Does Cambridge have its fair share of stupid people?

OP

Original post by A-Dog

Maybe you're the first.

I doubt it. There are people who come out with thirds and 2:2s at Cambridge.

Reply 3

A-Dog

Original post by Egolessness

I doubt it. There are people who come out with thirds and 2:2s at Cambridge.

Well then, you have answered your question, and my work here is done

Reply 4

Arianto

13

Original post by Egolessness

I doubt it. There are people who come out with thirds and 2:2s at Cambridge.

You're implying that anyone getting 2:2 or below from Cambridge are stupid?

Therefore further implying that anyone with average intelligence must get at least a 2:1 from consistently one of the best and most demanding places of learning on the planet?

Good heavens, we're surrounded by idiots then.

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

Reply 5

Topaz_eyes

12

Original post by Egolessness

I doubt it. There are people who come out with thirds and 2:2s at Cambridge.

And they're not stupid. In my first year, 40% of the people (at least) got a 2.ii or a third. Are you saying 40% of people admitted to Natural Sciences at Cambridge are stupid?

Reply 6

Original post by Egolessness

I doubt it. There are people who come out with thirds and 2:2s at Cambridge.

Some subjects have over 30% of the year group getting below a 2.1. They are certainly not all stupid.

Reply 7

Colmans

11

Original post by Egolessness

I am a total moron who seems to be superseded by the abilities of other people fairly often yet I, somehow, possess a Cambridge offer. I'm just wondering if there will be other utter morons there who I will be able to relate to rather than feeling constantly inferior to my intellectual superiors...

At one freshers' intro the tutor asked the audience how many thought their offer was probably a mistake and rumour has it well over half the audience put up their hand. Whilst they do make mistakes I don't think anybody who gets in qualifies as stupid. It is normal to be daunted by the realisation that the average ability will be higher than it was at school and many people find it take a while to adjust to not always being "top" without going to the other extreme and being too pessimistic.

Reply 8

OP

Original post by Topaz_eyes

And they're not stupid. In my first year, 40% of the people (at least) got a 2.ii or a third. Are you saying 40% of people admitted to Natural Sciences at Cambridge are stupid?

They must be.

Reply 9

Original post by Egolessness

They must be.

So you think the Cambridge engineering/medicine/maths/NatSci departments regularly fill 35% of their intake with stupid people, despite being some of the most competitive courses in the country?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 10

OP

Original post by Chief Wiggum

So you think the Cambridge engineering/medicine/maths/NatSci departments regularly fill 35% of their intake with stupid people, despite being some of the most competitive courses in the country?

No, but they are noticeably less intelligent than the other students.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 11

Original post by Egolessness

No, but they are noticeably less intelligent than the other students.

So, your definition of a "stupid person" is "someone below the average intelligence of a Cambridge student"?

Besides that being a completely ridiculous definition, then what was the point of this thread? By definition there'll be people below the Cambridge average in Cambridge.

Reply 12

OP

Original post by Chief Wiggum

So, your definition of a "stupid person" is "someone below the average intelligence of a Cambridge student"?

Besides that being a completely ridiculous definition, then what was the point of this thread? By definition there'll be people below the Cambridge average in Cambridge.

Yes my definition is along those lines, although I do recognise that many people who do not go to Cambridge exceed the average intelligence of a Cambridge student by miles. The point of the thread was the gauge whether those people who are below the Cambridge average standard will be more relatable.

Reply 13

Original post by Egolessness

Yes my definition is along those lines, although I do recognise that many people who do not go to Cambridge exceed the average intelligence of a Cambridge student by miles. The point of the thread was the gauge whether those people who are below the Cambridge average standard will be more relatable.

What do you mean by relateable?

I don't notice any relationship between how "normal" someone is, and how well they do academically here.

Reply 14

OP

Original post by Chief Wiggum

What do you mean by relateable?

I don't notice any relationship between how "normal" someone is, and how well they do academically here.

"Relateable" isn't a word. I don't make friends with "normal" people, I make friends with people who I don't consider myself to be academically and intellectually inferior to hence my question about relating to smart people at Cambridge who aren't going to outshine or undermine me in every single conversation I have with them.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 15

Primrose_Marian

Just my opinion - but on the topic of 2:2s etc. from cambridge - from my friend's experience of oxford the 2:2s from oxbridge are probably worth more than 1sts from other places - they don't indicate people are stupid.

Reply 16