The answer is that people study for the test and passing enough tests is all you need to graduate.

There is a correlation between graduating and being able to program, but it's not a perfect correlation.

> I believe most people are sufficiently intelligent to learn basically any skills and knowledge that they want.

It's easy to see this is untrue. replace intelligence with physical ability and it quickly becomes obvious that not everyone is going to be a great boxer or a great basketball player.

If you take away the requirement for success, then sure, anyone can do anything. But lets not take that requirement away as that makes your statement unuseful.

Part of the disconnect between our positions, and the position of society at large is that society at large sees receiving a college degree as success, or at least a strong sign of success. Where-as when people fluent in advanced technical topics describe someone being successful, they're referring to the ability to work in those topics fluently, e.g be their intellectual/professional peer. As your pointed out, there is a weak correlation between graduating college and actually being fluent in the topic, as it is commonplace for people to cram for a test and forget everything by the following week.

The core disconnect is that society at large interprets "anyone can get through a degree program in any topic with sufficient support systems and resources in place" as being the same thing as "anyone can be successful in any field or topic with sufficient support systems and resources in place". This conflation does a disservice to everyone, but perhaps most of all the people who work in those fields who get stuck on teams where some colleagues are a net drag on productivity and actively drain their mental and emotionally energy rather than contributing, because as a rule the folks actually doing the work aren't empowered to control who they work with other than choosing to quit.

The sheer speed difference between the two isn't something you can fully communicate to even a spectator, much less a complete layman, but it's there. professional football is going to take it up another notch.

I once had a HS player tell me the state champions could beat many of the college teams in the state and I laughed my ass off. I'm sure you could find a college team that would lose to them, but in general? The speed difference is too great, the HS team would flat out not be prepared for it.

And it's the same with intellectual pursuits. There's a world of difference between being the best chess player in your HS and being the best chess player in your state (and even more of a difference if you consider the US).

But you know, for those who are amazing at one thing they sacrificed being decent or good at almost everything else.

I can't find the video, but someone once asked Feynman why he started painting once he got older. His response is that he went very deep into physics and math and became great at it, but he did so by sacrificing almost everything else. Paint was his attempt to learn something outside of his wheelhouse.

I am simply more optimistic.

The standard is fuzzy by what you mean a 'great boxer' or a 'great basketball player'. I'll simply replied that with a fuzzy answer 'at least highly skilled'.

I believe most people can potentially trained to run a marathon. By my standard, that's a high level feat. Now, most people aren't actually capable of running a marathon right now, but my point is that it can be achieved.

Now you might see that as wildly optimistic, but as I explained, there are factors that prevents people from learning these skills, which can seem pessimistic. We are clearly not teaching in the most optimal fashion with the most optimal mindsets.

What you mean by fuzzy is not perfectly predictable, which is true. But the results of certain individuals speak for themselves and very few people will ever be able to do what Michael Jordan has done in basketball.

Indeed, the chances of making it into professional sports is so small most people are told to always have a backup plan.

So if you want a definition for "great" here, it's that people will look back and consider them great after evaluating them _after_ the fact.

Not everyone has the _potential_ to do what Michael Jordan did, not everyone has the _potential_ to do what Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, et al, did.

This is obvious at the extremes, therefore, it's obvious that it also happens at the lesser extremes with the difference being that the sample set of people able to achieve that level of success is greater than at the extremes.

paradoxically, understanding this isn't rocket science, but it does require you to admit that people aren't merely blank canvases (of exactly the same material and size) to be written upon.

paradoxically, understanding this isn't rocket science, but it does require you to admit that people aren't merely blank canvases (of exactly the same material and size) to be written upon.

I wouldn't say they're blank canvases, but I would say that brains, however different they are, probably has the potential to reach a certain level of competency in any given field.

It's not like I am not acknowledging talent. On the contrary, I have experienced what 'high' talent look like in at least one field of endeavor due to how my brain is configured.

While technically true, the observation is not useful for one very obvious reason. If you lower the bar too much, the skill itself is no longer useful.

The question is, can everyone learn anything to a useful degree, and the answer is no.

In this case it's borne out of hubris in believing you yourself can do whatever you apply yourself to.