Ok, so maybe the next fallacy is that life success is set at birth.
Not.
What fields just require you to sit there and be talented, without dedication and direction? C’mon, D&D won’t overcome a basic lack of build or skills, but talent without hard work stops at the gate.
There are non-analogous fields (sports, art) and there are outlier fields (theoretical physics, pure math) for which sheer hard work may not be enough for a person in the normal range of “talent.”
"There are non-analogous fields (sports, art) and there are outlier fields (theoretical physics, pure math) for which sheer hard work may not be enough for a person in the normal range of “talent.”
Thank you for the clarification.
You’re welcome–glad that helped.
@marvin100 – “theoretical physics” I know this is held up as one of the pinnacles of brain power … but if you actually look at their work you see that the top people go through the same amount of torment as everyone else. For example, I’ve read the personal notebooks of Heaviside, who came up with the correct equations for electromagnetic theory and what ultimately became the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction (Einstein), and you see how dogged persistence paid off in the end. He had page after page of equations crossed out until he found the right solutions. He didn’t just come down from a mountain with the equations etched on tablets, he worked hard to get the correct answers.
My experience is that with a solid formal education, you can become a competent mathematician or a competent artist with hard work. You won’t become great, and there will always be things that are closed to you because you just don’t have the right intuitive sense for the field. But education alone will take you reasonably far as well.
Talent is extremely useful, but if it isn’t nurtured it might as well not exist.
Yes, this is often overlooked by those who push the primacy of innate talent over everything else. Innate talent is easily wasted if the person’s upbringing prevents him/her from developing that talent into useful skill.
@droppedit - I didn’t mean at all that theoretical phsycists (or athletes or mathematicians) don’t need to work hard but rather that hard work may not be enough to succeed in those fields. I’ve read quite a bit about theoretical physicists and have been a big sports fan my whole life 
There’s very, very little consensus that IQ tells us much about “general intelligence,” it turns out. The psychometricians are all over the place on the definition of “intelligence,” although “multiple intelligences” is ascendant. It’s also perfectly possible to study for IQ tests. There’s a guy out there who’s done so and has gone from above average to 200-range as a result.
The only thing a test can conclusively test is how good you are at taking that test.
“Natural ability without education has more often attained to glory and virtue than education without natural ability.” - Cicero
Charles Murray once had this to say about theoretical physics:
A physicist I read about once asked his friend and former mentor this very same question, defining theoretical physicist as one who has written a dissertation in the field and has published work in the field. The sobering response was one in 100,000 people.
I was left speechless.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Back to topic people. This is not the place to debate talent vs. hard work. If someone want to open a thread to discuss, feel free. Otherwise, let’s stick to listing the fallacies.
- I worked hard, so I *deserve* to attend School x whether or not it's affordable for my family.
- Students are the ones going to college, so their parents shouldn't get to decide which colleges they can attend. They may, of course, write as many checks as necessary to make dream schools come true.
- He with the most AP wins.
I lived in New Jersey for 18 years and liked it just fine. I would still be there – and happy to be there – if we hadn’t moved to Maryland for a job opportunity for my husband.
But the state doesn’t have enough seats at its colleges for all of its residents, so it exports students to other states. It also doesn’t have good options in the selectivity gap between Princeton and Rutgers,but neighboring states do.
I wanted to add a comment on Fallacy 184, posted by lookingforward, in #213. Stanford used to have on its admissions web site the statement that it was not the case that the student with the most APs “wins.”
I agree wholeheartedly with that. Some of the APs carry no college credit at top schools, and vacuuming up AP credits all across the board is pretty senseless, in most cases. If a student has taken AP classes, it would make sense to go deeper in the subjects of main interest, into post-AP work.
What I did not appreciate earlier on was that Stanford really meant that the intellectual quality of a pre-college program did not give any detectable edge in admissions, beyond a baseline level of “rigor.” And if an admissions officer is going to claim that “intellectual vitality” can be shown in a personal essay about shopping (as one at Stanford did), . . . Well, that’s not what I think of as intellectual vitality, unless the applicant was J. M. Keynes, and “shopping” encompassed more than a trip to the mall. Legally Blonde was a movie!
To add: Acknowledged, it’s fair enough that any college can admit however it wants (within the law). But in my opinion, Stanford’s message was misleading, in that it looked like a statement about one type of academic choice (loading up the AP’s), when I think that it was actually a statement more broadly applicable to advanced academics in general. It would not have changed any choices in my family, but it would have changed our view of Stanford admissions.
Along those lines, what they also used to say (I haven’t dug it up again,) was not that they valued entrepreneurs. Rather, they like kids who could show they had been entrepreneurial about their studies (or choices.) I think that lines up with your comment, QM, about intellectual vitality.
Misconception 185. It makes sense for colleges to put an obsessive focus on extracurricular activities that show how “well rounded” a student is.
Seriously, 90% of high school e.c.'s are a product of a) how rich your parents and school are, b) how easy your classes are and c) how good you are at embellishing your application. They’re nice to have, but unless if they’re academic achievements or truly extraordinary, they shouldn’t trump your transcript and test scores, IMHO.
- Winning athletic competitions is obviously soooo important, because clearly being physically gifted translates into real life success.
Oh, okay, 187: you have to be rich to participate in (good) ECs. Or have oodles of time because your schedule is so easy. Please, let’s save arguing about this for another thread.