Wrong kind of smart? - Page 6

On January 12 2012 10:36 natebreen wrote:
This is fitting:

Alright, sorry about the delay. I was too busy celebrating the New Year. I hope you're still checking in on this account.

Anyway, I think I have a bit of a unique perspective. I've seen MIT admissions from the perspective of the applicant, a student, a teacher, and now as an alumnus conducting interviews of prospective students. The fact that you mentioned MIT specifically really made me feel like I should take the time to produce a good response!

I wanted to start by writing out standard admissions advice (e.g. no one thing like SAT scores will keep you from being admitted, etc.). While all that is true, the problem you're dealing with is so much bigger than that. The problem you're coming up against is one I've seen so many of my fellow students encounter. If I could set up a wavy-fade flashback, I'd show you my freshman year.

I moved into one of the dorms at MIT thinking I was hot shit. I had, after all, just gotten into MIT. And beyond that, I had tested out of the freshman calculus and physics classes, meaning that I was able to start math "a year" ahead in differential equations and start with the advanced version of the physics 2 class we have. Registration went by easy enough and I was pleased with my decisions.

Term rolled in and I was getting crushed. I wasn't the greatest student in high school, and whenever I got poor grades I would explain them away by saying I just didn't care or I was too busy or too unmotivated or (more often than not) just cared about something else. It didn't help that I had good test performance which fed my ego and let me think I was smarter than everyone else, just relatively unmotivated. I had grossly underestimated MIT, and was left feeling so dumb.

I had the fortune of living next to a bright guy, R. R. was an advanced student, to say the least. He was a sophomore, but was already taking the most advanced graduate math classes. He came into MIT and tested out of calculus, multivariable calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, real analysis (notoriously the most difficult math class at MIT), and a slew of other math courses. And to top it all off, he was attractive, engaging, sociable, and generally had no faults that would make him mortal.

I suffered through half a semester of differential equations before my pride let me go to R. for help. And sure enough, he took my textbook for a night to review the material (he couldn't remember it all from third grade), and then he walked me through my difficulties and coached me. I ended up pulling a B+ at the end of a semester and avoiding that train wreck. The thing is, nothing he taught me involved raw brainpower. The more I learned the more I realized that the bulk of his intelligence and his performance just came from study and practice, and that the had amassed a large artillery of intellectual and mathematical tools that he had learned and trained to call upon. He showed me some of those tools, but what I really ended up learning was how to go about finding, building, and refining my own set of cognitive tools. I admired R., and I looked up to him, and while I doubt I will ever compete with his genius, I recognize that it's because of a relative lack of my conviction and an excess of his, not some accident of genetics.

It's easy to trick ourselves into thinking that "being smart" is what determines our performance. In so many ways, it's the easiest possible explanation because it demands so little of us and immediately explains away our failings. You are facing this tension without recognizing it. You are blaming your intelligence in the first two paragraphs but you undermine yourself by saying you received good grades you didn't deserve. You recognize your lack of motivation as a factor in your lack of extracurricular activities but not in your SAT scores (fun fact: the variable that correlates most strongly to SAT performance is hours of studying for the SATs). Your very last statement could just as well apply to your entire post:

But none of this has to do with my intelligence; I'm just rambling.

You got A's because you studied or because the classes were easy. You got a B probably because you were so used to understanding things that you didn't know how to deal with something that didn't come so easily. I'm guessing that early on you built the cognitive and intellectual tools to rapidly acquire and process new information, but that you've relied on those tools so much you never really developed a good set of tools for what to do when those failed. This is what happened to me, but I didn't figure it out until after I got crushed by my first semester of college. I need to ask you, has anyone ever taken the time to teach you how to study? And separately, have you learned how to study on your own in the absence of a teacher or curriculum? These are the most valuable tools you can acquire because they are the tools you will use to develop more powerful and more insightful tools. It only snowballs from there until you become like R.

MIT has an almost 97% graduation rate. That means that most of the people who get in, get through. Do you know what separates the 3% that didn't from the rest that do? I do. I've seen it so many times, and it almost happened to me. Very few people get through four years of MIT with such piss-poor performance that they don't graduate. In fact, I can't think of a single one off the top of my head. People fail to graduate from MIT because they come in, encounter problems that are harder than anything they've had to do before, and not knowing how to look for help or how to go about wrestling those problems, burn out. The students that are successful look at that challenge, wrestle with feelings of inadequacy and stupidity, and begin to take steps hiking that mountain, knowing that bruised pride is a small price to pay for getting to see the view from the top. They ask for help, they acknowledge their inadequacies. They don't blame their lack of intelligence, they blame their lack of motivation. I was lucky that I had someone to show me how to look for that motivation, and I'm hoping that I can be that person for you in some small capacity over the Internet. I was able to recover from my freshman year and go on to be very successful in my studies, even serving as a TA for my fellow students. When I was a senior, I would sit down with the freshmen in my dorm and show them the same things that had been shown to me, and I would watch them struggle with the same feelings, and overcome them. By the time I graduated MIT, I had become the person I looked up to when I first got in.

You're so young, way too young to be worried about not being smart enough. Until you're so old you start going senile, you have the opportunity to make yourself "smarter." And I put that in quotes because "smart" is really just a way of saying "has invested so much time and sweat that you make it look effortless." You feel like you are burnt out or that you are on the verge of burning out, but in reality you are on the verge of deciding whether or not you will burn out. It's scary to acknowledge that it's a decision because it puts the onus on you to to do something about it, but it's empowering because it means there is something you can do about it.

So do it.

You got a B probably because you were so used to understanding things that you didn't know how to deal with something that didn't come so easily. I'm guessing that early on you built the cognitive and intellectual tools to rapidly acquire and process new information, but that you've relied on those tools so much you never really developed a good set of tools for what to do when those failed. This is what happened to me, but I didn't figure it out until after I got crushed by my first semester of college. I need to ask you, has anyone ever taken the time to teach you how to study? And separately, have you learned how to study on your own in the absence of a teacher or curriculum? These are the most valuable tools you can acquire because they are the tools you will use to develop more powerful and more insightful tools. It only snowballs from there until you become like R.

On January 12 2012 10:39 3FFA wrote:

Dear Pastamancer,

You overuse commas. I meant PERIODS. Use them. They are so useful. Also, I'm taking classes in HS in the United States public schools. They encourage that type of thinking so I feel very sorry for you right now . They go "Very good 3FFA!" or "Wow! You're on fire!" I mean it, they really do that(but with my real name instead of 3FFA ).

Go online and read some other stuff related to that article? Honestly, I can't understand a teacher that won't encourage students to go beyond the boundaries of just "sit and listen, just sit and listen". I've never dealt with that before. Whenever I did try that, I got the worst grades. It baffles me as to how your teacher keeps her job since she is obviously giving you the idea that to succeed in life you can't be proactive. I would hate your teacher.

Also, Torte, you could be a Professor on fastest ways to reply to other's messages@ the University of TL. :D
edit: 5?!!? And we're soon to go onto 6?!?!?! What....

On January 12 2012 10:46 Sinensis wrote:
I dunno why this blog is so interesting to me...probably because my classes all hated me too.

I like how you said you tried to go in like Michael Jackson and it fail, that's hilarious. On a similar note, yeah, maybe try going in like Bob Ross or Mister Rogers... seriously everyone adores Mister Rogers you can't go wrong. :D

On January 12 2012 10:49 HungrySC2 wrote:
Develop a sense of humor and use it. (I assume you already have one)

I'm not saying become a comedian, but add "wit" to your controversy and you will become much easier for others to swallow/pay attention to. Look at the role of social and political comedians from court jesters to modern day stewart/colbert. They are very critical of what should be obvious to everyone, but sometimes it just takes someone to point it out for others to see it.

People pay much more attention to the comedian than the editorial writer. They both are doing the same thing. Just in different ways. The sad thing is you would think that you would get some kind of back lash (other than seclusion/social outcast) but sadly nothing you say hits any nerves. Your classmates probably don't want to actually care about anything at all and your ideas (although maybe hard to understand) challenge this.

The important thing is not that you stay socially acceptable, or that you are okay with being an intelligent caring social outcast, but rather that you challenge others to think and hopefully eventually participate.

Someday when you are getting a bit more upset with how the class is going. Go for it. Upset the balance of the teacher being the measuring stick. Make points and challenges that your classmates simply cannot ignore. Become interesting to your peers. Don't just raise your hand, and then talk from your seat. When you are speaking it IS your classroom. You ARE paying for it. Stand-up and refuse to stop being the center of attention until a class-mate has something worthwhile to say. Ask them clear questions. Don't leave open ended questions. Then give them the floor. Create a discussion/forum that you wish would happen. Your goal isn't to participate in it yourself, but rather to feed it fuel and keep it on track so that others can experience and possibly grow into it. Just be the better person if the teacher tries to stand you up. Demand and deserve respect.

The goal isn't to be T.S. Elliot and blow the socks off everyone. The goal is to move the standard. From conventional "schooling" where the teacher/grade/culture is the standard, to the students themselves without yourself becoming the new standard.

On January 12 2012 10:49 natebreen wrote:


It's because your attitude towards your intelligence is general is over-inflated, as the long post I copied points out.

There are enough perfect SAT scoring students to fill the top universities in the US every year.

There are perfect scoring students on every graduate school test yearly.

There are people who graduate undergrad at 17 with perfect grades.

Anyone can be smart or intelligent and know it. Relying on that like a crutch is what some people would call "taking yourself too seriously."

Be succint. Communicate your points in the best manner. Intelligence means nothing if you can't communicate your point to a mass audience.

Basically you just need to sit back and realize that you're not hot shit. You may claim you don't think you are, but if you're finding yourself in these situations like you posted about, it's because of the aforementioned issues with self-identity and inflation of ego.

I trust you don't need to ask why I have such experience in this realm

On January 12 2012 11:06 Snuggles wrote:


Torti just say "You sir have misunderstood my post". Maybe the way you're trying to express yourself is too thorough, I don't think it's good to hold people's hands so that they will understand every single point in your thoughts to the comma. It's possible to express your yourself in a more simple manner, you just need to work on it.

On January 12 2012 11:06 StarStruck wrote:


Regardless of grades we all have weaknesses. I don't know about you, but I like to consider myself a smart dumbass.



Wine and dine.

On January 12 2012 11:06 3FFA wrote:


What exactly? Tell us so we can correct you if you are thinking incorrectly.

On January 12 2012 11:09 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
I don't think it is a matter of vocabulary. You should only ever purposely curb your vocabulary if you are speaking to an audience where English (or whichever language is in question) is either not the primary language of your audience, or if your audience is very young and still not very proficient at it.

That is not to say you have the green light to use massive words everywhere for no reason, but as long as you are using your vocabulary comfortably and suitably, in order to 'dumb it down' alot of depth and nuance will inevitably be lost. Remember that most of these words exist for a reason, they possess meaning and nuance beyond what can be reasonably expressed with simpler words.

From your examples I only see appropriate use of a good vocabulary, rather than the excessively imaginative vernacular some people use solely to compensate for poorly thought out ideas. At a college level class in, what I assume, is a primarily English speaking region, I can see no reason why you should need to simplify your vocabulary for your audience.

What you should instead concentrate on, is as people have suggested, shortening your sentences. That is not to say you neccessarily need to say less, only that you need to use more, shorter sentences to say the same things.
This should also apply to how you speak. A run-on sentence is a pain to read and often you lose the main stream of thought before you even finish reading the sentence, but someone speaking run-on sentences at you can be almost unintelligible.

Try using the same vocabulary you use now, but restricting yourself to shorter, more succint statements. Remember to pause appropriately at the end of each clause and sentence. I have a hard time believing that college students would have a hard time understanding the actual words that you use, I think it is far more likely that you are simply throwing too many ideas at them before they have had the time to register and acknowledge what you have said.