When I used to teach undergrad courses at university, whatever the ostensible content of the course, it was just an excuse for trying to teach the tools for and inspire a love for critical thinking. As my subject areas were cultural and communication studies, this was the ideal training ground.
As to the IQ debate, let me compare myself and my lab partner through high school and the early years of university when I was still studying the sciences.
Marshall was an absolute workhorse. He did at least three hours homework every night, which made him an ideal partner for me, who did homework precisely once during high school. But he was a very much by the book, follow the instructions type, while I always experimented. When we played chess, he would run through the best known opening variations and try to simplify, but I would always be throwing in off the beaten track complications.
I won most of the chess games, but... We both were top of the honour roll types in high school, but while he went on to become a well-respected astronomer, I have followed a varied and chequered series of careers as I privileged my multitudinous interests over career.
The reason I bring this up is that by sneaking into the school office a friend got access to all our IQ scores. Of our bunch of nerds, I had the highest and Marshall the lowest, yet by most accounts Marshall has been much more successful.
The difference is that he was always focussed and hard working toward a singular goal, traits ensured by his family background, while I was always given the freedom to follow my nose. I wouldn't want to trade lives with Marshall -- focussed discipline never agreed with me! -- but our stories do show that its not so much your innate abilities as what you do with them that matters.
Or something.
LC |
