This thread actually reminds me of a conversation my best friend and I had today. (So I already have a rant prepared). Throughout high school, I met quite a few people who were proud of the fact that they could do well without trying. I don't quite understand why this is a source of pride. Sure, it means you're probably inherently very smart. But it also means you're not challenging yourself. And if you're proud of this, then either you're lazy or you have no passion for what you're doing.
This is very very true. I have a lot more respect for someone who studied a lot for something than someone who got the same score by not studying at all. Honestly, if you know that you know "nothing about rotational mechanics" but still didn't study at all, all it indicates is that you didn't care very much about the subject matter. Now, you don't have to love physics to go to Caltech, but if you want to be a physics major, you better love physics or you're going to be a very miserable person.</p>
<p>EDIT: I'm not the first Techer seconding this post. Prefrosh: listen to its words of wisdom!</p>
<p>First, I suspect we're being a little hard on WashDad's son -- though presumably that was the point of the original post.</p>
<p>Before I get to that, though... JamesK -- I've been fortunate to know some of the smartest people of our generation, and I have never met anyone who doesn't "occasionally come across problems that [he or she gets] wrong." That's one useful aspect of coming to Caltech. You get to observe the best firsthand and learn that nobody is as otherworldly-smart as you dreamt some people were in your parochial high school slumber.</p>
<p>Of course, you may also learn (cue WashDad's son) that you're not quite as smart as you imagined in that slumber either. But you may learn that you are. I've never been a fan of the tuck-tail under-tummy-and-sit-still attitude of exaggerated humility that one is supposed to acquire at the mention of Caltech or MIT or a comparable place. G.H. Hardy said that "great work is not done by 'humble' men," and there is something to that. Have the temerity to think sometimes that you may be extraordinary — the audacity of ambition is not such a bad thing.</p>
<p>I do agree that it's kind of low-class to brag about how little you tried to bring into relief how impressive your raw abilities are. But it doesn't necessarily bespeak a lack of passion (pace neapol1s) so much as a confusion about how to make the most of your talents. (Maybe studying is like steroids -- dishonorable help for those who can't hack it on their own. Then the truly honorable intellectual will want to show that he can do without it. Not so overwhelmingly plausible, but I'd buy it after a couple of beers.)</p>
<p>Maybe the truly useful lesson is this -- and TMiike said something very much like it before. Your son actually has a decent shot at being near the top of the Caltech pool in raw physics talent. Maybe not, but there's certainly a decent chance. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, he's #1. But there's also #2, and #3. They're working hard. One of the main lessons you learn at this place is that natural ability gets you to the starting line and then you have to run pretty fast. The world is full of people who even got a mile head start due to truly exceptional abilities and are still standing there, wondering what that distant cheering is 25.2 miles ahead.</p>
<p>So I wouldn't discourage your son's faith in his abilities. I'd encourage him to do right by those abilities by developing a proper degree of passion and focus. Since he might just be one of the few people in the whole world with a chance of being truly exceptional at something, how sad would it be to waste it by not doing that? To quote my partner in motivational speaking, Eminem, what I wish for your son with respect to physics is this: "I hope you can't sleep and you dream about it / And when you dream I hope you can't sleep and you scream about it." </p>
<p>I usually respect people who study for the subject far, far more than I respect those who study just to get a good grade in their classes. I figure studying for grades merely indicates ambition, whereas studying for knowledge indicates a love of learning.</p>
<p>And often those who get good grades seemingly without studying actually studied for the subject a while back and thus have the material ingrained in them so well they don't even have to study for the test. Which is why I respectfully disagree with those who hate the "lazy" people :)</p>
<p>One of the manifold advantages of being <em>cough</em> years old is that I've had a fairly long period of time to see all sorts of approaches to both success and failure. Thank you for your insights.</p>
<p>Junior is a smart kid. Junior can also be stubborn, opinionated, and impervious to suggestion. I've also seen him trying to teach algebra to 11-year-olds, patiently helping someone learn to read a topo map, and explaining how to code a PID algorithm to his actress/writer/non-math-friendly mother. Junior is -- in my experience -- a fairly typical mess of adolescence. I've been priveleged to spend seven years as a Boy Scout leader, and am starting my third year as a mentor for a FIRST robotics team, so I've had more than a casual amount of contact with utes. </p>
<p>My initial comments about Junior up there in post 1 were meant to be light-hearted and humorous. I think anyone starting college should do so with a certain amount of humble appreciation that there are levels of understanding in almost any field that are hard to see from the foothills of high school. That Junior hasn't figured this out yet (it's not like he's going to believe me) is not particularly surprising to me. It is funny, however, in a dark way. I know someone else in my family (ahem) who was passionately interested in international relations and signed up for an upper division seminar in his first term of his freshman year. Hilarity ensued and "this person" learned a little humility pretty quickly. The apple does not fall far from the overly confident tree.</p>