Lori vrs me.

So I'm sitting on the bus, and Lori, my friend, brings up a point, actually, several points.

One of which includes, "You're applying for MIT right?"
Quite frankly, no I wasn't. I'm pretty sure that I'm no where smart enough to attent MIT or Cal Tech. Or at least I hope I don't else my brother will become the janitor and school my ass to make me study. But the point she was trying to make is, "You can do it as long as you set your mind for it." I don't really believe in that. Reason being, I know this girl. She is in my math class, we will name her...Bobalina. Bobalina studies for more time than I play games during the summer, cries when she gets a bad grade, etc. Bobalina works her ass off and gets straight As. I do not work my ass off, and I'm getting half decent grades. Right now I have mostly Bs and As. And a C in math...but that's my own stupidity. Regardless, it shows how little work I do, and I get half decent grades, vs. how much Bobalina's work, and the grades she gets.

I think I am smarter than Bobalina, but she is only there to prove my point. People who go to MIT are much smarter than me. I mean, you have kids there who are like, "Uh yeah. I'm playing blackjack instead of studying," and gets Bs. Yes, there are people who work hard, but the intelligence level between me, and someone who may be able to get into MIT are grand. But that's only my thought. I do not believe that you achieve all your goals through just hard work.

The people in MIT are phenomenal in intelligence. Some of the people there do no work, and pull out a C average, where I would have to work my ass off to pull a D. Actually; I'll probably fail after the first week. I have no mentality for that type of work. The point being, not only will MIT most likely reject me, but the intelligence difference is just too steep. They are looking for people who get the same grades as Bobalina, but works just as hard as.....me (not very hard).

Another point she brought up. My philosophy/doctrine/whatever states, "It's better to be phenomenal in one area, than good in the rest." Lori states, "It's better to be phenomenal in all areas." Again, I disagree. I don't think it is possible to be phenomenal in all areas, for the fact that humans have a limited life span. Most of your learning effort goes into your first 30 years of your life (grad school, etc). Then the rest are devoted to working. So in 30 years, you cannot be phenomenal in 8 different subjects, unless you learn how to stay awake 24/6 and sleep on only holidays and Sundays. My take is, it's better to have 1 or two majors, rather than five minors.

Carmack, would not have been such a great programmer...okay bad example. He's like uber programmer and he's got a high school education.

Hmmmm.

Okay. Einstein devoted most of his life for physics. I'm pretty sure that none of his books were ever very popular for the general population. Whereas Clinton, who's a liberal arts major, writes a book that is instantly popular. The difference is that Clinton will always be able to write better than Einstein, and Einstein will always be better in physics. There is no one human being who can be equally phenomenal in two subjects, and better than a person who is phenomenal in one subject.