3 ms·

Indian definition of academic achievement is very rote learning focused. The academically very successful person is not likely to be very intelligent, they migh

Indian definition of academic achievement is very rote learning focused. The academically very successful person is not likely to be very intelligent, they might just happen to be hard working because indian education system is mostly rote learning based. In the above-average-but-not-best part of academic achievements spectrum is where most of the actually intelligent people are found. They are not as studious as their hardworking "topper" counterparts, but in general, actually understand the subjects and can think creatively. In my experience here, I have seen lot of "academically succesful" people and lot of intelligent people, there are very few people who are in both of these sets.

llamaz 6y ago
I agree, but I'd argue that most education is similar, unless you live in Finland or went to special technical school for e.g. math or physics. In university I had a few lecturers that tried to be different. They tested knowledge rather than hard work, and how many times you've drilled past exam papers. Generally these courses made the students feel out of control of their fate, stressed/anxious, and they hated the course. If I'm being honest I was one of those students. Ultimately, the kind of "smart" you're talking about is not useful or valued. There are a small percentage of students, who are not only smart, but also good at "gaming" the system. A small percentage of this subset might end up in research and development, and the students who would be good at R&D don't get the chance to prove themselves. For most students, being good at "gaming" the system, following instructions, and learning by rote is good enough. To be a doctor or a lawyer, you need to know by rote the basic fundamental knowledge. Thereafter it's constant practice and experience in actually practising medicine/law, and the associated accumulation of knowledge of all the "little tricks" and intricacies, that makes you a good professional.

llamaz 6y ago

I agree, but I'd argue that most education is similar, unless you live in Finland or went to special technical school for e.g. math or physics. In university I had a few lecturers that tried to be different. They tested knowledge rather than hard work, and how many times you've drilled past exam papers. Generally these courses made the students feel out of control of their fate, stressed/anxious, and they hated the course. If I'm being honest I was one of those students. Ultimately, the kind of "smart" you're talking about is not useful or valued. There are a small percentage of students, who are not only smart, but also good at "gaming" the system. A small percentage of this subset might end up in research and development, and the students who would be good at R&D don't get the chance to prove themselves. For most students, being good at "gaming" the system, following instructions, and learning by rote is good enough. To be a doctor or a lawyer, you need to know by rote the basic fundamental knowledge. Thereafter it's constant practice and experience in actually practising medicine/law, and the associated accumulation of knowledge of all the "little tricks" and intricacies, that makes you a good professional.