To wonder how smart do you actually have to be for some professions?

[Jigaliga]

Inspired by a comment on another thread...

Do you really have to be genuinely intelligent to be a doctor, lawyer, etc? Or is it just putting in the grind and a good education?

I guess to be an academic you would have to be intelligent. To be a barrister too, but maybe not to be a solicitor? What about accountants?

But there's still other factors. The people "scraping through" may have not been able to spend as much time studying as those who passed easily, either due to family/caring responsibilities, or an employer who didn't give much time off/support for studying etc. Someone who's had to take re-takes in professional exams doesn't mean they didn't have the ability to pass first time.

I agree with others that passing exams is more nuanced than simple intelligence. Putting the time and effort in is just as important (or having the luxury of being able to put time and effort in!).

Right from early years with our son, we've instilled into him a basic work ethic of doing his homework, revising for tests/exams, etc. He wasn't "academic" at all in the sense that he's never been interested in knowledge for the sake of knowledge, never read anything beyond the age of around 10 except for school work/homework/revision, etc. But he's a plodder. Got a full string of grade 9 at GCSE, full suite of A* at A level, a First degree in Maths and now half way through his professional actuarial exams in his workplace. He's not remotely "Interested" in any of that. He's just a plodder who puts the work in when he has to and knows how to pass exams. Part of that is that we ensured he had the environment, i.e. desk and equipment, a quiet house to do his homework, parental "pushiness" to ensure he did his homework, parental engagement with the schools etc. Even now, doing his professional exams, he has loads of paid study leave so never has to study evenings nor weekends, all his study materials and exam fees paid for by his employer, living on his own, so a quiet flat with no spouse/partner/childcare obligations, etc.

He's certainly no more intelligent than some of his peers working in the same place who are struggling and failing some exams - those who are married and/or with children, so trying to juggle family commitments alongside trying to study for exams etc.

Back in my day studying to be an accountant, I had a miserly employer who gave no study time so I had to study evenings and weekends. I also had to have a weekend job as pay was so low, so worked all Saturday and Sunday mornings, leaving me only Sunday afternoon. Also doing voluntary work 1 or 2 evenings per week. So my study time was squeezed and yes, I failed and had to re-take 1 of the 16 professional exams I had to pass. Before that I'd only managed grade D's in my A levels (again self studying alongside full time job) but it was enough to get into the accountancy body! I basically did what I had to do to scrape passes. If I'd had the luxury of lots of study time, or not having to work weekends, etc., I know I could have sailed through the exams with much higher marks.

So, no, I don't think even professional exams are particularly onerous to pass. If you get your head down and plod on, keep your eye on what's important in the exam, know the mark schemes, etc.,

Obviously, you're not going to get into a top 4 firm with poor A levels to start with and won't make partner if you've only just scraped through your exams and not "high flying" in your workplace, but you'll still have a good career, whether an accountant, solicitor, etc.

Some of the doctors and consultants we've come across in our 60 years of life have also been pretty unimpressive. Some have been remarkable, but again, like all professions, there've been a lot of "Plodders" - OH had seen plenty as he's had cancer for nearly a decade. He's seen a massive difference between different oncologists - one was a real high flyer who was on top of all the latest research, etc., another was a "plodder" who didn't really know anything about recent developments and new treatments coming.

Yup, Unis are just degree factories these days.

In one of my son's exams, it was literally two equal questions, both 50% of the marks. It was in Covid, so they'd not had proper lectures, no tutorials etc and had basically been left to themselves to study. He did OK on the first question, and thought he'd got probably 80% of the marks (he was always pretty accurate about how well he'd done). But he could barely start the second question, which was on a topic he claimed he'd not been taught (and later checked the lecture notes and it wasn't there at all!). He thought he'd maybe scraped a handful of marks by writing the bleeding obvious basics, maybe 10% of the marks. So overall, was expecting a mark of 45% (80% of the first half and 10% of the second half). He said most of the exam hall left after half time and talking afterwards all his friends said the same thing that they couldn't do the second question.

When the marks came out, he'd got 90%! Apparently, that was a "standardised" mark, not the core mark, which was indeed 46% as he expected. So basically, because they'd screwed up the teaching and set the "wrong" question in the exam, they fiddled the mark by putting more weighting on the question that everyone could do well and less weighting on the one the students struggled with!

He said the same happened in other exams at Uni too, but not to such an extreme extent. I do feel there needs to be more scrutiny as to how Unis are marking their exams and deciding on degree classifications.

In my accountancy exam days, the professional exams had a fixed/rigid "pass" mark of 50%. If you didn't get the marks, you didn't pass. The only "concession" was that for anyone getting between 45-50% their papers were reviewed and sometimes re-marked if appropriate if markers had been harsh the first time. But if you got 51 marks out of 100, you passed - much simpler, fairer and more transparent rather than the more modern trend of changing the pass mark after the event according to how many/few passed or failed i.e. a moving target!

The same applies to all the other professions you’ve mentioned - an Oxford academic isn’t the same as one from the University of Hull, a local accountant isn’t the same as someone at the Big 4, a top London chambers isn’t the same as your local…

This is interesting. In my field, once you get to a certain level, whether you went to Oxbridge really doesn't mean much at all. There are super high flyers (equivalent to someone at the Big 4)that went to say, Southampton compared with plenty of Oxbridge people who are the local accountant.

I think being clever comes in many forms. Being good at exams isn't necessarily a marker of fabulous intelligence. Some of the best workers I know had to retake their exams multiple times. Some of the scariest people are Oxbridge educated and super confident but I wouldn't have them make me a cup of tea.

From a 2023 study

https://gwern.net/doc/iq/ses/2023-wolfram.pdf

@taxguru I agree your DS and others had no chance in that topic the system just isn’t a fair reflection of who is truly excellent. Employers do their own tests and find many people with firsts are not that great and could not possibly do the top jobs. As the research quoted by a pp suggests, being a one trick pony isn’t what employers want either. A first from a low ranking uni with low A levels and not great GCSEs does raise suspicions with employers.

@taxguru The situation you mention with your son's exam did not come about because the mark was 'fiddled' but because there is scrutiny over assessments. Universities have systems in place to ensure that assessment processes are fair. The marking for all assessments are, at minimum, moderated by another member of staff (checking a selection to ensure the marking is in line with university regs). On top of that all degree programmes have external examiners - academics from different institutions who checks the rigor of the assessments/marking/feedback given to students. Part of the assessment process is whether a particular cohort has done particularly better or worse than those that have gone before - if a cohort seems to have done particularly badly then they will look for reasons why and see if adjustments can be made so that cohort is not detrimentally affected. So, in the case of your son, they will have established that someone messed up and that material was not taught. It might not even have been that - the exams are often written a long time in advance so it could have been that covid meant the amount of material to be covered was reduced to try and help the students at a difficult time yet the exam couldn't be altered. Either way, they did what was right to not penalise the students. The checks and systems that are in place picked up on the issue and grades were modified so that the students were treated fairly. I'm pretty sure there would've been uproar if it had been the other way and everyone had received a fail grade for 50% of the module based on an assessment that did not map onto the taught material.

During Covid universities bent over backwards to try to ensure that students weren't detrimentally affected in the grades they received comparative to the pre-covid years - we had all sorts of mechanisms in place such as calculating degree classifications based on pre-covid grades, just final year grades, combinations of every which way possible really - whichever was the best outcome for the student was what they received. This was to try to help students. Judging how universities grade work based on experiences during Covid is unlikely to be representative of their normal processes - it was an unprecedented situation and they did what was needed to try and do the best by the students.

But, it is true that, generally, there are more first class degrees now than there were in the past. The marking system has always been bizarre and works on percentages that are not really percentages (outside of the science/maths-based exams where 1 mark = 1 percent). So, it isn't a case of they get a first by knowing less than 75% of the material - it doesn't work like that. When I did my degree (essay, scientific report-based) it was virtually impossible to get a grade higher than 80% for a piece of work and that had to be truly exceptional. If you did get awarded a first then it tended to be a 72% (a friend of mine once got given 68% for a presentation with the only area for improvement being 'I didn't like your type font'). This meant that you had to get a first in pretty much every piece of work submitted to come out with a first class degree by averaging over 70%. These days the lowest first class mark I can award is a 75% - so that already makes it easier. Plus, that is considered a 'borderline first' and we are encouraged to give 85% and potentially 95%. Also, we have borderline zones which mean we can consider those with an average of 68.5% for a first IF they meet certain criteria (a certain number of modules in the higher grade boundary). Much of this will be driven by the imposition of the National Student Survey (NSS) and the fact that league tables rank universities on the 'number of top degrees' they award (2:1/1st) and 'value added' (some calculation based on entry criteria to top degrees - so having bought in students with low entry tariffs who then go on to get good degrees).

I admit I do find this mildly annoying! Especially on behalf of current grad job applicants which are university blind. So someone with a first from Oxford looks exactly the same on paper as someone with a first from an ex poly which gives nearly half its cohort firsts (and yes, I know, the person from the ex poly may be just as bright and work just as hard as the Oxford grad but let's not pretend they're the same - my friend (who is very bright btw!) went to the ex poly in my uni city and did basically the same course as me a couple of years after I graduated. He asked me occasionally to look over his coursework etc and it was just... easier).

Yes to ALL of this.
How much more scrutiny do you want @taxguru

The point about a student getting a grade of 75 not meaning they only know 75% of the content is really important. Unless it’s an exam it doesn’t work like that.
Students are not just being marked on content knowledge but it’s how they engage with that knowledge critically.

@Andoutcomethewolves The Oxbridge grads still get the better paid jons though - if they want them. They do better at the tests and are almost certainly more likely to do well at interview due to teaching methods. I heard uni blind meant more Oxbridge grads were successful! I’m not surprised.

It is frankly ridiculous to award so many firsts that are nowhere near a 2:1 elsewhere. These dc would have got nowhere near the most competitive or challenging courses. Not all employers are uni blind either.

I became a qualified accountant in 2001 with just A-levels behind me. My former business partner joined as an "articled clerk" straight from school (O-levels) in 1970. I can't speak for other professions, but accountancy has never been a profession that you need a degree for.

It depends what you mean by smart/intelligent. I have taught hundreds of kids who would not be capable of doing the jobs you mention in the OP or of getting the qualifications they'd need to do so. Everyone can improve by working hard and learning (and some people have a huge head start due to their background) but that doesn't mean that everyone has the same innate potential.

1.8 minutes per mark!? 36 mins for a 20 mark question and move on!

That's been stuck in my head for 25 years!

I agree it's not always about intelligence in terms of passing exams, but learning the appropriate exam techniques and plenty of exam practice.

My training sounds similar to you but without the extra weekend work and volunteering. I am a last minute crammer and so would rather just learn everything in the couple of weeks leading up to an exam.

As soon as the exam is done I forget about it. To the point that a colleague asked me to help him study as he was struggling with some exam practice. Showed me a question and I had genuinely no idea how to answer the question. He then pointed out that it was a question from the exam paper I'd passed 4 months earlier!

All exams really do is prove who can pass exams. They don't necessarily mean you're going to be a good accountant. I've worked with excellent accountants who don't have a qualification to their name, and rubbish ones that do.

Frozo
I don’t accept that accountants in Big 4 firms are more intelligent than local accountants.
My experience indicates Big 4 accountants are in local offices and have the same competence and incompetence as a local accountants.
The difference is the arrogance!

@BlueandWhitePorcelain super interesting! Thanks 😊

So true. I had the delight recently of a meeting with someone that used to work at one of the top 4 (she announced it, unprompted, within minutes of the meeting starting). She was really difficult to talk to as she was of the "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality, just because my firm is much smaller (because, you know, big firms are SO much better). Didn't like the fact that I stood up to her. Didn't like that I pointed out the reason we were charging them more was because of failing of their staff. Accused us of being really late in delivering work.

Shortly after the meeting it transpired that the team she was managing were hiding their lack of progress on jobs by telling her that everything was sitting with us, despite us having sent them everything 4 months ago. She's obviously realised that we are not the problem, but she's not admitting it.

Another aspect is that a Big 4 accountant will be specialised. A top 4 audit manager will know all about audit, but very little about tax returns, tax planning, insolvency, etc. Likewise a top 4 tax partner will probably not have a clue about current auditing standard, etc.

Whereas a "local" small firm accountant will be a "jack of all trades" who has to know about current audit rules, current tax rules, etc etc., so it could be argued they are "better" because they have a much greater breadth of knowledge rather than being "tunnel vision" into one particular discipline.

Lots of different ways of looking at things!

Agree.

Depends on how you define smart or intelligent. Plenty of people with no formal education are incredibly smart and some become very successful, e.g. in business.

IMHO, to achieve academically and in the recognised professions, you need:

• Expectation: from family, peers and school
• Role models: both public (to inspire) and personal (to support)
• Confidence: belief that you can do it
• Desire: if your heart’s not in it, much less likely
• Absorption in the subject: which allows for deep dives and breath of knowledge
• Hard work: it takes hours to learn, and practice applying
• Adequate intelligence: to grasp concepts, understand formulas etc.

A working class boy could have all the above in spades for, say, football.

They may lack some or all of the above for studying law, even though they’d be just as capable of doing it.

Role models are important. That’s why children of doctors often become doctors and children of musicians often become musicians. It can be hard to succeed in a field where you don’t know anyone who understands the challenges you face. Or there’s no one who seems like you.

Average children from private schools can get coached through their exams and taught how to apply tactically to get into Oxbridge. Someone from a difficult sink school who got into a very average university may be far more intelligent

@coolbreezes You think Oxbridge takes moderate dc who are over coached?!! Utter rubbish.

Look at some of the comments here about dc of doctors being doctors. Dc of vets become vets. Etc. What that shows is several things: these dc have the advantages of knowing the role, having a mentor and crucially, clever parents. These dc have every CHS be of getting a good job. Dc who achieve well at private school are not specifically coached in terms of results but they often are dc of very high achieving parents who earn a lot of money! It’s no coincidence they do well! They too have role model parents and confidence in their abilities like the dc of doctors. They just have parents who possibly earn more!

I also think confidence can lead to self employment. DH was confident enough to do this and no one had before in the family. DD is an also self employed. Both high earners. Not the same professions but she understood what being self employed meant.

Amd yet we are constantly told that private school teachers are no better. Which is it? No matter how much you coach and spoon-feed, there is ultimately the kid and the exam paper. In a room. That's it. I've taught across both sectors, all kinds of kids. It's not as complex as some make out. You need a combination of some level of innate intelligence coupled with a work ethic and a lack of obvious barriers like disruptive or abusive home life.

This may not always have been the case but now, any school with a 6th form will have access to training for UCAS and Oxbridge applications. A lot of private schools, including mine, offer local states the opportunity to come to days with mock interviews in a range of subjects.

Not to mention work/study ethic. Professional parents are simply more likely to "encourage" and nurture their kids to respect and embrace education, more likely to be able to have discussions about exam option choices, further education option choices, etc. Don't the statistics show that degree level/professionally educated adults are more likely to have children likewise going to Uni or into professions (even if not the same profession)? That's not just down to which school they go to, it's parental support and aspirations and doesn't need to cost anything.

I literally have heaps of friends who went to Oxbridge who told me about all the tricks their schools pulled to get them in there.

It's well known that this happens.

I am actually shocked anyone doesn't realise it goes on.

I think that's not all of it at all.

Wealthier people can also pay for tutors, for re-sits, for interview coaching, for help with personal applications. There's a whole industry of people making money out of this.

Wealth and connections make a huge difference.

Why would we deny that?

@taxguru It’s interesting though, that of the DDs mine went to primary school with (they went on to a grammar school) they are mostly not doing anything much beyond their degree. One has but she’s maths high flyer. The same job as her dad though. The others had parents who all had very good jobs, surgeon, management consultant etc and the parents were all devoted to the best education available, but DC seem to like an easier life! So ambition is definitely a driver too.

My children went to independent schools and to Oxbridge. One Oxford, one Cambridge.

The only tricks I'm aware of were 44 points at IB and 3A*s at A'Level.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to enlighten me.