No. My brother gets good grades, but will argue with you to the death that psychology (his chosen major) is a more important branch of science than physics, biology, and chemistry.
No. My brother gets good grades, but will argue with you to the death that psychology (his chosen major) is a more important branch of science than physics, biology, and chemistry.
Yeah, lecture hall holds 100 seats. And get thisWhere and how are you in these classes where cheating is possible? Are you in a 200 person class?
My classes are 20-35 student tops, and there will usually be the Professor and TAs in there, as well as having separate desks and different exams.
Yea I do. My senior thesis and project had a large component of advanced correlative statistics.
I didn't say your claim was false, and agree that there is a positive correlation as a whole, but there are numerous exceptions to the rule. Thats all.
@VMR, Einstein failed because he took the exam in French, a language he was learning, and only failed the non-scientific portions of it:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/06/23/1115185.htm
The other two weren't in a situation to be judged by their grades. You're assuming they would have failed or done bad in an academic setting.
yes, those are called anomalies and outliers
Intelligence as constructed by Stanford-Binet has been disproven for a long time now. Anyone subscribing to that is beyond idiotic. Humans are generally in the same range of aptitude and it is environmental factors that decides who rises and who fails, not biological.
I am not familiar with the Stanford-Binet study or its disproval.
But how do you explain 4 year old geniuses? Isn't that biological and not environmental? Or should I simply accept the fact that you said 'generally' to mean that there are exceptions and precocious genius is one of those exceptions to the rule.
Academics is mostly declarative knowledge... it's the lowest and most inadequate measure of intelligent