<p>AP Lang is something you can’t really study for. Focus on physics instead.</p>
<p>True, and my Lang teacher is doing a phenomenal job preparing us for it.</p>
<p>That’s good! Good luck on the tests–Lang was the easiest AP test I’ve taken so far.</p>
<p>@OboeWhizzy
It is not my philosophy - it is the method of virtually every successful person. They enjoy what they do - not for some tangible appeasement. True appeasement from learning is intangible - it is enjoyment from doing what you have a passion for. The reason why many people are unsuccessful is because they get worried. Worried because of the stupid names like “Advanced Placement.” Worried because if they do not pass they will not be admitted to MIT. Why is AP Calculus BC “stressful?” If you do not like it, then do not take it. If you do like it, then you should easily get 96% if you actually enjoy it - not some superficial passion to look smart. </p>
<p>Lol, my lang teacher has scared the majority of my class into believing that it’s one of the hardest exams in AP land. I know otherwise, because of what you (and loads of others) have said.</p>
<p>They all say that. They try to give AP a reputation equivalent to the most difficult course in the world - when that is not so. </p>
<p>@wannabefeynman
Yeah I don’t find BC Calc stressful at all…great teacher, interesting concept. At heart, I gravitate naturally toward the more theoretical sort of math, which is why I seem to have been better from the very start at Calc than the simple applications in physics. I self-studied 3 chapters just today, (not stressful at all), but just a bit tiring.
AP and IB are always made to seem impossible, scaring away a load of prospective students who don’t think they can take it. They’re really not as difficult as they are made out to be, and the real work is in how you plan your own time efficiently to meet the demands of the course. When you have good study plans and work ethic, AP classes are not difficult at all. And obviously if you love the subject.</p>
<p>I never took classes I did not enjoy. I hate English, so I refrained from taking the AP version of it. AP, IB, Gifted etc are all given incorrect reputations. Now, when you get to honours differential topology, that will be more difficult. Of course, it is not like anything is not possible given enough work. </p>
<p>I think the “gifted” programs are the worst. First of all, it gives second-graders the belief that they are somehow superior to their peers because they are “gifted” and others are not. IQ means nothing. Out of the top five students in my class, only one was in the gifted program. The kids placed there in second grade have the same class distribution as the rest of the “ungifted” grade. I was not a member of the gifted program, but I am currently standing at second place in the rankings. Work and dedication is what really gets success, not a mind that might be just a bit brighter.</p>
<p>Both are reaches just because their admission rates are so low that even qualified applicants are rejected or WL. Harvard and Princeton will see how well you did in high school based on the opportunities available.
Your extracurriculars are decent. Only your oboe playing may help you in your chances, but there may be just as qualified applicants who also have sports and other things who are applying.</p>
<p>@OboeWhizzy
Just because you are in the top 5 of the class does not mean that you are truly smart or creative. People like Bill Gates are creative. He dropped out of Harvard (and obviously people like you would think that that’s the worst way to go in education) and started Microsoft. Look where that got him. Obviously, other people dropped out of Harvard, but they weren’t creative or smart enough to DO something with their gifts. People at the top of their class just do well on tests and homework assignments, usually in a classroom setting with no hands-on experience that actually mean something in today’s job market. IQ does not mean anything either, yes. Coupled with extreme arrogance, IQ can be destructive. However, a high enough IQ with creativity can mean something.</p>
<p>@redwall1521
Where did you see OboeWhizzy showing arrogance?</p>
<p>@wannabefeynman
I never said OboeWhizzy showed arrogance. I just used that to explain something. Maybe you should read more closely.</p>
<p>@redwall1521
Then your post was completely irrelevant. Why would you talk about why being "in the top 5 of the class does not mean that you are truly smart or creative</p>
<p>@redwall1521
You cannot assume anything about my creativity just based on my class ranking. This all goes up to personality and other less tangible stuff, to be seen in my college essay and teacher recommendation letters.
I don’t know my IQ, and do not plan to know it. IQ means nothing.
Low IQ’s with creativity can mean something too. The IQ scoring system is very flawed and does not come close to determining the capabilities of the unfathomably intricate human mind. To lump all of those brain functions and capabilities into a single number that somehow is supposed to determine your intellectual worth would be to oversimplify and miss the meaning of “intellect” completely.
As you can see, I disapprove of IQ testing.
On the contrary, a high IQ without creativity can mean things too. Not everyone is a leader, just like not everyone is a creator. A born genius who is not a born inventor can use things that he/she already knows and become successful too, working for someone or simply being able to work very efficiently.
A high IQ with extreme arrogance can create destruction, but is quite beneficial to the possessor of such attributes, if they are indeed that intelligent. Genghis Khan had quite the happy life because he was so destructive with his high IQ, creativity (when it came to killing people and destroying things), and arrogance (he almost had the entire f*cking continent of Asia). Hitler had those things but was miserable in the end because he still wasn’t smart enough.</p>
<p>@OboeWhizzy
This thread is going a bit off track, but the issue was not that Hitler was not smart enough. Germany were the most advanced in terms of strategy during the second world war - they just made a few tactical mistakes, like the Luftwaffe bombing London for 57 consecutive nights (the Blitz). </p>
<p>@wannabefeynman
It sure is. But Hitler was also quite afraid of dying, and he wanted to make sure he actually saw Germany’s final victory. Thus, he decided to attack the USSR, in addition to pretty much everywhere else in Europe, and on top of his tactical mistakes his army just couldn’t handle it all. If he had kept on Stalin’s good side and focused his energies on his western foes, he would have had a fair chance at success. But he rushed it, making rash decisions not because of his military ideas but because he could not wait longer and take the more logical route. He was smart, yes, but not smart enough to avoid being impulsive.</p>
<p>Yay for digression.</p>
<p>Forgive me for not mentioning the corollary to what I have already stated. I mentioned that being in the top five doesn’t mean you are truly smart or creative, but there are some smart and creative people who will be successful, and they don’t have to be in the top five to be successful (aka success does not come from a class standing).</p>
<p>For example, I found this interesting article that describes what I’m trying to say perfectly:
"In her book, Lives of Promise: What Becomes of High School Valedictorians, Professor Arnold states that high school valedictorians go on to do well in college, averaging an overall 3.6 grade point average. Most went on to work in conventional careers such as accounting, medicine, law, engineering, and education.</p>
<p>Arnold says, “While valedictorians may not change the world, they run it and run it well…but just because they could get As doesn’t mean they can translate academic achievement into career achievement.” </p>
<p>She also stated, “they’ve never been devoted to a single area in which they can put all their passions…The opportunities to become famous or change the world as an accountant, for example, are few and far between…They obey rules, work hard, and like learning, but they’re not the mold-breakers. They work best within the system and aren’t likely to change it.”</p>
<p>Translation: Valedictorians don’t make good entrepreneurs and investors because they’re afraid of risk. They make great employees."</p>
<p>From <a href=“Why Valedictorians Fail”>Why Valedictorians Fail;
<p>Read the rest. It makes a lot of sense.</p>
<p>And make sure you realize that it very good grades and standings does not guarantee you a successful future. Now you may think you are successful, but take a look at yourself in 20 years and then we’ll compare again.</p>
<p>Not saying that I have a “successful” future yet, but I’m not hoping on grades and standings to land me a successful career.</p>