"the naturally smart kids aren't usually the ones who do well in the HSC" (1 Viewer)

[Enteebee]

er yeah guys photographic memory is pretty much just a myth... Some people have REALLY GOOD memory, but chances are they're using memory techniques that any of us could train and develop somewhat.

 

[Lukybear]

But if you want to train your memory to be really great, then you must have a great mind (nautrally). I mean no matter how hard a brain dead person try to learn to have photographic memory, they never going to have it.

Its like no matter how hard i try to learn german ill never get it. I still havent got english perfect anywaz...

 

[BackCountrySnow]

To melanie:
Yeah, it's a good way to start a discussion without spending too much time on the OP.

the OP's statement has as much meaning as saying "i like food" (on second thoughts, maybe less)

if we were to use the analogy of a computer here

a naturally smart kid would have a higher processing speed, meaning he could get more/higher quality work done than someone with a slower processor. that does not mean however, that he will get more/better work done. other qualities such as perserverance, emotional quotient and behavioural patterns step in after that

but computers dont have perseverance, emotional quotient and behavioral patterns. stick to the analogy person!

Back on topic though, Sonya, I don't believe you contradicted yourself. To understand complex concepts is not the same and remembering information. A lot of people find it easy to rote learn, otherss actually try to understand it.

 

[scaredytiger]

Back on topic though, Sonya, I don't believe you contradicted yourself. To understand complex concepts is not the same and remembering information. A lot of people find it easy to rote learn, otherss actually try to understand it.

the idea she was trying to convey was valid. her posts just didnt express it well, and hence, she contradicted herself.

 

[jules.09]

To melanie:
Yeah, it's a good way to start a discussion without spending too much time on the OP.



but computers dont have perseverance, emotional quotient and behavioral patterns. stick to the analogy person!

Back on topic though, Sonya, I don't believe you contradicted yourself. To understand complex concepts is not the same and remembering information. A lot of people find it easy to rote learn, otherss actually try to understand it.

Agreed.

I find that I can grasp new concepts very fluidly, but I struggle to rote learn. So actually retaining information is quite difficult ..

To address the thread's question: I think to do well in the HSC, you need to study real hard and persevere to get optimal marks. In doing so, you can become the equivalent of the 'naturally smart kid'. That being said, the kind of HSC course content covered seems to demand a lot of rote learning and fast recall under exam pressure. That may be advantageous for those who are brilliant rote learners and the naturally smart kids can potentially be turned off by this arduous process of memorisation.

Admittedly, you have to have some intelligence to do well.

 

[BenLees]

I am naturally smart and lacking the work ethic to dominate at school. I guess there's an argument to say im not so smart for not working, but its like ive never had to so i dont know how. But i wish the more you knew, the less you showed. If only hsc markers saw it that way

 

[nirvanafreak02]

who cares, just get what you need for uni @_@

agreed.


but to further the discussion..

my school is currently ranked 3rd in regards to hsc results (check top schools list if you really want to know, oh wait it's in my profile, lol)
anyway, there are many naturally talented kids in my cohort
BUT it's the ones that have put in 110% effort who are currently ranked in the top 10

a lot of my grade has the potential to receive a uai 99+
but the problem is a lot of those 'naturally smart' kids are lazy as hell
the slighter 'less' gifted children who spend their days studying are the ones that eventually catch up and actually overtake (Stalin would be provide)

I think, in part, my school's narcissism is to blame because we've been told that our average uai is 98.9
this has meant that most of us have assumed that we can put in minimal effort and still get an incredibly high uai because our "awesomeness" that means our school marks will get moderated like a bitch and we're just sooooo much smarter than the rest of the state

it's a sad misconception that will ultimately lead to much disappointment amongst my peers

anyway back to procrastinating and thinking that attendance at my fantastic school will mean that i'm going to ace the hsc and laugh about the superiority of selective schools

in conclusion,
put in the effort
it's all about playing the hsc game
if you don't know how to play it, you won't get that wonderfully high uai

 

[Hagaren]

Agreed, they haven't really ever had to apply themselves before and despite understanding most of the content they don't put in as much effort as those who need to work in order to understand concepts and take their knowledge for granted. In the end because the HSC is designed to reward consistent effort they often fall behind.

The school system is gay, we have classes for kids who have learning difficulties so why not something at the opposite end of the scale for those with the ability to excell.

Also year 10 should be abolished it's a waste of time.

 

[timobr0]

Discuss.

Well, from my own experience, I can say that statement is true.

 

[sam04u]

I didn't do all that good in the HSC, and I consider myself to be naturally smart. But then again, I could just be wrong.

Also Sonya, your definition of naturally intelligent is extremely flawed, fortunately somebody else has pointed that out. Natural intelligence is not merely quickly "grasping" new ideas or topics. Natural intelligence is already having an understanding of these ideas and merely being exposed to them under a controlled environment.

For example a person with learnt intelligence can complete patterns, however, they generally have to learn what a pattern is and how it works.

A naturally intelligent person already knows what a pattern is and understands how they work, so they don't have to learn WHAT a pattern is (even for the first time), they merely learn that it's called a "pattern", and learn some new applications for it (other than arranging tiles on the bathroom floor).

I think I can say with confidence, you are not a "naturally intelligent" person.

 

[jaggy snake]

Lol, the fuck is everyone getting on sonyaleeisapixi's back?

This thread is full of fail and AIDS.

 

[tommykins]

Lol, the fuck is everyone getting on sonyaleeisapixi's back?

This thread is full of fail and AIDS.

you're the cancer.

 

[gcchick]

I've always done well in school and could be defined as 'naturally smart', but have never felt the need to put in any effort. Now it's HSC and I'm extremely lazy and couldn't be stuffed.

 

[ccc123]

Lol at this thread, and specifically the 'Is Sonia natually smart' debate. Clearly, this argument can never be resolved since it is inextricably linked to the nature v nurture/ nativism v tabula rasa debate which invariably, can be discussed ad naseum.

And then there's the eternal issue of what constitutes 'intellgence'. Is it necessarily confined to academic success, or is it fair to say there are different types of intellegence that are not quantatively measured in school, and therefore the HSC?

But I digress....

In response to OP:

The HSC isn't a measure of intellegence, but rather, a person's ability to learn, retain and regurgitate large quantities of information. This is a cognitive skill, but is not tantamount to intellegence which encompasses more than what is tested in the HSC.

Therefore, holistically intellegent people, naturally or otherwise may not perform well in the HSC, while those who are of lower interllectual capability (but nonetheless possess the skills specific to the HSC) can still perfom well, and yes, sometimes to a higher standard then their more intellectually well-rounded counterparts.

 

[wrong_turn]

from my cohert i found that people that had originally been smart to begin with ended up with high uai's anyway.

then there was those very few who started to actually care about the hsc and went from average to being top in most of thier subjects.

and then there are those who slack off in the hsc and cant be bothered to study because hsc is gay

 

[Forbidden.]

Those who rely entirely on photographic memory or simply just engdlessly regurgitate information in the HSC should burn in a fire along those who do not show who voted in a poll (as of August 2008).

Rock On

 

[revo]

what?

 

[midifile]

If this were all an ego fuck I'd be fighting back hard, but I'm not.

And to be ranked first in all but maths, btw.

I'm smart

I am smart

Sorry for joining in on the sonya bashing, but seriously, we all get that you are smart, you dont have to reinforce it in every thread. Yes, you should be proud of doing well (as am I), but continually bringing it up shows either insecurity or arrogance. If the thread is about subject/trial, etc results feel free to flaunt them, but otherwise, respond a little more objectively, rather than bringing it back to how smart you are.

Anyway, in response to the actual thread, I think the question is flawed. At which point is a student considered "naturally smart" and what is considered "doing well"?

 

[AppleNader]

Natural intelligence alone will only get you so far, hard work and dilligence will take you to a truly elite level but only if you have the natural intelligence to begin with.

An average student will be capped even if they worked hard but will still do better than the smart student that slacks off.

I guess this applies to other areas like professional sprts, business...etc and not just the HSC.

 

[tahlsy31191]

There must be a degree of 'natural intelligence' for a UAI of even 80+ as 70 is an average student.
Although i know a lot of people who have been average all through school and pulled 98+. Hard work really is the key.