For example, there are many claims that some exceptionally smart people do not see their intelligence reflected in the classroom (grades, performance, etc.) for a variety of reasons (personal, motivation, etc.) is there any truth to this?
The primary cause of my own poor performance was simple priority.
I'm in charge of what I learn, how much focus it gets, why, etc...
That differed very considerably from the official program at times and I really didn't care.
Things like learning and writing assembly language programs were far more compelling and useful than say, learning the cold war bloc nation status was.
Where that was true, I did the minimum to comply, otherwise devoting max time and resources to completing projects, building things, picking up skills.
Frankly, all of that, for me, paid off far better. It was no contest.
Later in life, a lot of those irrelevant things became relevant, and got the same treatment.
Not everyone does this, or if they do, does it well. But to answer the question here, yes. Totally happens.
I had several peers doing similar things. Most had similar outcomes.
Re: exceptional. That's very hard to measure. I won't speak to that here, save to say I was smart enough to want to do, and see success in doing the things I gave priority to.
Yes. But first, I assume you mean book-based intelligence as there are many different ways to be “intelligent,” such as physically, relationally, emotionally.
Performing well in school is comprised of several skills, including test-taking, relating well with others, collaboration, etc . Anxiety, fear, issues at home, etc can cause anyone to perform worse than they otherwise would, especially on tests. If your authority figures at home (eg parents) are terrible, then you are very likely to dislike the authority figures at your school, which will cause problems and often lead to poorer grades.
And classroomS optimize for various different outputs, depending on what the school system or the teachers value.
Some optimize for autonomy, or fulfillment, or realization.
Some optimize for output, within the class environment, or outside of it.
Some optimize for compliance (attitude, grades, performance on grades, certification).
And they can do it using various techniques (carrot or stick?).
The primary cause of my own poor performance was simple priority.
I'm in charge of what I learn, how much focus it gets, why, etc...
That differed very considerably from the official program at times and I really didn't care.
Things like learning and writing assembly language programs were far more compelling and useful than say, learning the cold war bloc nation status was.
Where that was true, I did the minimum to comply, otherwise devoting max time and resources to completing projects, building things, picking up skills.
Frankly, all of that, for me, paid off far better. It was no contest.
Later in life, a lot of those irrelevant things became relevant, and got the same treatment.
Not everyone does this, or if they do, does it well. But to answer the question here, yes. Totally happens.
I had several peers doing similar things. Most had similar outcomes.
Re: exceptional. That's very hard to measure. I won't speak to that here, save to say I was smart enough to want to do, and see success in doing the things I gave priority to.