Correlation between VCE results and intelligence

[appianway]

I wouldn't argue that the "smartest" students represent Australia on the Olympiads. Many schools don't have any preparation for the Olympiads, and hence the students attending these institutions are inherently disadvantaged. It's all well and good to say that anyone who's incredibly talented will make the team, but if the NQE is the first time that a student's been exposed to such challenging questions, they're not going to perform as well as a slightly less intelligent peer who's been practising for six months. I've also known quite a few people who've turned down offers for the scholar school (or have refused to sit in the first place!) so that they can focus on their other pursuits.

[EvangelionZeta]

I'd argue raw talent is able to overcome any severe odds.  A boy from my school in year 10 who's very likely to get into the team next year (#1/2 in his year across Aus) rocked up at my school in year 7 from Gippsland and received a Gold Medal in the AMC without any "real" prior preparation whatsoever.  Similarly, the #1 in this year's Maths Olympiad team goes to Brunswick Secondary College, which has little to no academic records in maths whatsoever.

This is in reference to the Maths Olympiads, however, which generally induct their students into a special school well before the actual event itself (year 10 guy from my school has been going since year...8?).  No comment on the Science ones.

[appianway]

I can understand attaining exceptionally high scores in maths without any preparation. However, if you've never learnt the basic kinematic or dynamic equations, it'd be very difficult to do well in physics (unless, of course, you derived them in the examination, which would probably consume a considerable amount of time). Chemistry would be near impossible without studying equilibrium, redox and acid base theory, and biology's based on a lot of memorisation.

[doboman]

I can understand attaining exceptionally high scores in maths without any preparation. However, if you've never learnt the basic kinematic or dynamic equations, it'd be very difficult to do well in physics (unless, of course, you derived them in the examination, which would probably consume a considerable amount of time). Chemistry would be near impossible without studying equilibrium, redox and acid base theory, and biology's based on a lot of memorisation.

I don't think anyone goes in without any preparation. That would be quite silly. But most of the 'gifted' (and i use that term loosely) kids do not study any where near what others do. However, they get the same marks- and sometimes better.

[excal]

The other misconception that needs to removed - if someone isn't bright at maths and/or sciences, it doesn't mean they're dumb. Or vice versa.

I think we should start first by defining the very word 'intelligence'.

[Glockmeister]

As I said almost three pages ago... except no one listens to me because according to my ENTER score, I'm only borderline smart (according to some people's definition of intelligence)

[doboman]

The other misconception that needs to removed - if someone isn't bright at maths and/or sciences, it doesn't mean they're dumb. Or vice versa. 

I think that most people associate being good at maths/sciences means they're good at problem solving are able to look outside the square. Where as, for things like business mangement, it could simply be rote-learned.

[TrueTears]

As I said almost three pages ago... except no one listens to me because according to my ENTER score, I'm only borderline smart (according to some people's definition of intelligence)

My definition of intelligence is that you're pr0

[Noblesse]

So much business management bashing.

No love for BM?

[kurrymuncher]

No. If its not a science, there is no love.



jks jks

[Glockmeister]

The other misconception that needs to removed - if someone isn't bright at maths and/or sciences, it doesn't mean they're dumb. Or vice versa. 

I think that most people associate being good at maths/sciences means they're good at problem solving are able to look outside the square. Where as, for things like business mangement, it could simply be rote-learned.

I would like to see you trying to rote-learn a subject like Philosophy.

Seriously, my experience of maths and sciences at high school is that it really wasn't taught like that at all. It was more, here's Technique A, it is used for problem B sort of teaching, and it doesn't really foster the sort of problem solving skills that you'd need at the university level.

[enwiabe]

The other misconception that needs to removed - if someone isn't bright at maths and/or sciences, it doesn't mean they're dumb. Or vice versa.  

I think that most people associate being good at maths/sciences means they're good at problem solving are able to look outside the square. Where as, for things like business mangement, it could simply be rote-learned.

I would like to see you trying to rote-learn a subject like Philosophy.

Seriously, my experience of maths and sciences at high school is that it really wasn't taught like that at all. It was more, here's Technique A, it is used for problem B sort of teaching, and it doesn't really foster the sort of problem solving skills that you'd need at the university level.

Really? If it was as simple as "this is technique A for problem B", then why is specialist considered to be so difficult? Surely, if it was the same problem B over and over again, then at a well-resourced school like Bialik, or Scotch, or Haileybury, where students are given access to such a plethora of past examinations, then merely rote-learning technique A for problem B would ensure that everyone in that school gets a 50!

[Glockmeister]

The other misconception that needs to removed - if someone isn't bright at maths and/or sciences, it doesn't mean they're dumb. Or vice versa. 

I think that most people associate being good at maths/sciences means they're good at problem solving are able to look outside the square. Where as, for things like business mangement, it could simply be rote-learned.

I would like to see you trying to rote-learn a subject like Philosophy.

Seriously, my experience of maths and sciences at high school is that it really wasn't taught like that at all. It was more, here's Technique A, it is used for problem B sort of teaching, and it doesn't really foster the sort of problem solving skills that you'd need at the university level.

Really? If it was as simple as "this is technique A for problem B", then why is specialist considered to be so difficult? Surely, if it was the same problem B over and over again, then at a well-resourced school like Bialik, or Scotch, or Haileybury, where students are given access to such a plethora of past examinations, then merely rote-learning technique A for problem B would ensure that everyone in that school gets a 50!

I was saying that maths/science was taught like that, not whether it was the 'best' teaching method. You would notice, of course, that the schools you've mentioned do not have all their graduates getting 50s.

[enwiabe]

I would contend that Maths is not taught like that. My teacher taught theory, then applied it to some problems. I don't know that there's a better way to teach maths? :-/

[ninwa]

The other misconception that needs to removed - if someone isn't bright at maths and/or sciences, it doesn't mean they're dumb. Or vice versa. 

I think that most people associate being good at maths/sciences means they're good at problem solving are able to look outside the square. Where as, for things like business mangement, it could simply be rote-learned.

Agree re: business management (sorry Jamison ). Though I can't think of many other VCE subjects which you could get high marks in by just rote-learning.

I don't think doing chemistry/biology/methods taught me to "look outside the square" at all. My memories of studying those subjects in VCE were something along the lines of "here's the formula/method/equation, now go apply it to 20 questions which are exactly the same"..
(Then again my memory is terrible and selective, so I might have forgotten all the more interesting bits. Also I didn't do spesh so if that's what you're talking about then I don't know anything )