studygirl118
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2017
- Messages
- 146
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2018
What do you believe, that success in the HSC is based purely off hard work, or hard work plus natural talent? What do you think? [emoji848]
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Hard work vs. natural talent (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter studygirl118
- Start date
pikachu975
Premium Member
I think it's based on how good your memory is
mantequilla
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2018
- Messages
- 32
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2016
Depends, I did pretty well without really studying much at all, but one of my friends didn't have natural talent, but worked hard and also did really well.
KingOfActing
lukewarm mess
100% a memory game
horse9996
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2017
- Messages
- 105
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2018
Its not if you aren't naturally talented that you won't do as well as someone who it, it might just mean that you need to put more effort in. Anyone is capable of getting a good HSC result if they put the hard work in and study effectively
strawberrye
Premium Member
I think those at the very top-such as 99.50+ has a bit of natural talent in studying plus hard work. For me, I did it purely by hard work, I know I wasn't really talented so I needed to always work hard to catch up and get ahead.
HoldingOn
Active Member
All about your memory
mantequilla
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2018
- Messages
- 32
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2016
If you think it's only about memory... You probably don't have any natural talent...
HoldingOn
Active Member
Natural talent is basically having a good memory so yeah
Just quietly, there's a whole bunch of studies done on the fact that natural talent doesn't exist (and a whole bunch of books eg The Talent Code). Sure, there may be some genetic factors, but hard work and discipline will win out over any natural aptitude!
Queenroot
I complete the Squar3
Memory
I did pretty good in the HSC, but have never considered myself a natural talent. During my younger years, I did absolutely horrible (from primary school upwards to year 10 - did not make it into ANY OC schools or selective schools). It was only when I actually started investing time in my studies (and thus worked harder) that I actually saw results.
If you're naturally talented, you can get a great mark with a lower amount of hard work, but if you're not naturally talented, you can get a great mark with a lot more work (probably my case). It leverages out I guess - a bit of a balancing game.
If you're naturally talented, you can get a great mark with a lower amount of hard work, but if you're not naturally talented, you can get a great mark with a lot more work (probably my case). It leverages out I guess - a bit of a balancing game.
brbstudying
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2018
- Messages
- 104
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2018
Yeah, I'm the same.
pikachu975
Premium Member
Mostly agree haha which allowed me to cram for assignments and still do well which I'm assigning to natural talent.
Seriously though I think it's both natural talent and effort because you might not use your full potential/talent if you don't put in effort while someone who isn't that talented can put in hard work and reach their full potential. If we're using economic terms then hard work contributes more to your "real" results while natural talent helps your "nominal" results, aka more hard work = higher mark relative to your potential.
Fizzy_Cyst
Owner @ Sigma Science + Phys Goat
Amen.
I’ve had plenty of students with natural talent not get Band 6 and plenty of students who do not have that natural talent but have a much stronger work ethic that did get Band 6.
I can’t remember the exact quote, but it was basically in every room at one of my old school:
“Hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard.”
Something like that
LightOfTheSeven
Active Member
OP asks an interesting question.
I did my HSC in 2012.
And yeah, I got a shitty ATAR in the 50s. During that time, I've had to reexamine: where did I go wrong? How do I take responsibility? Sure, I debate about whether the HSC is fair, but I don't want to come across as a sore loser or diminish other students achievements. Yes, I had a medical condition that was extremely bad. But I don't want to use my traumas so I can be viewed in a different light. Pretty much? Just cause I was a sob story in 2012, doesn't mean I'm going to be one in 2018.
The HSC does have an emphasis on memory. I remember getting back English essays- and the feedback was always 'not enough quotes / evidence'. Nothing about my critical thinking, understanding of the texts, or whether or not my ideas were any good- but how much I could rote learn. Modern History (which I'm now pursuing as a major, and doing quite well in) was just information and date after each other. When really- the academic field of history is all about understanding the past, not just how much data you can recall. When people say HSC subjects are nothing like the ones at university level- this is what they mean.
I did study during the HSC. Not as much as other students, but still a decent amount. Teachers and even students would often take me aside and say that I was saying really interesting and unique things in class. That did well for my confidence, but it never translated into marks. Maybe I had neither 'hard work' or 'talent', and I believe sometimes those elements can take years to fully develop. I can get credits and distinctions at university, no problem.
My sister got an ATAR of 98.50. She's very good at remembering data (talent), took the HSC really seriously (hard work). But she knew that she was 'playing a game'. Sometimes that's what the HSC is. A game. To me, that sickened and revolted me. That I was forced to see my friends who I had spent 6 years developing a relationship with- as potential backstabbers. Then, once after trials were finished they acted as if we were best friends for life. Yeah, lots of fakes around. Everyone in 2012 was just so fake and pathetic. All for a fucking rank and number.
So yeah, I take responsibility for my ATAR. I played the game and lost. The HSC is a game. It'll make you angry and upset, years after its over. Some of it will be directed towards yourself. You'll go on Whirlpool, and you'll be told your 80-something ATAR is 'nothing special' and have someone yell at you for being lazy. But screw them. I work my hardest now, I'm proud of what I've accomplished post HSC.
So natural talent or hard work? Maybe both. It's also luck and memory.
I did my HSC in 2012.
And yeah, I got a shitty ATAR in the 50s. During that time, I've had to reexamine: where did I go wrong? How do I take responsibility? Sure, I debate about whether the HSC is fair, but I don't want to come across as a sore loser or diminish other students achievements. Yes, I had a medical condition that was extremely bad. But I don't want to use my traumas so I can be viewed in a different light. Pretty much? Just cause I was a sob story in 2012, doesn't mean I'm going to be one in 2018.
The HSC does have an emphasis on memory. I remember getting back English essays- and the feedback was always 'not enough quotes / evidence'. Nothing about my critical thinking, understanding of the texts, or whether or not my ideas were any good- but how much I could rote learn. Modern History (which I'm now pursuing as a major, and doing quite well in) was just information and date after each other. When really- the academic field of history is all about understanding the past, not just how much data you can recall. When people say HSC subjects are nothing like the ones at university level- this is what they mean.
I did study during the HSC. Not as much as other students, but still a decent amount. Teachers and even students would often take me aside and say that I was saying really interesting and unique things in class. That did well for my confidence, but it never translated into marks. Maybe I had neither 'hard work' or 'talent', and I believe sometimes those elements can take years to fully develop. I can get credits and distinctions at university, no problem.
My sister got an ATAR of 98.50. She's very good at remembering data (talent), took the HSC really seriously (hard work). But she knew that she was 'playing a game'. Sometimes that's what the HSC is. A game. To me, that sickened and revolted me. That I was forced to see my friends who I had spent 6 years developing a relationship with- as potential backstabbers. Then, once after trials were finished they acted as if we were best friends for life. Yeah, lots of fakes around. Everyone in 2012 was just so fake and pathetic. All for a fucking rank and number.
So yeah, I take responsibility for my ATAR. I played the game and lost. The HSC is a game. It'll make you angry and upset, years after its over. Some of it will be directed towards yourself. You'll go on Whirlpool, and you'll be told your 80-something ATAR is 'nothing special' and have someone yell at you for being lazy. But screw them. I work my hardest now, I'm proud of what I've accomplished post HSC.
So natural talent or hard work? Maybe both. It's also luck and memory.
mantequilla
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2018
- Messages
- 32
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2016
Natural talent is not really about memory, it's more about problem solving ability and figuring things out. Memorizing takes effort, if you're talented you don't need to put effort into memorizing to get a good score.