-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Natural talent or just a lot of hard work put in? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter louise08
- Start date
sonyaleeisapixi
inkfacewhorebitchpixie.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,327
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2008
Its a mixture of both to succeed at that level.
Youve got to be gifted, but you've also got to be prepared to work.
Youve got to be gifted, but you've also got to be prepared to work.
white ferret
Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 100
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2008
a combination of both. coz u needa be smart.. but if u dont put in the effort, it's not gna get u anywhere.. unless u have an AMAZING memory or something..
white ferret
Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 100
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2008
i feel sorry for the one that had to work to get the marks.. whilst it seems the other one didnt do much, apart from being born slightly smarter!theshortykatt said:
Caitlin63
:-)
to get really high marks you do need some degree of natural talent, but in reality if you dont work your butt off you don't get the marks
lyounamu
Reborn
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,998
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
I shall change what I said above. I don't think the role that the natural talent plays is significant. I think it's all about choosing subject that suits you and doing well in it. That is because HSC is designed so that you can just ace it without studying. You have to understand the concepts, memorise the contents, apply it and know every aspect of it.
Everyone is talented in something. It is just that we need to choose subjects where we actually fit in. For example, if I did Food Technology, I would absolutely flunk the subject whereas I can expect better marks in Mathematics.
I realised that there are stacks of people who choose subjects wrongly and as a consequence of that, they are performing poorly.
As long as you choose your subjects right and as long as you know what you are doing, all you need is to put adequate effort to set the bar up. I reckon effort plays about 90%. Then, where does 10% come from? Well, you tell me.
Everyone is talented in something. It is just that we need to choose subjects where we actually fit in. For example, if I did Food Technology, I would absolutely flunk the subject whereas I can expect better marks in Mathematics.
I realised that there are stacks of people who choose subjects wrongly and as a consequence of that, they are performing poorly.
As long as you choose your subjects right and as long as you know what you are doing, all you need is to put adequate effort to set the bar up. I reckon effort plays about 90%. Then, where does 10% come from? Well, you tell me.
Pace_T
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,784
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
i kinda disagree with the statement that 'you aren't born smarter'. i think the difference lies in how well a student can absorb information given to them by their teachers and resources. i guess this is dependent on if you were born that way but also on your effort.
i believe anybody can get 99+ but it depends on how quick they get the hang of things. if they struggle to understand and hold information in comparison to their classmates, they'll have to put in more effort.
with that said however, to achieve 99+, even if you naturally hold information really well, it also takes a lot of work.
i believe anybody can get 99+ but it depends on how quick they get the hang of things. if they struggle to understand and hold information in comparison to their classmates, they'll have to put in more effort.
with that said however, to achieve 99+, even if you naturally hold information really well, it also takes a lot of work.
dux&src
just a star-crossed lover
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 1,370
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2010
Like most people have said a combination of natural talent and effort is required for a 99 UAI!
I have a friend who wasn't doing so well till year 10 when he suddenly put in maximum effort and achieved Dux of his year (his in year 12 now) he suprised everyone. He told me he did not care about study/school when he was in year 9. In year 10 he put in effort and got close to dux and year 11 he duxed his year convincingly!
According to him he studies 7 hours a night! 5pm to 12am
I have a friend who wasn't doing so well till year 10 when he suddenly put in maximum effort and achieved Dux of his year (his in year 12 now) he suprised everyone. He told me he did not care about study/school when he was in year 9. In year 10 he put in effort and got close to dux and year 11 he duxed his year convincingly!
According to him he studies 7 hours a night! 5pm to 12am
Last edited:
Tully B.
Green = procrastinating
I know people who lasted on natural talent up until the end of year 10, at which time they went downhill and are totally flunking year 11
I'm not naturally smart, but I do work pretty hard
(By the way, 7 hours a night is just idiotic.)
I'm not naturally smart, but I do work pretty hard
(By the way, 7 hours a night is just idiotic.)
Aplus
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,384
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
Effort must always be applied.
If a person who is naturally talent, neglects to apply the effort towards their education, then gradually, over time, that person's ability will decrease.
If a person who is not as talented (not to be rude), applys a high level of discipline, consistency and effort towards their education, then over time, the amount of time and work that person is applying towards their education will cause their abilities to increase.
If a person who is naturally talent, neglects to apply the effort towards their education, then gradually, over time, that person's ability will decrease.
If a person who is not as talented (not to be rude), applys a high level of discipline, consistency and effort towards their education, then over time, the amount of time and work that person is applying towards their education will cause their abilities to increase.
sle3pe3bumz
glorious beacon of light
I personally believe that it's effort. Especially if you're talking about 99+. I know many people who withhold this "natural talent" but still don't so well.
Aplus
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,384
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
Nautral talent and no effort: Ranges from satisfactory to high level of achievement
Natural talent with effort: Expect an outstanding level of achievement
Ordinary talent and effort: Expect your motivation and hard work ethic to reward you with excellent level of achieve
Idiot and no effort: Start praying
Natural talent with effort: Expect an outstanding level of achievement
Ordinary talent and effort: Expect your motivation and hard work ethic to reward you with excellent level of achieve
Idiot and no effort: Start praying
Seriously?fOR3V3RPINKKKK said:fucking lol. hey it worked for me.
P.S. <3 God
I think Hard-work > Natural Aptitude
HOWEVER: Over working, studying several hours flat and not giving yourself a break =/= Hard-work. People who study like this are usually (and I do say usually) using time inefficiently with an inappropriate study method, and could possibly augment into a total break down.
Last edited:
kurt.physics
Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2007
- Messages
- 840
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
How does one rate 'natural' talent?
I conclude its relative, I shall use an example of some of the Australian International Mathematics Olympiad (IMO) contestants to show this.
Lets take Max Menzies for example, he went to the IMO in 2007 and got a silver medal. One might say that he is genius! (this is what one may say) Wow, look at him, he won a silver at the most difficult mathematics in the WORLD. I would agree with this hypothetical person, he should be regarded as gifted.
But (no offense to Max), Another Australian IMO contestant is regarded to be superior to Max. Terrence Tao is the youngest perfect scorer Gold medalist at the IMO at age 13! He had already been to the IMO twice before this achievement, receiving a bronze and silver!
And also compare this to the Dux of your school (if your not in a selective school like Ruse ) They are regarded as fairly talented compared to their peers within that school.
So i believe through these examples, that 'natural' talent is relative.
Also consider how these people got to the IMO. Both Max and Terrence 'fell in love' with mathematics. This is their motivation, just being talented would not have got them to the IMO, they are interested and intrigued. Whats the difference, could it be because Max fell in love with mathematics when he was in year 9 and Terrence fell in love with mathematics at roughly age 3? Or is it genetic?
So without hard work i.e. determination then talent is just something made up.
Thats my opinion!
I conclude its relative, I shall use an example of some of the Australian International Mathematics Olympiad (IMO) contestants to show this.
Lets take Max Menzies for example, he went to the IMO in 2007 and got a silver medal. One might say that he is genius! (this is what one may say) Wow, look at him, he won a silver at the most difficult mathematics in the WORLD. I would agree with this hypothetical person, he should be regarded as gifted.
But (no offense to Max), Another Australian IMO contestant is regarded to be superior to Max. Terrence Tao is the youngest perfect scorer Gold medalist at the IMO at age 13! He had already been to the IMO twice before this achievement, receiving a bronze and silver!
And also compare this to the Dux of your school (if your not in a selective school like Ruse
) They are regarded as fairly talented compared to their peers within that school.So i believe through these examples, that 'natural' talent is relative.
Also consider how these people got to the IMO. Both Max and Terrence 'fell in love' with mathematics. This is their motivation, just being talented would not have got them to the IMO, they are interested and intrigued. Whats the difference, could it be because Max fell in love with mathematics when he was in year 9 and Terrence fell in love with mathematics at roughly age 3? Or is it genetic?
So without hard work i.e. determination then talent is just something made up.
Thats my opinion!