How does one DEFINE intelligence though?
IQ?
Are we assuming ''intelligence'' the ability to outperform your peers academically or artistically if you and your peers were theoretically putting in EQUAL EFFORT (which is not realistic anyways because people have different levels of motivation)?
''Talent you have naturally''. If we all did not study or studied to the same extent, those who are naturally talented (or ''intelligent'') would always be the winners. Talent/''intelligence'' clearly gives you a much needed competitive advantage in academics (or the HSC in this case) that can't be ''trained''. It assists in your ability to quickly understand more complex concepts compared to your less gifted peers.
''Skill'' is developed by hard work and work ethic. Knowing your syllabus (whether it be through long hours of memorising/rote-learning or just long hours of trying to understand it) takes ''skill''. Exam technique can also be ''trained'' or ''developed'' --> e.g. this is a reason why not all Science Olympiads (seen to be more ''intelligent'') become HSC science state rankers.
Basically, the HSC is not a measure of intelligence or talent. It's not a measure of ''skill''/effort (or the ability to work hard purely). It's a measure of the
combination of both.
However, the greatest weight is given to skill/hard work for the HSC. People say ''talent'' fails if you fail to work hard. But ''talent'' becomes a greater weapon as you progress to university and chase your ambition (career and future)... There's no denying that ''intelligence'' is an important factor to achieving the GREATEST results against your peers.
There's a lot more to HSC than just plain rote learning imo. And I don't think you can say that ANYONE who simply "works hard" can pull off ATARs as high as 99+ (or, for exaggeration purposes, 99.95). If that was so, then every pure rote learner who exists will be scoring 99.95 and that obviously isn't the case.
And your example is a bit extreme. I think the general "intelligent person" is also hard working, probably doesn't fall into illness like your friend unfortunately did and would score higher ATARs that way.
So what you're trying to say is that HSC has completely, and I mean absolutely NO correlation with intelligence?. I think that's a bit too definitive. Imo, there is an extent that this correlation exists.
I should also correct my previous post. The *average* 99+er would surely be smarter than, for example, your average mystery mark-er who got a mystery mark. (just to highlight my point).
Pure rote learners cannot achieve 99.95. Yes, I agree.
The more flexible/adaptable ''rote-learners'' can achieve 99+ (the possibly heavier rote learners who know that there's some things you can't just memorise and should just try to understand). E.g. one who rote learns their English essays but can directly answer/adapt to the essay questions given on the day.
I'm not particularly ''intelligent'' or ''talented'' but I somehow achieved a 99+ with strong work ethic and the willingness to develop ''skill''. If I put in 0 effort (whether it be rote learning/memorising/understanding the syllabus, concepts, essays, etc.), I would get nowhere close to the HSC marks I ended up achieving. And I'd definitely be outperformed by more ''intelligent'' kids who put in low effort.
Not to mention, some subjects seem to reward ''hard work'' (even if its through rote learning) more than others. Examples include Economics and Business Studies. Humanities in general. While others may nullify this effort vs reward - e.g. Extension 2 Mathematics or Physics.
Assuming they aren't naturally ''intelligent''/gifted, a person would probably see more success in a subject like Business Studies (where skill will take them far, even if it's through rote learning and being also adaptable) compared to a subject like Extension 2 Mathematics (which probably requires a degree of natural mathematical ability).
But honestly not accepting intelligence as 'being able to answer a generic question' or being able to 'rote learn' isn't entirely true. In most cases the two aren't easily performed by an unintelligent person. How many of you can say that you can memorise things and retain it over a period of time without fully understanding the concept? I understand the HSC isnt the best way to test someone's intelligence, but there is an extent thats arguable to say that something who attains a 90+ atar isnt from just luck and rote learning, they applied themselves, worked hard and persevered.
Whilst I can say that almost every question in exams are somewhat similar, a few do boggle your mind and force you to manipulate the question to fit a certain formula or criteria. Well isnt that what intelligence is? Seeing something that others fail to see and learning everything others were too lazy to learn. That to me is intelligence, others may argue differently, refuse my points and i won't argue with you because you are entitled to your opinion
Or maybe 'intelligence' is just common sense - something everyone seems to be lacking nowadays... well then that would be rare to see an 'intelligent' person then wouldnt it?
All comes down to how people define it.
