You're Smart. So What?: Examining the Importance of Soft Skills
blog.chrisdrane.com
blog.chrisdrane.com
I feel like there is a disparity between the curriculum in schools and the skills necessary to be prepared for "the real world" and by-in-large a lot of this knowledge is just assumed. Everything from learning HOW to study (and not just what you need to study to pass tests) to real world "skills" like balancing a budget. But hey, if you've taken the mandatory economics class, you know what bear and bull markets are so you should be set for life. Ah, but I digress.
Anyway, I for one, would love to read this your book. However, I cant see very many teenagers looking in the self-help section to pick up a book that will help them. While I completely agree that teenagers need to be made aware of, what I would call, "life lessons", a self help book might not be the best approach to getting the material out there.
The only emotion I can ever recall feeling when staring down at an exam is abject fear as every fact I knew drained out of my head.
I was always a relatively bright kid, but never super smart. When I worked hard, I got top grades and when I slacked, I didn't. At some point I stopped working hard and drifted through education, getting a mediocre degree on the way (on the upside, I have great soft skills).
From discussions with other gifted people, I get the impression that most of them worked really, really hard, even if they didn't realise it. But I have heard the odd person who maintains it all came naturally. Is this you?
Fairly anti-climatic. For someone that it comes easy too there is no real emotion or sense of accomplishment.
It would be like trying to explain the color green to someone that was born blind.
I completely agree with this statement. Personally, I felt like I didnt put in as much effort into my highschool work because I knew that I could easily pick up whatever I missed in class or homework and if I knew I could do it there was no real drive for me to try harder. And this goes back to the original article.
In general there was an attitude among my circle of friends to try and show off how little work they can do to still pull off a high score. I would say yes, most of the people I know who are considered "gifted" in general do work harder in the background than they let on. They themselves probably want to believe that they can effortlessly achieve in the classroom (and probably in life).
I think for me, at least, what happened was that I would really get into things and work extremely hard for a short period of time (sometimes without realizing it) and then coast for a while and appear as though I'm super talented and naturally good at many subjects. I don't think I was consciously planning any of this, but it just happened that way.
Looking back now, I do think that the attitude was pretty immature and obnoxious.
But, that said, my idea of skipping school was heading downtown to the GWU library. I started taking AP courses as a sophomore and always had long-term papers to write. I spent much of my senior year in a local wetland taking water samples.
There was definitely a balance. I tended to work hard at things that I enjoyed and completely blow off stuff that I deemed tedious or irrelevant. And overall, the balance usually fell in my favor.
There were students at school who were both smarter and harder working than I. And some of them were accepted at elite universities, where I landed at a top-notch public. But, we tended to have vastly different approaches to life. They live to work and found careers that they love. I work to live and found a career that I don't hate (but mostly, just want to get my paycheck and go mountain biking, kayaking, or something else outdoors).
And like another response indicated, this was all just natural. My peers were all overachievers, most of them naturally so.
Actually, one of my favorite memories from university is from an algorithms test. We had to find nearest smallest neighbors, or something like that, in O(n lg n) time. Our professor was good, and an algorithms guy, so I was surprised when I realized it could be done with just two sweeps across the list [O(n)]. When I showed him (I was wondering if the question mentioning 'divide and conquer' was a hint or a restriction), he couldn't believe he'd missed it.
I picked up the knack for listening to what teachers emphasized while teaching and correlated that to the home work, drew parallels and 9 times out of 10, most of what they had in common was on the test - so no extra studying needed. It was easier for things like Maths, Physics and Chemistry because you have a formula to use - and all the questions that revolved around these forumlae had keywords as far as what facts you have to use and what you need to find. Once you see the pattern, you can apply the forumula (which you've probably seen at least a dozen times in class and/or homework) at this point and its just applying it.
As far as things like vocabulary or other word definitions go, I've learned how to photographically remember things so I could breeze through a textbook and remember key words and/or key dates and look for those in questions on the test.
I dont mean to say that it is either hard or only gifted people can do it, I think everyone has their own unique learning style and once they figure out what works for them, tests can be easy.
So you're saying "apart from fields where you have to be smart, it doesn't matter if you're smart"?
(Put another way: this is why so many STEM people get a bad rap.)
I would guess that building bridges is similar.
The best doctors have people skills too. "Bedside manner"
For high school students looking to develop soft skills: http://bit.ly/1b60sBm http://bit.ly/13Rjiay http://abt.cm/14nWouk
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/6-habits-of-remarkabl...
You're so smart, you're studying, you're 52, and when you die, you'll have nothing to clutch in your grave but your degrees.
Being 52 and in school is fucking awesome. You're old, you're not doing it because it's making you money. You're doing it for the pursuit of knowledge. You're doing it to learn from the fruits of labor of all that have come before you. You might make another discovery. You might not. But at this point, uncovering new things for its own sake is just fucking awesome.
But, says Kanye, but, says the rich and famous role model of yours: I'm smooth, I hustle, and when I die, I'm hugging my platinums in my grave. Maybe I'll even have a statue of me on my tombstone.
Maybe there's a subtext that I'm not getting. Maybe this is an alcoholic 52 year old who decided on a whim that he's gonna get smarter and somehow that's going to make him rich, and that's what West is talking about. But that's not what you're quoting. What you're quoting is a reflecting of your acknowledgement of that belief.
You're smart. Soft skills are important. Know what, I'm smart too, and I have soft skills, and I find the mentality conveyed in those verses pure, culture-destroying toxic. Maybe you're after hustle... But hustle is not "soft skills".
Anecdotal evidence: I'm a college student and got my software engineering internship this summer because, according to the recruiter, I was better at communicating and more personable than the other candidates. Among people in my major (CS), I would say I'm pretty average in terms of intellect, so I actively work at these sorts of 'soft' skills to give myself some advantage.
I don't like the attitude of this article. Good soft skills will not compensate lack of smartness. This might not appear in a job interview (although good interviewers will notice), but it definately will later on.
Thus: also read books.
Sure they will. I work with quite a few people who have been very successful in their careers on the basis of their soft skills, and who are (how do I put this) "not notably smart" in classical book-learning skills.
I completely agree that good soft skills or "street smarts" are no substitute for actual knowledge but sharp soft skills tend to land more interviews than being smart (Natural networking and all).
Ultimately though, I agree with you. Soft skills and "book smarts" shouldnt be mutually exclusive.
Ish. So for instance you can't be a complete fool, but if you hire people that are smarter than you are, and get them to work together as a team then soft skills can compensate for lack of smartness.
Obviously, to do this you need to have a realistic view of your own limitations. Dunning-Kruger sufferers need not apply.
The first group always assumes they are smarter, which is not necessarily true.High IQ people belong to both groups.