Natural talent or just a lot of hard work put in? (1 Viewer)

[runnable]

I think the "natural talent" refers to talent of studying and ability to learn instead of actual intelligence in certain areas (of course that comes in too).

Certain people such as geniuses in maths might not fare that well as a whole in the HSC. Having to do say.. English and at least two more subjects, a well-rounded "talent" is needed to do well in the HSC.

 

[tahlzz]

my sister received a uai of 98 and she worked her ass off
she studied day and night.

 

[Absolutezero]

To get in the very highest percentages, you really need to work extremely hard, although also having 'some' degree of natural talent really helps.

I'm generally labelled as someone who has 'natural talent'. I seem to do reasonably well no matter how much effort I put in. Effectively, I almost topped School Cert in my school.

However, I lack the motivation to study relentlessly for hours a night. Naturally, I know I'll do "reasonably" well anyway. However, it is those people who really put in the effort that will beat me. No question. There is no way I will dux our school, primarily because some other students are putting in far more effort than I am.

To get the highest marks, you need the motivation to put in those hours of hard work. Regardless of natural talent, you simply can't compete to those who are putting in the extra work.

 

[u-borat]

both really; hard work can only get you so far, and same with talent.

 

[blakegman]

Those estimates aren't 100% correct anyway. It's completely feasile to be able to gain at least another 5 marks on top of that. Although i would have thought you needed more then 90 for MBBS.


That said in reagrd to topic. It's either.

I know people who didn't study and managers a +90 uai because they are just natually gifted, and people who aren't as 'intelligent' imo who studied an insane amount and achieved just as god marks.

At the end of the day the key to most hsc courses is to rote learn all the syllabus dot points. And it doesnt take a genius to do this.

 

[bored of sc]

Hard work beats natural talent in virtually all subjects (especially the one with sheer masses of content that isn't too difficult to grasp e.g. a biased generalisation possibly but I think PDHPE). Natural talent cannot get you a band 6 in anything. Effort is essential. It makes sense. If you go out of your way to learn the subject matter than your examinations and assessments are given more credibility as you actually KNOW what you are talking about (as opposed to a smart kid waffling through a english essay with verbose language and 89-letter techniques).

The aforesaid is very biased and stereotyped.

 

[seano77]

There are definitely some smart kids who don't try and go badly. But there are ones who have the talent and work hard and beat everyone else. I think if you want to ge good you just have to do your best.

 

[whatusername?]

basically, the sum of what was said by most posters here is that
"Hard work beats talent, when talent fails to work hard."
Simply as that and can't be argued with.
Also, as some other kid who i cnat be bother quoting noted, there are some things where u need natural talent to start off with (eg 4 unit maths). No matter how hard they try, someone who is not able to grasp some of the complexities of maths will not be able to do higher level maths. Understanding>Hard work, but hard work can lead to understanding
possibly a catch 22.
:/

 

[u-borat]

Charming Brogan:wave:

I think natural talent helps. But I think the HSC is more a measure of how much effort one puts in, rather than intelligence. I'll give you my own example;

I pretty much suck at maths. (band 4 - eek!) I didn't care in SC, but I've since put an enormous amount of effort in and got ranked 4th last year in 2U. (Not sure what im coming this year - rankings haven't been finalised) which meant, my ranking was higher than one of the students selected for extension 2.

I think this proves that effort > intelligence.

That being said, while I may have the ability to do 3U, never could I do 4. I don't have that intelligence.

eh, except for the bit where ext 2 students don't actually need a 2u mark/rank... unless they drop the subject.

 

[runnable]

Charming Brogan:wave:

I think natural talent helps. But I think the HSC is more a measure of how much effort one puts in, rather than intelligence. I'll give you my own example;

I pretty much suck at maths. (band 4 - eek!) I didn't care in SC, but I've since put an enormous amount of effort in and got ranked 4th last year in 2U. (Not sure what im coming this year - rankings haven't been finalised) which meant, my ranking was higher than one of the students selected for extension 2.

I think this proves that effort > intelligence.

That being said, while I may have the ability to do 3U, never could I do 4. I don't have that intelligence.

I'm doing 3U and im beating every ext2 students in 3U except for the first in 4U... and I can tell you pretty much all of the 20 ppl in 4U work their ass off (more than me im sure)... so I still think natural talent does come in a bit.

 

[white ferret]

I know people who lasted on natural talent up until the end of year 10, at which time they went downhill and are totally flunking year 11

you just described what happened to me.. =( . it sucks...

 

[runnable]

Yeah, I know. But that rank was from year 11 where they do. (They weren't do Ext 2 then)

Runnable: congratualations - But then again, maybe the 4U kids are trying so hard on ext 2 that they kind of forget about 2U and 3U?

But well 3U will count for them so thats not smart, leaving 3U like that...

 

[agirlinatutu]

I agree with everyone about it being a bit of both natural talent and effort but is that to say an average student put in the hard yards couldnt get 99?

 

[runnable]

I agree with everyone about it being a bit of both natural talent and effort but is that to say an average student put in the hard yards couldnt get 99?

They could probably do a lot better than people expected them to...

 

[live.fast]

loll I just saw again that movie Good Will Hunting. If there are people like that out there, doing the HSC same year as you dudes...

Anyways - natural talent can probably help you get HSC marks of 80-90. Working extremely hard after that would get you to the 99-100 area. That's my take on it anyway! You can get by on natural talent, sure. But to stand out, you still have to work VERY hard!

Unless your name is Will.

 

[dux&src]

Thats crazy...

Lol 7 hours is definitely something most students would struggle to find time for.

I guess that's why he is dux. He puts in all the effort and yet he said he would be happy with a UAI of 95.30.

Btw he does ten units. so he has study periods to do simple homework. But i dunno why he would study 7 hours a nite ( not homework pure study).

 

[-Anfernee-]

loll I just saw again that movie Good Will Hunting. If there are people like that out there, doing the HSC same year as you dudes...

.

I am a lot like that fictional character -Will, but the difference being that I'm not gifted.


Judging by your signature, you're probably the closest thing on this forum to being a prodigy..after me ofcourse


Natural talent can only take you so far, an added injection of good work ethic will take you all the way.

 

[runnable]

Lol 7 hours is definitely something most students would struggle to find time for.

I guess that's why he is dux. He puts in all the effort and yet he said he would be happy with a UAI of 95.30.

Btw he does ten units. so he has study periods to do simple homework. But i dunno why he would study 7 hours a nite ( not homework pure study).

lol I just chill out completely in study periods.. i struggle to actually study more than 1 hour a night...

 

[novembre]

It's not about how smart you are, it's about how smart you study. The way you study has to be effective for YOU personally, and has to be time efficient. Don't believe people who tell you "I never studied for this subject" and got 100% for History. If they needed to tell you that without you even asking them, they are probably lying.

 

[dux&src]

It's not about how smart you are, it's about how smart you study. The way you study has to be effective for YOU personally, and has to be time efficient. Don't believe people who tell you "I never studied for this subject" and got 100% for History. If they needed to tell you that without you even asking them, they are probably lying.

They are just show offs!!!

I agree with you ! about how smart people study and whether it is effective for you personally!