Is Intelligence not as big an attraction as it was?

I mean way back, back in the 80's & early 90's when GCSE'S were harder than in say the last twenty years or so if a guy got a couple of grade C passes he could potentially get a job as a Bank Clerk. That was the kind of entry level criteria, a couple of GCSE passes grade A-C and above to get in that line of work. Before then dane deal different name GCE or O'levels. Point being that getting a job like that was seen as quite admirable at the time, good safe clean environment, reasonable pay, ability to move up the chain over time and sone degree of social status.

So girls could see such a guy as quite admirable. Sure he wasn't seen as intelligent as a guy who could go on and get A'levels and something more but he was seen as a peg above those that got no GCSE'S, those going into manual work, shop work, blue collar stuff. So potentially seen in a better light by girls on that way. The biggie of course would be to get to University which was particularly special achievement back in the day and could entail big things. These days of course it's nothing particularly special and nearly half the country go to Uni and graduating is almost like recieving a high school certificate as so many people get one.

So is intelligence even that much of a draw for women these days as it seems difficult to tell since the system doesn't really stratisfy like it used to decades ago?

As a side note I would say that recent results from GCSE'S etc have been an encouraging turn around where more people have been failing. That may sound awful but I don't think the previous twenty years or so where it seemed like everyone was passing really helped. Instead of separating the wheat from the chaff and no disrespect if being the chaff as you can still get on sometimes remarkably well but it made it look like everyone was intelligent and can win in academia. That I feel was a crucial error in going to far that it hid those that weren't that great academically in all too easy testing with those that were better academically. Main point is that it ended up with too many graduates and no one being remunerated fairly for their efforts as it swamped the labour markets with graduates meaning low pay for most.

That of course all rolls into if there are fewer graduates and you are being paid better then you are more attractive as a guy to girls and so the system then works. The way it has been though is that I feel there hasn't been due reward for effort due to everyone being seen as intelligent due to the easier examinations therefore making it harder to tell who really is intelligent and at what level. So is intelligence an overlooked commodity by girls in guys in society these days?

Reply 1

Admit-One

Universities Forum Helper

21

This seems like quite a fanciful way of looking at dating and attractiveness in the 80’s.

This was an era of video dating agencies and lonely heart ads. I don’t think Johnny Bank Clerk commanded as much capital as you imagine.

Reply 2

greg tony

16

Original post by Anonymous

I mean way back, back in the 80's & early 90's when GCSE'S were harder than in say the last twenty years or so if a guy got a couple of grade C passes he could potentially get a job as a Bank Clerk. That was the kind of entry level criteria, a couple of GCSE passes grade A-C and above to get in that line of work. Before then dane deal different name GCE or O'levels. Point being that getting a job like that was seen as quite admirable at the time, good safe clean environment, reasonable pay, ability to move up the chain over time and sone degree of social status.

So girls could see such a guy as quite admirable. Sure he wasn't seen as intelligent as a guy who could go on and get A'levels and something more but he was seen as a peg above those that got no GCSE'S, those going into manual work, shop work, blue collar stuff. So potentially seen in a better light by girls on that way. The biggie of course would be to get to University which was particularly special achievement back in the day and could entail big things. These days of course it's nothing particularly special and nearly half the country go to Uni and graduating is almost like recieving a high school certificate as so many people get one.

So is intelligence even that much of a draw for women these days as it seems difficult to tell since the system doesn't really stratisfy like it used to decades ago?

As a side note I would say that recent results from GCSE'S etc have been an encouraging turn around where more people have been failing. That may sound awful but I don't think the previous twenty years or so where it seemed like everyone was passing really helped. Instead of separating the wheat from the chaff and no disrespect if being the chaff as you can still get on sometimes remarkably well but it made it look like everyone was intelligent and can win in academia. That I feel was a crucial error in going to far that it hid those that weren't that great academically in all too easy testing with those that were better academically. Main point is that it ended up with too many graduates and no one being remunerated fairly for their efforts as it swamped the labour markets with graduates meaning low pay for most.

That of course all rolls into if there are fewer graduates and you are being paid better then you are more attractive as a guy to girls and so the system then works. The way it has been though is that I feel there hasn't been due reward for effort due to everyone being seen as intelligent due to the easier examinations therefore making it harder to tell who really is intelligent and at what level. So is intelligence an overlooked commodity by girls in guys in society these days?

I agree with some of your points, particularly the push or widening of university to students with low academic profiles. I think as a society with have put too much weight in getting a degree, particularly when it is purely seen as just a tick box to get general or non-qualification specific roles. Many employers just use degrees as a way of screening out applicants, so their HR has less work. For me academia is more than just a means to an end, it is also about developing analytical thinking, broadening interests and passions etc. I think it is all a huge shame these days (as your post alludes to), with education seen less a journey of discovery/curiousity and more about how many zeros a salary has.

That being said, going to unversity has i feel wrongly been equated to intelligence, similar to how many top marks people get on A levels etc. It is not the same at all, the same way getting a PhD is not equivalent to someone being a genius ( i have a doctorate myself and am just as stupid as the next person). Working hard, being organised and curious, alongside a smattering of intelligence is key to academic success, not just intelligence. Plenty of intelligent people dont do well academically also for a whole raft of reasons. Really intelligent people make choices based on an assessment of themselves and their needs first and foremost, and individual success is rarely ever to do with what qualification you have, more so what you do with it and what you have learnt.

If you see academia as simply a way of getting a top job you may also be part of the problem.

Take care,

Greg

Reply 3

Anonymous #1

OP

Original post by Admit-One

This seems like quite a fanciful way of looking at dating and attractiveness in the 80’s.

This was an era of video dating agencies and lonely heart ads. I don’t think Johnny Bank Clerk commanded as much capital as you imagine.

Both of those were for those that were entirely desperate, back then for the few not the many. Nothing like the numbers that use online dating & apps like Tinder these days. Lonely Hearts columns I always felt were for those at the end of their tether. Always felt sad seeing those in the paper. Never did any of that but my impression was that level of response would likely be slim to none. Basically no pic or anything just the usual standard words & stuff so very anonymous.

Bank Clerk was my initial thought of what to do when I was in secondary school in the early nineties (yep I'm an old student now). It needed a couple of GCSE'S that I though I might be able to stand a good chance at. By the time I took my GCSE'S in the mid nineties I did better that I expected when I had that career intention. I got 7 GCSE passes A-C when I originally thought I might just wangle a few. So then it made it possible to do A'levels so I thought, 'why not'. In theory the higher you can get up the chain the better the job and the more appealing you are to girls. I then did reasonably ok at A'levels, enough to get into Uni and so same again as the big offering was getting an even better job. Little did I realise so many other people were able to to the same as I as stuff was being made easier even back then.

Had I taken my GCSE'S a few years prior I'm pretty sure all my grades would be one less than what they were. Basing that on the intermediate maths paper used to be restricted to a C and then when I took it, it was restricted to a B. So on that basis I would have probably only have gotten 2 GCSE passes.

So from the government making it easier I ended up going to Uni when otherwise I wouldn't have had the grades to go and would probably have gobd for Bank Clerk instead. I know Bank Clerk these days is nothing to write home about but back then I had the impression it had reasonably good status for a young guy starting out.

Reply 4

Anonymous #1

OP

Original post by greg tony

I agree with some of your points, particularly the push or widening of university to students with low academic profiles. I think as a society with have put too much weight in getting a degree, particularly when it is purely seen as just a tick box to get general or non-qualification specific roles. Many employers just use degrees as a way of screening out applicants, so their HR has less work. For me academia is more than just a means to an end, it is also about developing analytical thinking, broadening interests and passions etc. I think it is all a huge shame these days (as your post alludes to), with education seen less a journey of discovery/curiousity and more about how many zeros a salary has.

That being said, going to university has i feel wrongly been equated to intelligence, similar to how many top marks people get on A levels etc. It is not the same at all, the same way getting a PhD is not equivalent to someone being a genius ( i have a doctorate myself and am just as stupid as the next person). Working hard, being organised and curious, alongside a smattering of intelligence is key to academic success, not just intelligence. Plenty of intelligent people dont do well academically also for a whole raft of reasons. Really intelligent people make choices based on an assessment of themselves and their needs first and foremost, and individual success is rarely ever to do with what qualification you have, more so what you do with it and what you have learnt.

If you see academia as simply a way of getting a top job you may also be part of the problem.

Take care,

Greg

I agree university (academia) and intelligence are two different things but loosely academia has often been seen by many as a sort of pegging of intelligence in an abstract sense.

So back in the day when it was hard to get into Uni a lot of people would tend to think that person was intelligent for managing to do it in the abstract sense. A girl would see that the guy had it up top enough to be capable of it and may gain favour with her over guts that weren't capable. Now most people are capable of it if they put their mind to it as the hurdles are much easier to pass.

Sure some people like all the learning for what they can learn side of it. Others want a definite pay back for what they learn, the time spent learning, the effort involved and the financial cost involved. I think many fall into the latter as few want to spend years of their life at it without a payback on their efforts otherwise they wouldn't feel so keen doing it in the first place reckon. Many I think feel duped when leaving uni and finding out salary levels are often not much if any better than non grad jobs unless they did something where they had to be pretty superb with maths or similar.

Reply 5

gjd800

20

I'm around the same age as you and I have never, ever associated getting good grades with being able to pull the women. The idea of it seems bonkers to me.

Reply 6

Anonymous #1

OP

Original post by gjd800

I'm around the same age as you and I have never, ever associated getting good grades with being able to pull the women. The idea of it seems bonkers to me.

Not directly grades but the well paid jobs it used to be associated with. To be honest that world was really a few years prior to when we were at it. So anyone graduating in the 80s or earlier.

When I was working my part time job in a supermarket I remember the manager saying he had a 'drinkers degree' a 2:2. So while he didn't graduate top of the tree even that landed him a job with a reasonable salary, though of course there are much better jobs around.

I think by the time we were at it in the mid nineties or so the situation was changing underneath our feet as it were. I along with many others probably did a degree based on passed assumptions since that was all there was to go on. Noticing things weren't going to be as lucrative going forward I think you'd have to had been very much on the ball.

Reply 7

Surnia

20

Original post by Anonymous

In theory the higher you can get up the chain the better the job and the more appealing you are to girls.

Someone's job can be appealing, then they open their mouth...

Intelligence =/= common sense or a good conversationalist or having social skills or a sense of humour. I have higher qualifications than my boyfriend, he's more widely travelled than me; we met in the same employment sector and we get on brilliantly.