I'd like to go further and posit the novel relativistic proposition that there is no such thing as intelligence, and thereby elevate myself to gee-nius :cool: . There see, I leap-frogged you when your guard was down
Some of the most intelligent and clever people I have ever met have never been to university at all. A myth is being perpetuated that university students are more intelligent than the general population and whilst there are some very intelligent people at unis, there are lots who are no better or worse than the rest of the country.
Some of the most intelligent and clever people I have ever met have never been to university at all. A myth is being perpetuated that university students are more intelligent than the general population and whilst there are some very intelligent people at unis, there are lots who are no better or worse than the rest of the country.
I agree with you. However some of the most sparkling vibrant interesting people I have met did go to university.:D I did'nt but wish I had.
True but now it would be for the wrong reasons. Young people need the places and i have other very rewarding commitments. But I regret the missed opportunity.
It's not universities that make you brainy, but books. The more books you read, the brainier you become.
Wait, so it ain't webpages? Dagnabbit, I been done reading these webpages for ages and ages and I ain't seeming to be getting any smarter. I guess I gone goofed again.
Does anybody here really believe that they would be able to distinguish between those forum members who had been to Oxbridge, versus those who had been to other, supposedly lesser universities, versus those who had never been to university at all; solely on the basis of the quality of their posts here?
Heres an example that may answer your question, and this is true.
One student who got A* in all GCSE's, 12 in total, predicted A's in all A levels, from a normal working class family and state school educated, passed all entry exams and got an interview at Oxford. Went up there for the 3 days of interviews, but wasn't offered a place. She later got 2 A*'s, and 2 A's at A level. Now happy at a another university.
Another pupil there at the same time for interviews, private school educated, very rich family, with only 5 A* GCSE's, was offered a place.
So no, Oxbridge do not have the most intelligent pupils.
Flakecake, perhaps the girl did badly in her interviews.
I've sat on employment interview panels and I've noticed how the Oxbridge graduates excel in interviews.
Yes I guess she must have but the question was whether they hold the most intelligent pupils, not whether they are better at interviews. Surely a University place should depend on whether you are able to do the work, not whether you are able to sell yourself regardless of your ability to deliver.
Flakecake, perhaps the girl did badly in her interviews.
I've sat on employment interview panels and I've noticed how the Oxbridge graduates excel in interviews.
Something worth noting. Over the years I've learnt that intellegence and hard work is simply not enough to really get on. Other than certain specific careers (like professors of physics or mathematics), for most top jobs in industry and government what is most important is your connections, background, confidence and the way you speak and behave. You also need to be reasonably intellegent, but not a genious IQ.
People who go to public school and then on to Oxbridge will tend to have more of these 'right' behaviours and connections and this is the main reason they tend to dominate most of the top jobs IMO rather than the fact that they are super intellegent.
Something worth noting. Over the years I've learnt that intellegence and hard work is simply not enough to really get on. Other than certain specific careers (like professors of physics or mathematics), for most top jobs in industry and government what is most important is your connections, background, confidence and the way you speak and behave. You also need to be reasonably intellegent, but not a genious IQ.
People who go to public school and then on to Oxbridge will tend to have more of these 'right' behaviours and connections and this is the main reason they tend to dominate most of the top jobs IMO rather than the fact that they are super intellegent.
I'll probably get slagged off for this but people who tend to get ahead have super confidence, ego, entitlement etc. Basically they are more narcississtic than others. Being born privileged gives you a heads up in these stakes. Not all rich people are like that but they tend to be willing to settle for far less because they're already used to having so much. In an interview with "fuddy duddy's" they are more likely to be able to hold their own and not get nervous because they've been around powerful people their whole lives and it's expected that they'll do on and do big things.
For a lot of working class, even getting to uni is an achievement and big things are not expected. It takes much longer to find out how the system works and how to play it. The elite already have the connections and they do have better advantages. They might not be more intelligent but if you are sitting on the university panel and you have two canditates, one is an academically bright unknown from Backofbeyondshire and the other is the less bright but offspring of the guy who makes large donates to the science department, who are you going to give the place to?
I'll probably get slagged off for this but people who tend to get ahead have super confidence, ego, entitlement etc. Basically they are more narcississtic than others. Being born privileged gives you a heads up in these stakes. Not all rich people are like that but they tend to be willing to settle for far less because they're already used to having so much. In an interview with "fuddy duddy's" they are more likely to be able to hold their own and not get nervous because they've been around powerful people their whole lives and it's expected that they'll do on and do big things.
For a lot of working class, even getting to uni is an achievement and big things are not expected. It takes much longer to find out how the system works and how to play it. The elite already have the connections and they do have better advantages. They might not be more intelligent but if you are sitting on the university panel and you have two canditates, one is an academically bright unknown from Backofbeyondshire and the other is the less bright but offspring of the guy who makes large donates to the science department, who are you going to give the place to?
I'll probably get slagged off for this but people who tend to get ahead have super confidence, ego, entitlement etc. Basically they are more narcississtic than others. Being born privileged gives you a heads up in these stakes. Not all rich people are like that but they tend to be willing to settle for far less because they're already used to having so much. In an interview with "fuddy duddy's" they are more likely to be able to hold their own and not get nervous because they've been around powerful people their whole lives and it's expected that they'll do on and do big things.
For a lot of working class, even getting to uni is an achievement and big things are not expected. It takes much longer to find out how the system works and how to play it. The elite already have the connections and they do have better advantages. They might not be more intelligent but if you are sitting on the university panel and you have two canditates, one is an academically bright unknown from Backofbeyondshire and the other is the less bright but offspring of the guy who makes large donates to the science department, who are you going to give the place to?
Completely agree.
You're only likely to get slagged off by the super successful themselves, who despite all the points you made above, like to believe that the reason for their success is purely due to their superior intellegence and hard work and has nothing to do with a privelaged background. :mad:
Don't worry though. They're all probably far too important to be reading this thread!
You're only likely to get slagged off by the super successful themselves, who despite all the points you made above, like to believe that the reason for their success is purely due to their superior intellegence and hard work and has nothing to do with a privelaged background. :mad:
You're just bitter and jealous because they're better than you
It's not universities that make you brainy, but books. The more books you read, the brainier you become.
No. It's not how much information you know. It's your capacity to use what you know. The ability to implement what you know to solve problems in the real world. Just because you know what happens at the end of Tale of Two Cities does not mean that you know why it happened or that you can fully understand or apply the themes of the book to real world situations.
No. It's not how much information you know. It's your capacity to use what you know. The ability to implement what you know to solve problems in the real world. Just because you know what happens at the end of Tale of Two Cities does not mean that you know why it happened or that you can fully understand or apply the themes of the book to real world situations.
Pretty much agree there.
Sometimes people mistake knowledge or memory for intelligence.
Lateral thinking is far more usefull in the real world than the ability to memorise Shakespear.
Does anybody here really believe that they would be able to distinguish between those forum members who had been to Oxbridge, versus those who had been to other, supposedly lesser universities, versus those who had never been to university at all; solely on the basis of the quality of their posts here?
I think the likelihood is no Oxbridge students would post here.(other than maybe the technical sections) I think this forum is very much Joe_public(and that includes me) which means we're a little bit of a drop in the ocean.
(we can still laugh at those Oxbridge students who jumped off a bridge into a shallow river though)
I think the likelihood is no Oxbridge students would post here.(other than maybe the technical sections) I think this forum is very much Joe_public(and that includes me) which means we're a little bit of a drop in the ocean.
(we can still laugh at those Oxbridge students who jumped off a bridge into a shallow river though)
There are definately students who read at one of the 'Oxbridge' Universities who post on here. Not all 'Oxbridge' educated people are public-school hooray Henry types.
I think the likelihood is no Oxbridge students would post here.(other than maybe the technical sections) I think this forum is very much Joe_public(and that includes me) which means we're a little bit of a drop in the ocean.
Are you serious?
I guess they are all reading Proust and drinking fine wines so can't lower themselves to mix with the hoi polloi...
The average Oxbridge student is far smarter than the average non-Oxbridge student. It's not even close.
Garbage.
Although I do accept there's some exceptionally bright people at Oxbridge. Without doubt some of the smartest in the country (I think it would be silly to claim otherwise), there's also a lot of middling, unexceptional people who got there because they where given the best public school education and because of who they knew (or rather who their parents knew) helped get them there.
I'm sure there's a lot people who left school at 16 because of poor education, who are far brighter than some Oxbridge students.
Comments
I completely agree.
I agree with you. However some of the most sparkling vibrant interesting people I have met did go to university.:D I did'nt but wish I had.
'Tis never too late.
True but now it would be for the wrong reasons. Young people need the places and i have other very rewarding commitments. But I regret the missed opportunity.
One student who got A* in all GCSE's, 12 in total, predicted A's in all A levels, from a normal working class family and state school educated, passed all entry exams and got an interview at Oxford. Went up there for the 3 days of interviews, but wasn't offered a place. She later got 2 A*'s, and 2 A's at A level. Now happy at a another university.
Another pupil there at the same time for interviews, private school educated, very rich family, with only 5 A* GCSE's, was offered a place.
So no, Oxbridge do not have the most intelligent pupils.
I've sat on employment interview panels and I've noticed how the Oxbridge graduates excel in interviews.
Yes I guess she must have but the question was whether they hold the most intelligent pupils, not whether they are better at interviews. Surely a University place should depend on whether you are able to do the work, not whether you are able to sell yourself regardless of your ability to deliver.
Something worth noting. Over the years I've learnt that intellegence and hard work is simply not enough to really get on. Other than certain specific careers (like professors of physics or mathematics), for most top jobs in industry and government what is most important is your connections, background, confidence and the way you speak and behave. You also need to be reasonably intellegent, but not a genious IQ.
People who go to public school and then on to Oxbridge will tend to have more of these 'right' behaviours and connections and this is the main reason they tend to dominate most of the top jobs IMO rather than the fact that they are super intellegent.
For a lot of working class, even getting to uni is an achievement and big things are not expected. It takes much longer to find out how the system works and how to play it. The elite already have the connections and they do have better advantages. They might not be more intelligent but if you are sitting on the university panel and you have two canditates, one is an academically bright unknown from Backofbeyondshire and the other is the less bright but offspring of the guy who makes large donates to the science department, who are you going to give the place to?
Exactly. I completely agree with you.:)
Completely agree.
You're only likely to get slagged off by the super successful themselves, who despite all the points you made above, like to believe that the reason for their success is purely due to their superior intellegence and hard work and has nothing to do with a privelaged background. :mad:
Don't worry though. They're all probably far too important to be reading this thread!
No. It's not how much information you know. It's your capacity to use what you know. The ability to implement what you know to solve problems in the real world. Just because you know what happens at the end of Tale of Two Cities does not mean that you know why it happened or that you can fully understand or apply the themes of the book to real world situations.
Pretty much agree there.
Sometimes people mistake knowledge or memory for intelligence.
Lateral thinking is far more usefull in the real world than the ability to memorise Shakespear.
I think the likelihood is no Oxbridge students would post here.(other than maybe the technical sections) I think this forum is very much Joe_public(and that includes me) which means we're a little bit of a drop in the ocean.
(we can still laugh at those Oxbridge students who jumped off a bridge into a shallow river though)
There are definately students who read at one of the 'Oxbridge' Universities who post on here. Not all 'Oxbridge' educated people are public-school hooray Henry types.
I guess they are all reading Proust and drinking fine wines so can't lower themselves to mix with the hoi polloi...
Garbage.
Although I do accept there's some exceptionally bright people at Oxbridge. Without doubt some of the smartest in the country (I think it would be silly to claim otherwise), there's also a lot of middling, unexceptional people who got there because they where given the best public school education and because of who they knew (or rather who their parents knew) helped get them there.
I'm sure there's a lot people who left school at 16 because of poor education, who are far brighter than some Oxbridge students.
I put 'brainy', not intelligence.