Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
Originally posted by @CB-Saint
Intelligence is heriditary
Realising the potential of that intelligence is entirely based upon circumstance be it school, upbringing, affluence, mentors, luck.
Also, my definition of intelligence is not one to be proven or disproven by exams.
With you on that -
And that’s fine, but as I asked earlier, how do you expect Universities and employers to judge intelligence if not through exam results?
Originally posted by @Halo-Stickman
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
Except it didn’t really touch on the points you’ve been making, but instead was a general overview on intelligence as hereditary.
Yes, Lou, I was giving a general overview response to Chertsey’s nature/nurture comment.
Here is a more specific and personal response.
As I mentioned above, my grandfather was a dustbin-man. Just over a week ago I was at the Sheldonian Theatre to watch my state-educated son graduate with a masters degree from Oxford Uni. No ‘privileged background’; just lots of hard work. Yes, he met with a fair degree of snobbery; and, yes, it will be interesting to see if he loses out to those with a ‘privileged background’ in the jobs market.
But his is an example that, as I think you previously mentioned, opportunities do exist for ‘ordinary’ families to change their circumstances over a couple of generations.
I’m not saying there hasn’t been, and this is a fantastic story. Scholarships have also provided opportunities. But there still exists in some industries (broadcasting for one) a very Oxbridge/private school mentality which isn’t based on intelligence, but where you’re from, who you know, what your accent is.
I guess Chertsey’s point is that’s not a bad thing, how else do you judge capability. My point is these decisions are not based on capability but an old school network way of thinking that doesn’t drive innovation or excellence.
Gladly, in my industry (design) it’s less of an issue, and achievements are based on what you do. Jonathan Ives, one of the world’s greatest innovators is a good example of this.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
Originally posted by @CB-Saint
Intelligence is heriditary
Realising the potential of that intelligence is entirely based upon circumstance be it school, upbringing, affluence, mentors, luck.
Also, my definition of intelligence is not one to be proven or disproven by exams.
And that’s fine, but as I asked earlier, how do you expect Universities and employers to judge intelligence if not through exam results?
In the same way as top Universities and employers choose 10% of the 4A* students who apply for each job and uni place. Decent interviewing, assessments etc, extracurricular activities. Fit for the organisation. Attitudes and behaviours
1 Like
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
Except it didn’t really touch on the points you’ve been making, but instead was a general overview on intelligence as hereditary.
What, that generally people who go to private secondary schools are more intelligent than those that go to state schools?
LOL! If that is your point, then yeah, that!
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
And that’s fine, but as I asked earlier, how do you expect Universities and employers to judge intelligence if not through exam results?
Only really matters for your first job, I reckon. When I interviewed people, I spoke about the sort of work we did, gauging their interest and enthusiasm from the responses I received. It’s also worth mentioning that since getting my degree, I’ve only ever been asked to provide proof of my credentials twice.
Personally, I think the decisions of these firms are counter-intuitive. In my experience, it’s been those from the lower end of the scale that are most diligent and hardworking. Don’t get me wrong; I’ve come across the odd affluent workaholic, but they tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Most had no concept of being in work to make money, many slacked off. They often lacked the hunger and drive that was commonplace in those from humbler backgrounds.
Quality of the letter of application as well. Is it well written, does it address the person spec and Jo description, does it provide examples of how they would do things. When I shortlist for jobs grades are just one factor I look at.
Well, that is the secondary point that the Cholula Kid was saying I should be pulled up on, and that he didn’t agree.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @KRG
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
No surprise there. Life innit.
Working class kids should just work harder, right?
Ha, nah, just life. We are all born with advantages and disadvantages, some more than others.
Exactly, thats why some of us are hideous gingers.
Yes, but the point is they have those 4 A* students. If you’re removing those grades, then you’re just interviewing everyone who applies.
Originally posted by @JBoy
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @KRG
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
No surprise there. Life innit.
Working class kids should just work harder, right?
Ha, nah, just life. We are all born with advantages and disadvantages, some more than others.
Exactly, thats why some of us are hideous gingers.
You a ginger J’boy?
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
But there still exists in some industries (broadcasting for one) a very Oxbridge/private school mentality which isn’t based on intelligence, but where you’re from, who you know, what your accent is.
I don’t doubt that for one moment, Lou.
My career was largely in engineering. At one company I worked for, back in the 70s, the determining factor as to whether or not a person progressed through the company was how good they were at darts, cricket, football or rugby. If you didn’t play for one of the company’s sports team you fell foul of the company’s ‘sports mafia’!
Still, that was preferrable to another another firm where the determining factor seemed to be whether or not you were in the bloody freemasons.
Oops sorry to mention the freemasons, Jeff, I mean, Chertsey. 
2 Likes
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @CB-Saint
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
Originally posted by @CB-Saint
Intelligence is heriditary
Realising the potential of that intelligence is entirely based upon circumstance be it school, upbringing, affluence, mentors, luck.
Also, my definition of intelligence is not one to be proven or disproven by exams.
And that’s fine, but as I asked earlier, how do you expect Universities and employers to judge intelligence if not through exam results?
In the same way as top Universities and employers choose 10% of the 4A* students who apply for each job and uni place. Decent interviewing, assessments etc, extracurricular activities. Fit for the organisation. Attitudes and behaviours
Yes, but the point is they have those 4 A* students. If you’re removing those grades, then you’re just interviewing everyone who applies.
The point I was making is that these organisations have to use other selection methods as their positions are wildly oversubscribed by candidates with the same qualifications. These methods could be used more effectively by other organisations eg clever use of online applications which contain “killer questions” which are more about attitutdes, knowledge etc if you pass these you get through to the next stage.
Once pass the first job it comes down to a matter of relevent experience - the exams rapidly become obsolete (which exceptions of professional qualifications / MBA)
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @JBoy
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @KRG
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
No surprise there. Life innit.
Working class kids should just work harder, right?
Ha, nah, just life. We are all born with advantages and disadvantages, some more than others.
Exactly, thats why some of us are hideous gingers.
You a ginger J’boy?
No but I’ve got face like Hypo and Jeff’s lovechild.
I think a lot of people are making th emistake of corelating academic success with intelligence. Passing exams is easy if you know how :- look at past exams, review which questions come up and how often, base your revision on those specific questions that you know (because your teacher has suggested) are more than likely to come up.
Uni is slightly harder due to dissertations and a certain degree of having to do reasearch but again that is not intelligence, IMHO.
Quite frankly I’m shit at exams but I know my shit and how to do my job! I can easily “think outside of the box” to solve problems when they occur. A vast majority of people with good academic results cannot do that as they are not used to having to “think”
I went to Uni, no-one else in my family before me had, my mum and dad are intelligent in their own ways.
3 Likes
Agree with that - I managed a B in Latin GCSE with the roman literacy equivalent of a rock, by working out that 75% of the marks were up for grabs by pure memory by rote alone - the abilty to translate only accounted for 25%!!!
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
I think it also depends on your definition of ‘working class’.
Anybody that is paid a wage is working class
Technically I am a prostitute I will hire out my body to anybody that wants the information inside my head
Not according to a lot of people on this thread - I agree with your definition.
Academic success only gets one so far. What really counts afterwards is drive, determination and perseverence. If you aint got that, then broadly speaking, you aint got much.
And daddy with good contacts…
2 Likes