<p>IQ of 160+ (one of the smartest people in the world, one of the most talented mathematicians) but managed to live in a shack in the middle of the woods.</p>
<p>Generally i would agree with someone who says hard work can make you better at most things. I say most because some things just dont really work.</p>
<p>For example, in high school I decided to kick it's ass one day, and for the next two years in school i was one of the best in my class. My writing is easily way better than before, my critical thinking skills too. But math, that is a different story. No matter how hard I try I always seem to get Bs in it. hard work can only take you so far. Luckily, although I love math and find it very interesting, my passion is languages which I have a great talent for picking them up in comparison to any of my peers, so my focus in college is mostly going to be on them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
IQ of 123 (low by quantum physicist standards) but still managed to get a Nobel Prize in Physics and become a professor at Caltech.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would interpret this sooner as evidence that IQ tests are limited. Feynman was highly inquisitive and brilliant; he wasn't simply a hard worker.</p>
<p>"If you study 30 hours for several weeks and fail the midterm, it's not a problem of intelligence, talent, OR hard work. There's something seriously wrong with either your chosen major, or your system or studying."</p>
<p>That seems to be a very small-minded thing to say... First off not every class someone studies hard for and doesn't do well in is what they intend to do for a living. It may just be a necessary evil of the curriculum. There are some things people are just better at than others. If a class is mostly rote memorization and you are a better critical thinker or more imaginative then you may not do well in a class like that. D had to take organic chemistry as part of her major. Won't ever use it again but had to take it. She struggled mightily in it despite tutoring and everything else. No issues with higher level math or physics. Will take P Chem next semester and likely do well. I understand the intent of what you say but it just hit me wrong. Thanks!</p>
<p>lol Feynman and the unabomber both accomplished a lot. you may not like what the unabomber did but sometimes insanely smart people are very abnormal and hard to understand</p>
<p>
[quote]
That seems to be a very small-minded thing to say...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sorry you feel that way. But a midterm is a test to see if you are on the right track with how much you have learned in the class. If you are putting in a lot of studying time (30 hours a week is an enormous amount, imo) and you don't even pass that indicates that there is a greater problem.</p>
<p>Feynman was a Putnam fellow at MIT, meaning he scored in the top 5 on an intercollegiate math exam that basically serves to show which university has the most math geniuses. H was a genius in every sense of the word, and that IQ test score was probably an abberration.</p>
<p>Einstein did bad in math supposedly, but he is still widely regarded as one of the most intelligent people in history. As to regards in studying for 30 hours and still managing an epic fail, that one guy might be right about you not studying in a manner best suited for the subject. Its even possible you studied too much and burnt yourself out. </p>
<p>One manner of studying that I've been told by several different people is to go over the material that you learned last class the hour before class, and then for an hour go over the stuff you learned in class right after class. That means you look over the material twice outside of class and can make the connections from one lesson to the next. When a test time comes up, studying won't really be necessary(hopefully). Its better than cramming, of course I've never had the discipline to follow through on this form of studying.</p>
<p>Kelsey, nothing crappy was meant by what I said but if you are someone who has never struggled in a class I can see where you would say something like that. My point is not everyone is great at everything. Some people are. From the sound of it you are one of those folks. All the better for you. If everyone's 4 years in college consisted only of classes they were very good at then I think we would have a lot more graduates. The greater problem sometimes is you just suck at certain things...no matter how smart you are. That is why there are specialties in a lot fields.</p>
<p>It's more like intelligence, talent + hard work > *. There's so much competition nowadays, being smart alone isn't enough. You have to have the natural ability AND you have to work very hard, if you want to get anywhere.</p>
<p>I can attest to the notion that intelligence is much more important than hard work in college. That's why it is a bad idea in college to take classes "to challenge yourself" like you might have done in high school.</p>
<p>i agree: my sister worked her @$$ off for 4 months preparing for the SAT and got a 1910 and i just looked at a couple of notes the day before the test and got a 2040 and aiming to get a 2100+ next time... however hardwork DOES get you somewhere... if my sister didn't work for it she would've gotten a 1400</p>
<p>
[quote]
Kelsey, nothing crappy was meant by what I said but if you are someone who has never struggled in a class I can see where you would say something like that. My point is not everyone is great at everything. Some people are. From the sound of it you are one of those folks. All the better for you. If everyone's 4 years in college consisted only of classes they were very good at then I think we would have a lot more graduates. The greater problem sometimes is you just suck at certain things...no matter how smart you are. That is why there are specialties in a lot fields.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I've definitely struggled in a class. :) And I know not everyone is great at everything... I'm absolutely not. But, please forgive the assumption, it seems like you are applying this to other situations than the one discussed. I'm not speaking about people who struggle in class - I'm speaking about the OP's situation.</p>
<p>I would equate "struggling" as working hard and still getting D's and C's. Or perhaps working an average amount and failing. Studying 30 hours a week for multiple weeks for one class and still failing - does that really seem like am average struggling student to you? At 30 hours a week, plus attending class, something should be getting through. Do you really see 30 hours a week of studying + a failing grade = a simple case of someone having trouble in a class?</p>
<p>My point in posting this was not to make the OP feel stupid or anything like that. In fact, just the opposite as he seems to assume he is not intelligent since he failed despite his hard work. My point is to say that it is probably not a question of intelligence or hard work, but that there may be something else wrong (studying habits aren't effective perhaps?) and he should discuss this with an academic advisor.</p>
<p>(I'm assuming for the sake of this thread the OP was not exaggerating about 30 hours a week, as that's the thing that amazes me - if it's less, then I can see this as a simple case of "struggling".)</p>
<p>I think the premise of this thread is true; there are people that are just that smart, but they are relatively few in number.</p>
<p>Some people don't have to work until high school, some people don't need to work until college. Still others have to work hard in school from day one. It's a reflection of our bell curve world.</p>
<p>Those people that find college unchallenging MAKE it challenging by taking graduate-level courses, by doing cutting-edge research, by becoming part of academia. There are very few of them, and chances are that you aren't one of them, and neither am I</p>
<p>We're told we can do anything we want to do if we put our minds to it and there is definitely an extent to which that saying is appropriate, but it's not a rule. People who overcome great disabilities (esp. learning disabilities) to accomplish great things obviously have latent talent; just as many people with those disabilities remain average on their standards.</p>
<p>Does that mean that you should resign yourself to a lower, more appropriate standard? No; most of us know how to set goals that are within our limits. Short of delusion, most of you know if your standards are reasonable. It's neigh impossible to preach to the ones who don't know and won't get it, and as harsh as it might seem those individuals truly deserve it when they overextend themselves and fail.</p>