

From my own observations, the standard of education at secondary school and University is not high enough to really act as any kind of test for intelligence. A person of average intelligence can easily get a first. The reasons people don't all get A*s and firsts are very unlikely to be limited intelligence.

Reply 9043

The West Wing

18

I absolutely love my job!!!!

Reply 9044

alex_hk90

19

Original post by Craghyrax

That's quite a ludicrous oversimplification.

I really don't think it is a 'ludicrous oversimplification' - if there is influence from genetics at the lower end (so to speak) of academic achievement, then I don't see why there should not also be influence from genetics at the higher end.

Original post by Craghyrax

From my own observations, the standard of education at secondary school and University is not high enough to really act as any kind of test for intelligence. A person of average intelligence can easily get a first. The reasons people don't all get A*s and firsts are very unlikely to be limited intelligence.

From my own observations, some people work very hard and still don't get the top grades, whereas others breeze through their studies and still manage to do so. Are you suggesting that all of this is due to environmental factors?

Reply 9045

Topaz_eyes

12

Original post by The West Wing

I absolutely love my job!!!!

Me too

Shame it's only for the summer...

What are you doing? Lawyer-ing I assume...

Reply 9046

Craghyrax

17

Original post by alex_hk90

I really don't think it is a 'ludicrous oversimplification' - if there is influence from genetics at the lower end (so to speak) of academic achievement, then I don't see why there should not also be influence from genetics at the higher end.

The empirical evidence showing precisely how contingent academic attainment is on class and ethnicity is so overwhelming that it undermines any significant role for intelligence. The correlation could not be so strong. Furthermore 'intelligence' is an extremely problematic concept and needs a lot of improvement before we can actually use it in research reliably.

My anecdotal experience has been that people who I know to be the brightest and most intelligent have often fared the worst in examinations because of thinking too far out of the box and not fitting into the mould. I certainly saw with my own exam results that I got firsts when I toed the line and gave the most trite, conformist, hoop-jumping answers, and only got 2.1s when I really provided novel, out of the box, original content (stuff that had firsts in supervisions and impressed supervisors, but didn't fit into an examination format). I have also observed lots of extremely average people getting firsts.

In my MPhil research (on education) I interviewed working class students in state schools. I discovered some very bright students only achieving Cs and Bs. After long, detailed discussions with them it became apparent that they found it hard to imagine themselves achieving grades that were abnormal for their peers. So they would aim for whatever those around them were achieving. I am convinced that the brightest students I met would have been getting top marks if they were in a private school simply because of it being the norm to do so, and being in an environment that gave them the confidence to strive for that, and also because the school would have expected and encouraged it.

On a tangential note, research shows that privately schooled students attain worse grades at University than state schooled students.

From my own observations, some people work very hard and still don't get the top grades, whereas others breeze through their studies and still manage to do so. Are you suggesting that all of this is due to environmental factors?

Mostly, yes.

Reply 9047

gethsemane342

11

Original post by The West Wing

I absolutely love my job!!!!

That bodes well then :wink:

Reply 9048

Melz0r

16

Original post by ukdragon37

There are three separate machines for use with no charge in addition to the college laundry. They are popular though so you have to sign up a few days in advance.

I'm so looking forward to 4th year for the free washing machines. No longer will a stupid box on the wall swallow my €2.50 because the washing machine door wasn't bien fermée.

Also hi everyone, I disappeared and now I'm back.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 9049

Craghyrax

17

Original post by Melz0r

I'm so looking forward to 4th year for the free washing machines. No longer will a stupid box on the wall swallow my €2.50 because the washing machine door wasn't bien fermée.

Also hi everyone, I disappeared and now I'm back.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 9050

alex_hk90

19

Original post by Craghyrax

The empirical evidence showing precisely how contingent academic attainment is on class and ethnicity is so overwhelming that it undermines any significant role for intelligence. The correlation could not be so strong. Furthermore 'intelligence' is an extremely problematic concept and needs a lot of improvement before we can actually use it in research reliably.

I was talking about genetics, not 'intelligence' (whatever that is). So if ethnicity is an important factor then that would support my assertion.

Original post by Craghyrax

My anecdotal experience has been that people who I know to be the brightest and most intelligent have often fared the worst in examinations because of thinking too far out of the box and not fitting into the mould. I certainly saw with my own exam results that I got firsts when I toed the line and gave the most trite, conformist, hoop-jumping answers, and only got 2.1s when I really provided novel, out of the box, original content (stuff that had firsts in supervisions and impressed supervisors, but didn't fit into an examination format). I have also observed lots of extremely average people getting firsts.

How do you know them to be the "brightest and most intelligent" - what is your measure for this? I would argue that if they really were so intelligent, they would know to play the system, emulate these "extremely average" people you refer to and so get the best results themselves. The fact that they don't would suggest a lack of intelligence to me. However, this is a bit off the point as we're no longer talking about genetics.

Original post by Craghyrax

In my MPhil research (on education) I interviewed working class students in state schools. I discovered some very bright students only achieving Cs and Bs. After long, detailed discussions with them it became apparent that they found it hard to imagine themselves achieving grades that were abnormal for their peers. So they would aim for whatever those around them were achieving. I am convinced that the brightest students I met would have been getting top marks if they were in a private school simply because of it being the norm to do so, and being in an environment that gave them the confidence to strive for that, and also because the school would have expected and encouraged it.

This is getting closer to my point - why are these students "very bright" whereas their peers are not? They're in the same school so it's not environmental in that sense (perhaps its due to their parents or other influences, I don't know). But I would suggest that it is at least partially (if not predominately) their genetics that makes them "very bright" and their peers less so.

Original post by Craghyrax

Mostly, yes.

As you have mentioned it is almost impossible to do the required experiments. But I find it very hard to believe that people don't have different natural talents when it comes to things like memory, analysing information, problem solving, creativity, emotional understanding, artistic ability, etc. This isn't to say that all these things aren't affected by the environment and can't be trained (to a certain extent), but that to some people it just comes more naturally than to others.

Reply 9051

alex_hk90

19

Original post by Melz0r

Also hi everyone, I disappeared and now I'm back.

Welcome back! :h:

Reply 9052

The West Wing

18

Original post by Topaz_eyes

Me too

Shame it's only for the summer...

What are you doing? Lawyer-ing I assume...

I"m a very junior banking and finance lawyer at the moment. I am just really enjoying the work and it's all very fulfilling.

Reply 9053

ukdragon37

14

Welcome back!

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my Galaxy Nexus while wondering why the last bus home from suburban Germany hasn't bloody arrived yet.

Reply 9054

lp386

12

Original post by Melz0r

Also hi everyone, I disappeared and now I'm back.

I look forward to making your acquaintance (though I suspect I was around in some iteration or other before you disappeared...)

Original post by Mr Dactyl

Not entirely sure what your point is here, but if it's that upper class people are upper class in part because of their superior genes I can think of a few examples who don't match up that well.

People don't attack sportsmen and musicians in the same way though, and that's because they feel like those people deserve their success. They don't feel the same about us, but maybe they would if they understood our system better! I think people get very angry when they percieve unfairness.

Well, I kind of intended fairtrade = privately schooled and basics = comprehensively educated, and if that's what you're saying then I'm afraid I have to disagree. More than 80 years ago now, A S Neill found that his students could go from unschooled to A-Level in three or four years. The difference between unschooled and a normal Year 9 student is much larger than that between someone with AAB from Bash Street and someone with AAA from Westminster. Indeed, it's entirely plausible that the latter difference is wholly due to the luck of the draw - where each was born - and I see no easy way to determine which of them would do better in Cambridge from that information alone. I certainly see no compelling reason to give a place to the Westminster chap. But it does depend on one's politics I suppose.

Especially when it probably was true forty or fifty years ago. I do agree if Cambridge took something more like a cross section of society this would be less of an issue though.

I for one look forward to it.

I'm reading a book by Chris Hayes at the moment called Twilight of the Elites which talks about the whole idea of meritocracy and how those at the top find ways to distort this, either to preserve their own status or to selectively pull up others. Oxbridge is a pretty good example of this - getting into Oxbridge is a matter of two things. One is intelligence, which may or may not be genetic to some extent, and the other is having the advantages to be able to be in the position where you can get a place at Oxbridge (good schooling is one, whether through money, moving to the right catchment area, parental time and attention, but there's also other distortions like interview prep, private tutoring to get kids up to speed, parental contacts that may be needed to get work experience or extra-curriculars for an application, etc.) All of which is to say that the people at the top remain there not necessarily because they're the brightest but because they also have a bunch of inbuilt advantages, many of which stem from having money.

As for sportsmen and musicians, I wonder if it's because ordinary people know less about the process for those than they think they know about Cambridge. There's still this impression of Oxbridge as a closed shop, whereas musicians and sportsmen are seen to have natural talent - but in all three cases the talent required to be successful needs development, either through a good school, or music and sports coaching that can be expensive in both time and money. People don't realise this, and perhaps if they thought about what it actually takes to create an Adele or a Wayne Rooney they wouldn't come out quite so favourably compared to Oxbridge. While you do get stories of people "beating the odds" in terms of economic background in music and sports, I'd say they're given far more publicity than the same thing with regards to Oxbridge, and I'd guess that the proportions wouldn't be that different.

Improving the cross section of people we take would be the best thing we can do - nothing will change attitudes faster than putting an Oxbridge role model in every community, whether they want one or not! (Yes, a chicken in every pot and Oxbridge grads everywhere! Just when you thought it was safe!) If you can point to people and say "Well, they got in, and they're not posh/white/fearsomely eloquent/British born/have an absolutely spotless academic record", that's the best encouragement you can have. Unfortunately, it's a circular problem - we can't have those role models until we can get them to apply, and we can't get them to apply until we have role models.

As for the blog post, I need to finish the book first...

Reply 9055

ukebert

13

I am convinced that music is much more of a closed shop than Oxbridge. The equivalent that is. The sort of gigs that myself and most musicians of my intimate acquaintances play are the University of North-West Staffordshire equivalents. There is a huge amount of networking needed to get any further, even in my genre.

Reply 9056

Melz0r

16

Thanks everyone! :biggrin:

I apologise about the ridiculous app signature, I don't suppose there's a way to delete it...

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 9057

alex_hk90

19

Original post by Melz0r

Thanks everyone! :biggrin:

I apologise about the ridiculous app signature, I don't suppose there's a way to delete it...

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

In the Android app it's under "Menu Key - More - Settings - Signature". :smile:

Reply 9058

Melz0r

16

Original post by alex_hk90

In the Android app it's under "Menu Key - More - Settings - Signature". :smile:

Thanks! Unfortunately I can't find it under Settings in the iPod app... I can find a setting that allows me to 'shake to reply' (seriously, why!??) but nothing about the sig. Oh well!