<p>^Yes, this is true, especially if one interprets “commitment” and “aptitude” loosely - in some classes, it would mean a commitment to kissing up to the teacher and an aptitude for cheating.</p>
<p>You guys must have really ****ty professors.</p>
<p>The wikipedia articles you linked don’t support your argument, they merely illustrate debate on the issue. The number of cited articles doesn’t mean anything. I can use your logic and say [Scientology</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology]Scientology”>Scientology - Wikipedia) The church of Scientology has 250+ references, that must mean the Church of Scientology is legitimate. You should be citing specific articles and drawing arguments from them, instead of linking to a generic web page.</p>
<p>Comparing humans to animals is non sequitor. We can’t compare breeding animals to breeding humans just like we can’t euthanize humans when they are injured like we can to deer or horses. No, just no.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with BIGeastBEAST and disagree with ksarmand in that I don’t feel that one needs to interpret the sentence so negatively.</p>
<p>Think of a 2x2 matrix with the following combinations: high aptitude, high commitment; high aptitude, low commitment; low aptitude, high commitment; and low aptitude, low commitment. The HAHC will perform the best while the LALC will perform the worst. A more interesting question is how well the middle two combos perform. In my opinion, it should go HAHC >= LAHC >= HALC. The three could all perform equally well, but I think the LAHC is likely to perform better than the HALC when it’s all said and done.</p>
<p>I admit bias; at least compared to some of my friends, I was a LAHC. They played World of Warcraft all day long during our freshman year, and yet they finished the year with a 3.8/4.0 GPA, one B per semester. I finished my first year with a 4.0/4.0, but I studied much more than they did. Yet, in the end, I graduated with a 4.0 while their performance monotonically worsened. They used to be solid 3.8 students; now, they hover around 3.0. You can last but you won’t excel without commitment.</p>
<p>^^^So you think grades measure commitment more thoroughly. </p>
<p>I think your idea that LAHC gets better grades than HALC is only true outside of the top colleges in the USA. A LAHC at a top school will really struggle, because their low aptitude is extremely unique (most students at that school will have very HA relative to most college students)–and professors can weed out students without failing too many. I’ve never attended a community college, but I imagine a HALC can’t be weeded out without failing a majority of the class. </p>
<p>The only way your matrix makes sense is if aptitude and commitment are strictly relative terms that compare only students within the same college.</p>
<p>I really don’t think grades measure intelligence. They measure how well you’ve learned and understood the material. You can have an A in a history class because you memorized all the presidents, but this doesn’t mean you are necessarily intelligent. Conversely, you could receive a failing grade in the same class because you didn’t bother memorizing, but this doesn’t mean you lack intelligence.</p>
<p>Obedience has a big role too. This year, my lowest grade was in macroeconomics, but it is the only AP exam I’m sure I got a 5 on. My grade dropped a lot in that class because of participation (aka not shouting out “ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS THE INVENTOR OF REGANOMICS LAWL” like some kids in my class who got higher participation grades than me). It was the course material I mastered best, but still my lowest grade because of that.</p>
<p>Really though, you need a combination of factors. In order of importance:</p>
<ol>
<li>Understanding the material</li>
<li>Obedience</li>
<li>Intelligence (using historical facts to make connections, figuring out how to derive an equation you forgot, etc.)</li>
</ol>
<p>Aptitude and committment are both needed (I’m not sure about what Ksmarand was getting all huffy about).</p>
<p>For example, if you put me in a Physics course, I’d probably do poorly. Maybe not fail, but definitly not excel. Because, admittedly, I do not have the aptitude for the material in physics. So even if I tried really, really hard - I’d probably still do mediocre.</p>
<p>On the other side of the coin, you could put me in a history or Poli Sci course and I could probably grasp the material pretty quickly without much problem. But, if I wasn’t committed to the course, missed classes, didn’t do assignments, didn’t pay attention, didn’t do assign readings - then I’d still do poorly, regardless of my aptitude for the material.</p>
<p>^^^I’m going to get thrashed for saying this, but that sounds like someone simply lacking intelligence/“general” aptitude. </p>
<p>If you can’t handle conceptual material like Physics but you can soak concrete knowledge like History and reapply it in a thesis, then you are a good studier and can memorize information quickly. </p>
<p>This sounds like the definition of commitment as opposed to aptitude. Obviously, if you don’t go to history lectures then you can’t effectively commit to the class. Therefore, you don’t do well.</p>
<p>EDIT: Oh, and yes, this implies that I consider those who can’t “master” history to simply be lazy/lack commitment. </p>
<p>Bring it.</p>
<p>I don’t think grades measure intelligence, at least not my opinion of what intelligence is.</p>
<p>I know lots of people who got excellent grades but are dumb as bar stools.</p>
<p>I’m not sure why posters keep using the term “obedience”, sounds stupid. I mean, if you want to learn a subject you’ll need to put time into it, that should be obvious.</p>
<p>Aptitude and intelligence are separate things in my book, and grades generally measure aptitude for a subject pretty well.</p>
<p>^^^I’m going to get thrashed for saying this, but that sounds like someone simply lacking aptitude. </p>
<p>If you can’t handle conceptual material like Physics but you can soak concrete knowledge like History, then you are a good studier and can memorize information quickly.</p>
<p>This sounds like the definition of commitment as opposed to aptitude. ~Justtotalk</p>
<hr>
<p>Well I just picked Physics out of a hat, math just wasn’t my strong subject. </p>
<p>But I agree with you, my post was meant to say that I lack the needed aptitude for physics. So regardless of how committed I was, I would still probably be mediocre.</p>
<p>I didn’t read past the first few posts, but I just wanted to toss my two sense in.</p>
<p>Grades measure knowledge.</p>
<p>Intelligence and knowledge are not the same thing. Knowledge can be based on just straight memorization with no actual intelligence at all. Sure, you need a base level of intelligence, but after you’re at a functioning point you can basically memorize your ways to better grades.
Intelligence is more of a measure of how well you learn things. Memorization is not learning something well. Understanding is. Intelligence is a measure of how well you can understand things. Knowledge is a measure of how many things you know regardless of understanding.</p>
<p>So yeah, I believe the grading system is in no way a measure of intelligence, but unfortunately for certain professions there’s no way around formal school, regardless of your intelligence level.
College and especially high school grades are based on obedience (but it includes memorizing exactly what you were told to.) not intelligence, but more intelligence makes earning higher grades easier.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can understand that.</p>
<p>But I think it naturally follows into the second point: That a high intelligence, low commitment person would excel more in Physics than history/poli sci, and vice versa for a low intelligence, high commitment person.</p>
<p>Obviously only a high intelligence, high commitment, high luck person would every truly excel in either general field, but lets assume we’re choosing between the two.</p>
<p>“Grades measure knowledge. etc”</p>
<p>Not the case in any of my non liberal arts classes. For example, physics. You can have learned all the material (you can even have the book right in front of you, access to the internet, etc.), but if you have no/weak critical thinking ability (a component of intelligence) you will do very poorly on the exams, due to the nature of the problems. In many classes, you need to be able to synthesize concepts in order to address a problem (something you can’t do by just learning the concepts on their own… hence intelligence is required).</p>
<p>can understand that.</p>
<p>But I think it naturally follows into the second point: That a high intelligence, low commitment person would excel more in Physics than history/poli sci, and vice versa for a low intelligence, high commitment person. ~ Justtotalk</p>
<hr>
<p>I agree with you…</p>
<p>But I’d switch “intelligence” with aptitude.</p>
<p>A high apptitude, even for difficult subjects like physics doesn’t = high intelligence. At least not in my opinion.</p>
<p>^^On the other hand, Biology and to a lesser extent Chemistry both favor students that can memorize a lot of information.</p>
<p>Of course, I am sure there are fields in Chemistry and Biology that require more “intelligence” than memorization skills. I guess maybe we are painting with too broad strokes.</p>
<p>@Sithis
Yes you’re right, but that lack of intelligence can be made up with a large number of practice problems which many students and teachers recommended for people in classes like that or Organic Chemistry who are struggling. Eventually you’ll stumble across a similar problem.
I do agree that classes like that do measure intelligence a little more though.</p>
<p>Haha, not in this class. Complaints like “None of the HW problems were like these,” “He didn’t teach us this,” and “These types of problems were not in the textbook” were all too common. I honestly think that at least physics (Calc-based Mech. and E&M) at my school is more a test of critical thinking ability than it is a test of what you know about the concepts of physics (probably the same at many others). Maybe its because those classes are usually major core requirements for engineering students as well as physics majors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do, yes. Aptitude is certainly factored in; I submit the following as (admittedly weak) evidence:</p>
<ol>
<li>Freshman year roommate’s fall semester GPA: 2.2/4.0.</li>
<li>Freshman year next-door neighbor’s fall semester GPA: 2.9/4.0
3 & 4. Friends’ down the hall fall semester GPAs: 3.8/4.0</li>
<li>Other friend down the hall’s fall semester GPA: 3.2/4.0</li>
</ol>
<p>All five of them “never studied,” or if they did, it was an all-nighter that degenerated into a mix of World of Warcraft and Facebook more so than actual studying. And yet, even though they all basically took the same classes, with exceptions here and there, the GPAs ranged from 2.2 to 3.8/4.0. Seems a lot like evidence of aptitude differential to me, given that their “commitments” were equally low. Even though my aptitude was not as high as 3 & 4’s, I ended up with a higher GPA than they did because of my commitment.</p>
<p>Sithis- Then this class seems to be the exception that makes the rule.</p>