Do you sometimes just wonder?

[NE2000]

I don't have evidence for this opinion, but this is my opinion. The concept of "brains from the start" in my opinion is flawed. There are some people (see Terence Tao) who are geniuses from the start. They excel in their field and see things in numbers that the rest of us can only dream of seeing. And that's absolutely ok.

But for the rest of us mere mortals, I think there is very little to separate us at all in the beginning. I think what is perceived in secondary school as a child who is gifted (i.e. someone who seems to ease through most of the work and get high marks) is actually someone who was exposed to or tried out some extension things when they were younger. There are seven years in your life called primary school where your progress is limited, those who extend themselves in those seven years (I don't mean studying day and night but I just mean having the interest and curiosity to pick out and read a science book etc.) will end up having that extra advantage when you get to more serious stuff in secondary school.

I believe most preps have the potential to, if they do things right, be a future 99.95er. I believe even most grade six/year sevens have the potential to be 99.95ers. I think as secondary school progresses the people that work hard through years 7-10 end up travelling down the path that leads to high 99s, while a lot of others don't. It's often assumed that the 99.90 and 99.95 people have some phenomenal natural talent. But I think it will help you to get out of that mindset and perhaps believe that that 'naturally talented' person could have been you, and could still be you (you've still got your whole life ahead of you, year 12 isn't the end). So rather than remain in awe, strive to achieve.

So my point is this: in the end the difference is pure hard work.

P.S.: I'm sorry if there are people that have worked hard throughout secondary school and still don't feel like potential 99+ achievers, this is just my general opinion. From what I've seen, the most 'gifted' people also have worked the hardest throughout life.

[IntoTheNewWorld]

But some have to work harder than others

[kenhung123]

I think you need to literally enjoy studying all the subjects you do to be a 99.95er. E.g. TT in the maths field

[periwinkle]

 Here's a template for how an average student could get 99.95: Have a fantastic English tutor [from yr 11 if possible] and do all tasks they set; study 1 [preferably 2] LOTE's rigourously, including by living in the relevant countries; do Business [or HD] and learn [again, from a reputable tutor] how to nail a 50.
 Obviously, not everyone has the means to do the above, but given the seemingly systematic nature of many VCE subjects, hard/well-directed work + good instruction, I think can go a long way.

[NE2000]

But some have to work harder than others

Yes but do you know (maybe you do) exceptionally smart people that do not need to work as hard as others to achieve better results that also didn't work as hard as others during primary school and years 7-10?

[NE2000]

Oh and I understand a bit of a flaw with my post is the fact that as periwinkle posted, LOTEs and English play such a major part in getting a 99.95. This can be based a lot on family background, particularly the English part, so that is a limitation. My point is more related to getting 'very high results' in year 12 as opposed to getting '99.95' which depends a lot on the languages.

[samuch]

Well,

have any of you ever just wondered that you are just not good enough to get that really high ENTER score? like some people just have the brains from the start?

or the old nothing is impossible.

if you try day and night 99.95 can be achieved?

I believe everyone has their limits and that these limits are determined from the early primary school years.
You can relate this to your physical limits, some people just aren't cut out to be a 100m sprinter, their limit may be 14sec or something like that. That may be the best that they can do even after training. Now i think the brain works like that too, that everyone's memory and way of thinking can only be improved to a certain point, this is where confidence and all of that comes into play...

[polky]

Heaps of high achievers fall because of the /0 view. Since they are no longer in a classroom environment in tertiary studies.

Could you expand on that?

Sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning. But I was thinking you were saying that you use fame such as everyone thinking you are a genius to motivate you to study thus achieving 100%?

I think /0 was referring to intrinsic motivation and confidence.

Personally, I think people are limited more by their perspective than their abilities.  While there are some kids who are naturally smarter, the gap can be bridged with hard work.

It frustrates me to see people settling for mediocre scores, not bothering to study for tests (and then when they get their results back, they justify it by saying "oh, I didn't study"), saying "at least I passed"...etc.  Not everyone strives to get 100%, and this really bothers me because if people just applied themselves and worked harder they would find that they too can improve and achieve.  People just don't try their best or their hardest.   

[ninwa]

Here's a template for how an average student could get 99.95: Have a fantastic English tutor [from yr 11 if possible] and do all tasks they set; study 1 [preferably 2] LOTE's rigourously, including by living in the relevant countries; do Business [or HD] and learn [again, from a reputable tutor] how to nail a 50.
 Obviously, not everyone has the means to do the above, but given the seemingly systematic nature of many VCE subjects, hard/well-directed work + good instruction, I think can go a long way.

Lol this. I think a significant part of doing well in VCE is knowing how to play the system.

Cynical, but I think there's truth in that.

[Gloamglozer]

Here's a template for how an average student could get 99.95: Have a fantastic English tutor [from yr 11 if possible] and do all tasks they set; study 1 [preferably 2] LOTE's rigourously, including by living in the relevant countries; do Business [or HD] and learn [again, from a reputable tutor] how to nail a 50.
 Obviously, not everyone has the means to do the above, but given the seemingly systematic nature of many VCE subjects, hard/well-directed work + good instruction, I think can go a long way.

Lol this. I think a significant part of doing well in VCE is knowing how to play the system.

Cynical, but I think there's truth in that.

"Play the system?"  If we get rid of the euphemism, would it be more like "exploit the faulty piece of..."

[/0]

Heaps of high achievers fall because of the /0 view. Since they are no longer in a classroom environment in tertiary studies.

Could you expand on that?

Sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning. But I was thinking you were saying that you use fame such as everyone thinking you are a genius to motivate you to study thus achieving 100%?

lol no, it isn't about fame. In fact I think it works better if there is someone scoring higher than you that you can strive towards. A role model, if you will.

I think if you really love the subject you do then VCE is not of great importance. VCE is more about competition and perfection, isn't it?
I mean, really. There are only two reasons why you might want to work your ass off for a 99.95:
1. scholarships
2. bragging rights

So I guess it will have to work differently in uni, but that doesn't mean you can strive to do as well as the resident genius

[ninwa]

"Play the system?"  If we get rid of the euphemism, would it be more like "exploit the faulty piece of..."

LOL. Yes

(also lol at your profile pic)

[hard]

for 99.95 no amount of studying can help if you're not born with pure genius

[mark_alec]

for 99.95 no amount of studying can help if you're not born with pure genius

99.95 does not require genius.

[QuantumJG]

My opinion really on the topic of being the best in something, is that it probably has some relationship with your genetic makeup. When people look at geniuses like: Einstein, Euler, Gauss, Tao, etc. These people from a young age were intrigued in their fields, or knew the area they mastered.

Everybody can reach their full potential with some push and guidance, say specialist maths you can put in a heap of effort and get say a 40. You have people like TT who have more than a desire to get above 40, they are passionate in that area.

E.g. A really good particle accelerator can accelerate an electron to 99.99% the speed of light. Accelerating an electron to 60% isn't too hard, 80% is a little harder but still managable, 90% even harder, 95% is even harder than that, 99% is when the electron is basically is at it's full potential speed, 99.9%, 99.99%, then 99.999% requires that much energy that the effort needed to increase it's speed outweighs the effort and it has reached it's limit.

You could look at a student who got a 49 in a subject and they may say with more effort I could have got a 50, or someone who got a 99 they would say with more effort I could have been a 99.05. There has to be a point when you can be happy with what you achieved.    

People settling for so called "mediocre scores" or the saying "it's better to live life wanting what you can't have, opposed to having what you don't want", maybe what seems mediocre to one person is a goal to another. We are the best at knowing what we can achieve, what our limit is.