3 ms·

> Or, simply by virtue of being more intelligent. Life is not fair, and some people do have it easier than others I'm really not convinced this is the case wh

> Or, simply by virtue of being more intelligent. Life is not fair, and some people do have it easier than others I'm really not convinced this is the case when reaching higher level education. My experience is that "being smart" is an advantage for the first years - say up to bachelor - at which point there is no magic: if you don't work, you won't get your exams. This is in part because most exams will test not only your raw understanding, but also your practical experience at solving quickly/intuitively all the little pieces leading to the solution. And that can only be achieved in time if you're comfortable with this mental gymnastic, which comes with practice. > If you are pursuing a research career, and you observe other students putting similar amounts of effort, but obtaining much better results, understanding things more quickly and getting better ideas, you should probably just drop out Come on... I am a firm believer that exams test skill sets that are only partially correlated to being actually good at job X - even if X is fundamental research.

xyzzyz 4y ago
> My experience is that "being smart" is an advantage for the first years - say up to bachelor - at which point there is no magic: if you don't work, you won't get your exams. Yes, if you don't put in the effort, you won't achieve very much, but this doesn't mean that being smart is not an advantage. It is, both early and late. It is clearly advantageous to both be smart and put in the effort over just putting in the effort. In fact, if you read my comment carefully, you'll observe that I explictly pointed that out, here: > and you observe other students putting similar amounts of effort Next, > I am a firm believer that exams test skill sets that are only partially correlated to being actually good at job X - even if X is fundamental research. Again, if you read my comment carefully, you'll observe that I never mentioned exams. I discussed > obtaining much better results, understanding things more quickly and getting better ideas, which is what you do in actual research, not just exam studying. I would really appreciate it if you read what I say more carefully, and respond to what I'm actually claiming, instead of what you incorrectly believe I am.
poulpy123 4y ago
Actually you can find people that are really "smarter" that others, who get things noticeably quicker, even in research. Although as you note, being smarter isn't enough at university level. But in any case they are a too small sample to make the modern science work, and most of the scientists are, well, average people maybe "smarter" than the average people but not by very much. What makes the difference is interest, motivation and opportunities. And I say that as a former scientist that decided he wasn't smart (and interested) enough but who met many non-scientist smart people in his life

xyzzyz 4y ago

> My experience is that "being smart" is an advantage for the first years - say up to bachelor - at which point there is no magic: if you don't work, you won't get your exams. Yes, if you don't put in the effort, you won't achieve very much, but this doesn't mean that being smart is not an advantage. It is, both early and late. It is clearly advantageous to both be smart and put in the effort over just putting in the effort. In fact, if you read my comment carefully, you'll observe that I explictly pointed that out, here: > and you observe other students putting similar amounts of effort Next, > I am a firm believer that exams test skill sets that are only partially correlated to being actually good at job X - even if X is fundamental research. Again, if you read my comment carefully, you'll observe that I never mentioned exams. I discussed > obtaining much better results, understanding things more quickly and getting better ideas, which is what you do in actual research, not just exam studying. I would really appreciate it if you read what I say more carefully, and respond to what I'm actually claiming, instead of what you incorrectly believe I am.

poulpy123 4y ago

Actually you can find people that are really "smarter" that others, who get things noticeably quicker, even in research. Although as you note, being smarter isn't enough at university level. But in any case they are a too small sample to make the modern science work, and most of the scientists are, well, average people maybe "smarter" than the average people but not by very much. What makes the difference is interest, motivation and opportunities. And I say that as a former scientist that decided he wasn't smart (and interested) enough but who met many non-scientist smart people in his life