It means we are being taught stuff in school that isn't going to be meaningful or be used by us in life. Parents always expect their children to do the best and be engaged in class and make straight a's but we all aren't capable of doing that. Pretty much, creativity should be what we focus on. Not a bunch of irrelevant standards that we have to follow.
You raise a good point.
Everyone that's NT (neurotypical) and healthy is 100% able to get straight A's. The ones who don't just don't put in the work.
@Gavyn not true. Some schools are intentionally very difficult in order to weed out all but the "best and brightest." Many top-tier law schools operate on this model.
Exactly. The "Best" and "Brightest" they're seeking are the ones who actually give school 100%. There's no such thing as "naturally smart." ALL intelligence is the result of effort. Some excel a little easier than others, but that doesn't mean that others can't do it or that they didn't put in as much or more effort, and to think otherwise is both foolish and irresponsible. If you fail and someone else succeeds, it's not because they're just inherently better or smarter, it's because there's two different levels of effort being put in. You can't blame other people for your own lack of success.
@Gavyn I totally disagree. I think the type of intelligence measured by academic success is at least partially an innate talent, the same as athletic prowess. Some people are better at it than others. No matter how hard you try, you will probably not be a genius-level intellect like Albert Einstein or Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
That's because 99% of supergeniuses aren't NT. They think the part of Einstein's brain that handles math and the part that handles general thinking had merged together in Einstein's brain. My argument was for NT, or REGULAR, people. But good try.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions