We have a strictly academic alter-ego.

It is the weary-eyed version of ourselves that highlights AP study books, and drags our forlorn souls to school every morning, tearfully aware of the fact we have more than one assessment awaiting us. But, because its so taxing -and strange - to look at ourselves from the third person, we never really are aware of this as much as we ought to be. When you see a senior in the hallways, you are looking at the glossy, final product; the refined sculpture of the person he or she mightve been as 9th grade classes begun, chiseled and hardened by the trials in the classroom, in the field, or on a blank Word document But how did they do it? Did they rely on pure, rote hard work to get there? Or was there some God-given talent that drove them to glory? Why is it that some people never really seemed to study harder be stressed about their tests, but yet they consistently rank at the top of the class? And why is it that people who do stay up all night with their phone switched off and their eyes glued to their review books never always beat their naturally selected counterparts in the gradebook? If I was to standardise the amount of working hours, say, two hours per day, for every student in my grade over the past four years, would all of us receive the same grades on our assignments? Probably not. Some work better with visuals, some prefer letters to numbers and vice versa - each and every person has his or her own arsenal of weapons to conquer their education with. So is it unfair that student X receives a 98% on a test when student Y was on the verge of drowning in a sea of completed papers and only managed an 86%? AP United States History is an intriguing model for the situation. Having taken the course in my junior year, I found that the actual content isnt difficult to absorb . But the sheer volume of work, including but not limited to countless essays and documents, forces everyone to toil away to the point of enriched exhaustion and gives the class a daunting feel. We all had the same workload and same rate of assessments per week. But the label of the smartest kid in the room was an unspoken consensus. The kids who always answered the teachers questions werent necessarily the most intelligent - rather, he or she had just worked hard to spurt out the right answer. If an intelligent kid didnt answer the teachers questions correctly, than does it strip away from his or her intelligence? In search of the elusive answer to the El Dorado of scholastic questions, I consulted countless sources. These ranged from renowned psychologists articles to the meagre lowly forums on college search websites, wherein driven teenagers under nonsensical pseudonyms (see: beefs, azn&proud, and OaksMom) sparred to find a statement they could all agree with. One of the foremost experts in the field is the author Paul Tough, who projected two hypotheses in his book How Children Succeed. First is his cognitive hypothesis which reveals that children succeed based off the kind of intelligence that is tested on I.Q. tests...[the ability] to calculate, detect patterns. The general consensus with this theory, is, of course, that the more one practices these skills, then the better he or she will become. Tough also propounds a new theory known as the character hypothesis: that life skills, so to speak, are what really gives kids the advantage. Curiosity, self-confidence, grit and determination, he argues, are more essential than this seemingly naturally selected intelligence to succeed. Great, were all set for life!

Or are we? A New York Times opinion column by David Z. Hambrick and Elizabeth J. Meinz, who are associate professors of psychology at Michigan State University and Southern Illinois University, respectively, propose the complete opposite - in a piece titled Sorry Strivers, the two carried out an experiment with 57 pianists, having them carry out various tasks. They found that, although all the pianists had practiced the same amount, the ones with a higher memory capacity - which is a component of natural intelligence - performed significantly better on the tasks assigned. Sometimes, the story of science - a.k.a. the one that prefers practice and hard work over talent-isnt the story we want to hear. Of course, keep in mind that these are just two of the hundreds of theories being thrown out there. The point is, as with all El Dorado questions, is not to really find the answer though merely to raise awareness with regards to how we learn and who really has the sacred edge in such a heated environment. Rationalising what makes students different, rather than just being confused or in awe about their academic inclination, is key to understanding learning methods for generations to come. Its a matter of when and not if more questions about this eternal battle will rise.