funnybunny said:
pfft..
of course the uai is correlated 2 intelligence..
yes, it is true that the hsc is a lot of memorisation and regurgitation, but SMART ppl actually think about the future and they realise that getting into the course they desire at uni is a very important step in realising their career goals.
Then they link this with teh fact that u need a uai 2 get into uni and it is competitive. ...therefore, SMART people put a lot of effort into the hsc 2 get a high uai, and eventually get into their desired course... unlike those ppl who do not, and then start complaining...ppl like u, who started this thread..:wave:
So, i guess it's more like if ur smart, then u'll put more effort into getting a higher uai not the other way around....if u get wat i mean..but if u dont, u must hav not gotten a high uai:rofl:
A truly smart person would've dropped out at Year Ten, gained themselves an apprenticeship, worked for 4-5 years, gained a good windfall, and lightened the load on their work, possibly gaining a mature age entry into a business degree and furthering their business plan through a range of ideas and concepts through graduate school of business/marketing.
Started their own franchise, invested in property, and retired by the age of 45 with a good financial windfall and an almost self-autonomous franchise.
Being smart has nothing to do with your outlook on life, not everybody gains their dreams and knows their life plans by the age of 16-18, neither does everyone need academic skills or a piece of paper which costs them a leg and an arm to tell them they are intelligent or smart. What your HSC/UAI accords is that you have completed a set of tasks allotted within a year, to a scale of *-100.00 UAI. You can draw conclusions that because student A gained 100.00 UAI that it automatically guarantees they are smart and will succeed is stupid, just as much as saying that student B who got a 60 UAI was a bad student and stupid.
The argument that you have to conform to a worldly set of exams/lessons/restraints, as i have previously explained, fails due to the spoonfeeding nature of the HSC. You DONT have a year to do tasks, you DONT have 4 weeks to complete most 1,000 word essays. You usually work in days and sometimes in hours. The skills are preliminary, and offer a very basic understanding in the general sense. The dux at our school for our year was a hard worker, but i wouldn't call him incredibly smart nor intelligent, hardly compared to another student who played computer games, and practically bludged through 4unit maths and 3unit english without breaking a sweat, and now stands on a perfect HD GPA at uni in a B Comm-Actuarial Studies. He is eloquent, well-read, and also one of the brightest people i have ever met. Meanwhile the other student is on a Credit Average in B Nanotech.
It is incredibly difficult to pinpoint exactly what 'smart' is, especially in an overtly 'postmodern' (a term far outdated) world which seems to rely on an inherently contradictory cycle of relativism, perspectives and some semblance of objectivity.
(And before anyone tries to start a "its just my opinion" debate, please don't, the HSC syllabus on 'post-modernism' is horrid at best and relies too much on a pseudowankery which tries to pose as philo-psychological undertaking in a literary sense.)
