Hard-working but not naturally smart

[Anonymous]

How do these kids fare in college? I have a DD who works extremely hard for her good grades and has to study a lot more than most to succeed. She has a great GPA (3.8) with lots of honors and AP classes, but test scores are a bit lower than one would expect for such a strong GPA (1920).

[Anonymous]

She is set for success in college since she has the dedication to do well. There are plenty of colleges with with test optional policies so you may want to include some of this in her search. I would also include some liberal arts colleges with smaller class size.

[Anonymous]

I agree. The fact that she knows how to study is really going to help her in college.

[Anonymous]

How much is studying a lot? One of my best friends from high school really, really struggled in college - he literally had to study 8+ hours a night in HS to keep his respectable GPA bur there simply wasn't enough time in college to keep up with the extra rigor, but I'm assuming your DD isn't this excessive.

[Anonymous]

Has she ever been tested for a learning disability? This sounds like classic GT/LD.

[Anonymous]

You are awful. If she has a 3.8 GPA in honors and AP classes, she IS "naturally smart". Her combination of intelligence, discipline, and hard work will serve her much better in college than genius intelligence by itself would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are awful. If she has a 3.8 GPA in honors and AP classes, she IS "naturally smart". Her combination of intelligence, discipline, and hard work will serve her much better in college than genius intelligence by itself would.

[phone]

[Anonymous]

She'll do much better than "naturally smart" but lazy kids.

[Anonymous]

My sister was something like this. She's certainly not dumb, but had to work much harder than me and my other siblings (for whom things came easy) to succeed. She excelled at her SLAC, was Phi Beta Kappa, and did great in the working world since she was Eucharist hard worker.

[Anonymous]

She will do fine. Undergrad is not really all that hard. Studies show with an IQ of a 100 most people will have no trouble. The nature abilities do come in to play, but that is more of picking a major. She will do very well if she works hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She'll do much better than "naturally smart" but lazy kids.

+100
An inner drive to succeed always trumps natural smarts.

[Anonymous]

Yep, I had lsat scores at the bottom of my law school class but studied harder/smarter and made law review and highest honors.

[Anonymous]

I always think my DH is like this. He's not naturally smart, but he's the most hardworking person I ever met. In life I think working hard is worth 10x intelligence. DH graduated top of his class in both BA and MA.

[Anonymous]

I fall into the category that you describe--hard work ethic, but not smart in the way you are using the word "smart."

I agree with other PPs that your DD sounds smart under a broader definition (I do not agree that you are being "awful." LOL)

I started out at a junior college. I worked my way into Harvard Law, with nobody to help me get there. So there's a little bit of data with regard to your initial question.

Once in law school, I was intimidated--I thought other people were there because they were smart, and I was just a hard worker.

Well some other people were there because they were "smart" under your definition (maybe had photographic memories, or just really quick-minded), and some were there because daddy made a phone call…it took me until my 3rd year to realize that I belonged there as much as other people.

From there I went to a job--a little bit of a thinktank--where many of my colleagues were from my law school. All were smart but in many different ways.

For me, my smarts are made up with the work ethic, the preparation for the event (whatever the event is, a test, a speech, etc.), and ability to analyze a situation and then come up with options, often out-of-the-box options, to solve problems.

I would not be a great litigator because I don't think on my feet well. So if the opposition came out with some BS story, instead of immediately refuting it, I analyze it--which takes too long. However; this ability to sit back an analyze, (and also come up with unusual options), are strengths of their own and fall under the broader definition of "smart."

Your DD is a "grinder." It can take her far.

Funny, I have two kids, one is a grinder and the other is whip-smart (takes after her dad). I always assumed the whip-smart one would do well, but now they are older and the assignments are more complex; one can't just pop up a quick answer. When given a long dragged out assignment, this kid takes shortcuts--she doesn't "grind" well. I see for that one to do well, I'll need to teach her some techniques. Lots of whip-smart people with no discipline out there--I think they tend to not fare too well compared with people of any stripe who have learned discipline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I fall into the category that you describe--hard work ethic, but not smart in the way you are using the word "smart."

I agree with other PPs that your DD sounds smart under a broader definition (I do not agree that you are being "awful." LOL)

I started out at a junior college. I worked my way into Harvard Law, with nobody to help me get there. So there's a little bit of data with regard to your initial question.

Once in law school, I was intimidated--I thought other people were there because they were smart, and I was just a hard worker.

Well some other people were there because they were "smart" under your definition (maybe had photographic memories, or just really quick-minded), and some were there because daddy made a phone call…it took me until my 3rd year to realize that I belonged there as much as other people.

From there I went to a job--a little bit of a thinktank--where many of my colleagues were from my law school. All were smart but in many different ways.

For me, my smarts are made up with the work ethic, the preparation for the event (whatever the event is, a test, a speech, etc.), and ability to analyze a situation and then come up with options, often out-of-the-box options, to solve problems.

I would not be a great litigator because I don't think on my feet well. So if the opposition came out with some BS story, instead of immediately refuting it, I analyze it--which takes too long. However; this ability to sit back an analyze, (and also come up with unusual options), are strengths of their own and fall under the broader definition of "smart."

Your DD is a "grinder." It can take her far.

Funny, I have two kids, one is a grinder and the other is whip-smart (takes after her dad). I always assumed the whip-smart one would do well, but now they are older and the assignments are more complex; one can't just pop up a quick answer. When given a long dragged out assignment, this kid takes shortcuts--she doesn't "grind" well. I see for that one to do well, I'll need to teach her some techniques. Lots of whip-smart people with no discipline out there--I think they tend to not fare too well compared with people of any stripe who have learned discipline.

You may not be "smart" but you are wise.