Does this mean they're clever?

Since A-levels are kind of trivial compared to undergrad work, and very trivial compared to postgrad work, in relative terms no. Given they're also fairly irrelevant to any practical use outside of academic, it's also not much of an indicator of "intelligence" in a work-based environment either.

A-levels are not an end in themselves. They are a means to an end - what that end varies between people, but in general it's "working in x area" which, if you're taking A-levels, usually also requires one or several degrees as a further means to that end.

Since A-levels are kind of trivial compared to undergrad work, and very trivial compared to postgrad work, in relative terms no. Given they're also fairly irrelevant to any practical use outside of academic, it's also not much of an indicator of "intelligence" in a work-based environment either.

A-levels are not an end in themselves. They are a means to an end - what that end varies between people, but in general it's "working in x area" which, if you're taking A-levels, usually also requires one or several degrees as a further means to that end.

However, do you accept that in society most people percieve the term 'intelligence' as in how high your grades are. If someone is getting A*s very early on in the year, then surely they are clever because despite hard or not, you have to be clever to get a high grade on a test, I mean A*s because if someone is naturally intelligent, and they wing it and don't revise for a test then it's very difficult to get high grades, do you get what i mean?
You're right that A-levels aren't the end, there's so many successful people that aren't very academically able but have made it very far

However, do you accept that in society most people percieve the term 'intelligence' as in how high your grades are. If someone is getting A*s very early on in the year, then surely they are clever because despite hard or not, you have to be clever to get a high grade on a test, I mean A*s because if someone is naturally intelligent, and they wing it and don't revise for a test then it's very difficult to get high grades, do you get what i mean?
You're right that A-levels aren't the end, there's so many successful people that aren't very academically able but have made it very far

Eh, you still can.

It's just that far less people can do it at A-level.

However, do you accept that in society most people percieve the term 'intelligence' as in how high your grades are

If someone is getting A*s very early on in the year, then surely they are clever

because despite hard or not, you have to be clever to get a high grade on a test

if someone is naturally intelligent

You can't get A* in first year even if exams are linear. That's not how it works.

The teachers said you could?

There is no such thing as "natural" intelligence. Knowledge is only as useful as the context in which it is applied - you could write out the works of Chaucer, but if you had no idea what any of the importance of it was, then you would do very poorly in any literature exam. Not to mention you could be a world class literary critic, but this knowledge would be useless if you were asked to build a shelter in the Serengeti (or differentiate x^2...)


You make good points , but (what I highlighted in bold), this is rather controversial, as, natural intelligence must exist because is someone doesn't revise for an exam and get a high grade then surely they must already have the 'sufficient' knowlege to achieve that grade, with minumum revision, then they are able to understand concepts quickly and hence are 'naturally' smart.
However, my definition of 'natural intelligence' is someone who is able to understand things quickly and don't need to revise over them because they already understand it and are able to achieve high grades in an exam. So if you don't think grades mean you're clever, then surely it is how able you are to undertstand things?

Not necessarily, because people understand things differently, and at different rates. Besides which, exam grades offer only the barest insight into someones ability to reason and "learn" - which is why Oxbridge interview any candidates they may take to see how well they actually do adapt to new information or known information in unfamiliar contexts.

I have no doubt there are thousands of epistemological arguments on the topic as well, however I am no philosopher so can't offer any insight into that. Suffice it to say, the concepts of knowledge, intelligence and understanding are a lot more nuanced than presented in this thread.

I'm sure there are at least a few with a passing background in the area in the philosophy forum should you wish to probe the subject more deeply however...