<p>Intelligence, IQ, or "smart": they all stand for the same thing.</p>
<p>It seems that most people believe that good grades or generally high academic performance is directly proportional to your level of IQ. I find that this has a very demotivating effect on the vast majority of students. If a student were to get a C in high school math, and notice that his peer got an A -seemingly- effortlessly, then the former would begin to think that he's just "not a math person" and blame it on his genetics, rather than blame it on lack of organized work or effort.</p>
<p>We all have to concede the fact that your IQ or genetic factor plays some sort of role in your performance in general, not just academics. But the point I'm trying to bring up is: Is the effect of genetics overstated in our student mentality?</p>
<p>The chances that you'll be another Albert Einstein in the world of Physics are slim unless you have the genetic factor to aid you, but that doesn't mean that you can't be a pioneer in Physics a great amount of motivated, organized, efficient, and coordinated effort.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I've read an interesting study somewhere but I just can't seem to find it at the moment: A group of psychologists hand-picked high school students who were flunking or getting sub-par grades in math. The students seemed to be under the spell that if you don't have the genetics for it, you can't do it. The researchers began to teach these students that your IQ can be molded, and that it can be shaped and somewhat increased by learning more. Surprisingly, the students had major changes in performance when they changed their mindset. In other words, those who believe they can improve, more often than not actually do: the amazing effect of mentality on your performance.</p>
<p>I also had a friend who believed that the effect of IQ was incredibly overstated, and that a great deal of it can be molded by your intelligent effort. This friend got a 1400 on his first SAT, on his third trial, he landed a 2100.</p>
<p>Discuss.</p>
<p>First, IQ does not equal intelligence. Intelligence is a wishy-washy construct that we try to quantify in many ways, and IQ is just one of these. It also happens to be very socially, culturally, and economically biased. (I did my extended essay on this in IB, sorry.)</p>
<p>Second, the idea of the “self-fulfilling prophecy” has been well documented: if you tell someone they’re going to do poorly, they will do poorly. That’s essentially what IQ is being used for in what you’re describing. IQ has been documented as a good predictor of academic and career success, but it’s hard to say how much of this is due to this self-fulfilling prophecy. There are also plenty of instances of people accomplishing great things without shockingly high IQs. Sure, DaVinci is thought to have had an IQ around 200, but Washington’s was possibly 118 (only a few points above average range). While we’re at it, Hitler had an IQ of 141 and Kennedy’s was 117.</p>
<p>Seems like you’ve already decided your answer.</p>
<p>In my experience, you have to have both intelligence and a work ethic for true success. I have the intelligence, but not the work ethic, so I’m not too successful. (This isn’t to say that I scoff at the idea of doing work and think myself above it; I genuinely have a hard time with it, which is a real weakness.)</p>
<p>Regardless of whether IQ is an accurate measure of ‘intelligence’, I think the concept of the importance of ‘natural intelligence’ is overemphasized. Even if people are born with some unchangeable base intelligence level, there’s not much you can do about that. All you can really do is work hard and try your best, cliche as that is. </p>
<p>Also, I think most people are close enough to average that–barring learning disabilities or other issues–they should be able to do okay, academically, if they put in a lot of work. In my school, I’ve noticed that most kids in AP classes are not necessarily significantly smarter than kids in the CP or standard classes; they just care about school more, put in more work, and generally had more educated/pushy parents to motivate them. </p>