My IQ is 140, am I too smart to be a teacher?

I have to believe the OP is being honest because he displays the arrogance ignorance of a kid with high school life experience and the social awkwardness of a kid too smart for his own good. Go to Archive.org, listen to some Grateful Dead and Del McCoury Band in the live music archive, and simmer down, buddy.

The 2nd professor was not wise.

Let D be the diameter of the ball, d be the diameter of the sphere, and h be the height of the sphere.

The volume of the cylinder is Vc = (1/4)*d^2*h.

Substitute d^2 = D^2 - h^2 to get:

Vc = (pi/4)*(D^2*h - h^3) = (3/2)*(pi*D^3/6)*((h/D) - (h/D)^3)

This can be rewritten as:

Vc = (3/2)*V*(a - a^3),

where V is the volume of the ball, V = (1/6)*pi*D^3, and a = h/D (0``b``1).

Vc has a maximum at a = 1/sqrt(3), which corresponds to a volume of V/sqrt(3) > V/2.

The first professor should turn the ball down to a cylinder such that the square of the cylinder height is one third the square of the ball diameter, and the square of the cylinder diameter is twice the square of the height. This maximizes his take at 1/sqrt(3), or ~57.735% of the weight.

Third line should have been:

The volume of the cylinder is Vc = (1/4)*pi*d^2*h.

Eighth line should have been:

where V is the volume of the ball, V = (1/6)*pi*D^3, and a = h/D (0<b<1).

Respect for your efforts, but no.

Let radius of sphere = 1 (doesn't make any difference but simplifies notation), center = (0,0,0). Volume of sphere = 4/3 * pi * R^3 = 4/3 * pi.

Pick a point on the edge of the end of the cylinder (i.e., on the circular end of the cylinder that lies on the sphere. Coordinates = (x, y, 0). Volume of such a cylinder = 2 * y * (pi * x^2). But y = (1-x^2)^(1/2).

Substitute for y. Take a derivative and set equal to zero. Find that the maximum volume for such a cylinder corresponds to x = (2/3)^(1/2). Further, the volume is then 2 * (1/3)^(1/2) * pi * (2/3) = {4 * pi * 3^(1/2)} / 9.

Divide this by volume of sphere to get {3^(1/2)}/3 or roughly .577. The maximum such cylinder would contain nearly 58% of the total volume of the sphere.

Consider This wrote:

You're intellect shouldn't be a problem; being an arrogant @sshat might hurt though.

Your

The LRC Your welcome

Paul Newman, BA wrote:

I'm shipping off to college in a couple months. I'll be going to a state school where I'll likely graduate at the top of my class. The thing is, since the beginning of my life, I've wanted to teach. My dream is to teach high school biology.

The only problem is I think I might be too smart. I'm already more intelligent than any teacher in my current high school. I'm worried that if I become a teacher, there will be a lot of tension because I'll be overwhelmingly smart. I understand a lot goes into being a good teacher, but I believe being a good teacher has more to do with practice rather than brains. Is it a good idea for me to pursue teaching, or does my intelligence rule out that field for me?

2/10.

I tested 155-160 on a few tests when I was 16-18 including the mega test. I'll just come right out and say it - I am an exceptionally good teacher, and I think a large part of that is my intellect (but I also like working with teenagers). Kids like to hammer difficult questions at me and see what happens - sometimes I fail miserably, sometimes I succeed brilliant (a couple weeks ago I correctly found the non-decimal portion of the square root of some number in the billions, in my head, in about 60 seconds). You are not too smart; the other teachers are not smart enough.

I teach Senior Math/Physics/Chem/PE, and I really enjoy it. Students, for the most part, learn a lot in my classes and respect and like me. I would welcome any teacher with a 140 IQ as a potentially great teacher. You might be incredibly frustrated by the stupidity of your colleagues, but if you can ignore them you should be able to enjoy a rewarding job.

6.5/10 for the original post. Like someone above said, you overdid it with the arrogance. However, the post was believable enough that, coupled with a strong thread title, it has been able to generate a pretty decent amount of genuine responses. Your replies are hurting your effort, but the nature of the original post should be able to carry this one for awhile without any further input from you.

There's nothing losers who hang their hats on their intelligence love more than the opportunity to talk about what they scored on some test.

In addition, you've worked in high school teaching. Like distance runners, teachers have higher opinions of themselves than the general population does. In particular, they resent what they consider low pay for hard work. So, demeaning high school teachers by acting like you are above them simply because you have a moderately high IQ will generate responses as easily as any apolitical topic will. Finally, the insecure high school teachers who populate letsrun are, for the most part, also insecure distance runners. That's double the insecurity, and, as a result, double the defensiveness.

You created a perfect storm of trollism. Just stay out of the way, sit back, and let it grow on its own. Your work here is done.

OK, I need to make an announcement to letsrun wrt iq: 95% of self-reported scores are made up! Most of the time it's someone who got a 1400 SAT and figures that's equal to a 140 iq. I only believe one iq mentioned in this thread, and that's the 170 the guy said he got on the Stanford-Binet (a real iq test). I'm not sure why someone would take the S-B in college bc it's expensive and mainly used to help diagnose learning disabilities, but it sounds more legit than everyone else saying they scored 140 multiple times. First of all, there would be no reason at all to be tested more than once if you score 140. Schools use iq tests almost exclusively for kids who are struggling and have major problems. They don't waste time testing all the self-styled geniuses, and if you're paying a psychologist independently to test you on multiple batteries for your own vanity you've got some major problems.

As for teaching high school, no it's not intellectually challenging. It is challenging in other ways, but if you want intellectually challenging go the professor route where you can do original research.

160 here. I trained to teach but could not find a job. They won't hire you if you're intelligent. That's too much risk for them. I might have been able to find something at some of the elite high schools but I didn't want to live in my car. They don't pay anything. You're better off starting your own school.

You're too much of an arrogant douche to be a teacher

Occupy Gainesville wrote:

I love how even the most obvious troll thread still draws in all the fish to ever so casually mention their 140+ IQ scores.

It's still happening. Funny stuff.

I'm 180 by the way, but the guy said that was an underestimate, so it's probably closer to 195.

I think that's only about 1 in a billion or something, so it's not that good or anything.

Paul Newman, BA wrote:

I'm shipping off to college in a couple months. I'll be going to a state school where I'll likely graduate at the top of my class.

What are you majoring in? Education?

ventolin^3 wrote:

well

i just took high-iq quick test

http://www.iq-test.com/free-iq-test/

which is 5'00 of 8 questions

4 - 5 questions were easy & i just randomly clicked any of the the other 3 - 4 as i wasn't going to have any time to spend on requisite 2 or 3+ minutes on each to "got it!"

i got 92 - 108 according to them, mainly because i coudn't do it within 5'00 ( & random clicked 3 - 4 )

probably couda got 6, maybe 7 right if i had 30' on it ( i'm long past doing exams, so time spent on getting correct answer is no longer an issue - that's real world )

not sure how that woud push up 92 - 108 with ~ 1/2 random clicks & i'd call myself pretty smart but no genius, as i been to top college where i met real genius guys?!

Mine was 121 to 137 range. I thought there was some problem at first, since there were no words. I will try it again.

IF the OP is serious, I recommend he/she print out this thread and save it for 10 years. You'll get a good chuckle from your ignorance/naivety.

A truly intelligent person knows how to adapt to almost any situation to ensure success. An arrogant, intelligent, person too often chooses not to do so.

As a truly intelligent person, you find connections between all kinds of things that others just don't see and you find beauty in that. Only a small fraction of your students are going to see/understand those connections even if you point them out. Too often, pointing them out only reinforces their own perceived weaknesses.

To be a great teacher, you will need to use your intelligence to get kids to discover key concepts and relationships and will need to find ways to positively reinforce their efforts to seek knowledge, to learn. There's very little about scholastic science, math, english, etc. that you really need that people couldn't pick up on their own in day-to-day life.

Use your intelligence to construct situations where kids want to put forth effort to learn. When doing this for 100+ kids each day in a secondary school environment, it will take every bit of your intelligence to create indivdualized approaches. You won't have time to sit in the teacher's lounge gossiping.

With time you will also learn that really smart people know how to cloak their intelligence to fit a given situation so that you get the best from the people you are with. The person who thinks they are the brightest person in the room rarely is.

Based on your comments in this thread, you should not be in a classroom with teenagers where you would be a role model. Teaching is not just about academic content. I think you, your students, and your peers would all end up miserable until you mature.

If you are really that intelligent,you'd realize there is no need to ask the question. The answer is obvious.

If I get the swarf and can sell it for a considerable sum, why would I want to minimize it? I'm shaving down that sucker to the smallest damn cylinder I can make. I want my swarf to be nearest to 1 kg as possible, which would be limited by the precision of the tools available.

SWS wrote:

Once you start pushing 130 or so every additional IQ point makes you less likely to be successful and more likely to go batshit crazy.

I've got my insanity defense coming along quite well. I think the foundation of my sanity is tested daily by a deep seeded disgust and loathing of 90% of the human race. Being too knowledgeable and logical has its downfalls. I expect everyone without a mental handicap to at least be able to accomplish simple daily tasks with at least a little competence, but humanity and evolution have failed me. While I look at nature and contemplate the beauty of its complexities some herp derp just walked into a lamp post texting it's incoherent thought about a realty tv show. I would gladly trade some intelligence for emotional and mental stability in a second.

OP is such a joke. You have a terribly antiquated view of intelligence. It's as simple as this: Do you actually want to be a teacher? Then all that matters is your aptitude at teaching. Your success as a teacher is the only intelligence that matters. You shouldn't be worried about being "too intelligent" to teach, you should be worried about your lack of skills required to teach well. Being a good teacher relies very heavily on interpersonal skills, which you at first glance seem to lack. Sorry, but you're going to have to WORK on your intelligence before you can pursue teaching.

I <3 Whores wrote:

I've got my insanity defense coming along quite well. I think the foundation of my sanity is tested daily by a deep seeded disgust and loathing of 90% of the human race. Being too knowledgeable and logical has its downfalls...

You could do a better job of playing the part of intelligent person.