The above question has been asked on the website www.Quora.com by a Mr Chris Cottrell (https://www.quora.com/profile/Chris-Cottrell-18) and is reproduced here:
Let’s try to objectively review Truss’ life and experience to assess the proposition:
Truss got into Oxford to study PPE (from a comprehensive school), qualified as an accountant and worked for ten years as a management accountant and economics director in the energy and telecoms sectors. She has been in government for ten years in a number of positions including Chief Secretary of the Treasury.
Just to expand on her degree – PPE is one of the most applied to courses at Oxford, which is itself a globally ranked university. In 2023, minimum entry qualifications at A level are AAA, ideally including Maths and History. Roughly 1 in 8 students gain those grades or higher across all A levels. I believe the entry process would also involve an interview. Across the university, the proportion of qualified applicants who gain a place is 20%, though it might be lower for PPE. Suppose that four in five school students went on to A levels. This means that Truss was assessed as being within the top 2 % of UK school students. (0.125 * 0.2 * 0.8 = 0.02). That indicates an IQ score of above 130.
Recall that she did this from a comprehensive school, in competition with kids from private schools – with all their resources, expertise and contacts. Think of the inevitable social pressure from some of her peers not to be the ‘swotty’ kid. Neither did she come from a particularly wealthy, powerful, connected family (her father was a maths professor and her mother a nurse – her father is left wing politically and so may have opted to send her to a comprehensive school). In my view that could well justify putting her in the top half of her group – so top 1% of her school cohort.
According to the journalist Allison Pearson, Truss initially gained her place to study mathematics. Maths is widely seen as being one of the hardest subjects. So Truss gaining a place in maths rather negates the idea that PPE students are not all that when it comes to quantitative analysis (not that I agree with it anyway).
The economist (and Undercover Economist author) Tim Harford has tweeted about sharing tutorials with Truss on the university’s fiendish Mathematical Logic course, which requires that students master Cantor’s Diagonalisation Proof and Turing machines (I have no idea what these are).
Anyway, gaining a place on that course at that university means that Truss was assessed by the selection system as being one of the students with the most potential in the UK and beyond. Having gained her place, she was then able to meet the demands of the course. I believe Oxford uses a tutorial process which involves students writing essays and defending them on a weekly basis. That builds the ability to conduct a reasoned argument – and there is no evading the sustained, intense, one to one scrutiny of the logic of that argument by a subject expert.
All of which supports the argument that Truss is intelligent and academically capable. But how has she done in the ‘real world’ ? Does she have common sense ? Can she manage people, conflict, complex situations, the real world economy, Westminster politics and the media ? The next two decades gave her experience of doing all those things.
As mentioned, after university she qualified and worked as a management accountant for Shell (on LNG). She became Economics Director at Cable and Wireless. After a decade in industry she moved into politics and has spent more than a decade in government, working in six different departments, including the Treasury. She’s become the longest currently serving Cabinet member.
Truss was Deputy Director of the think tank Reform and she’s recruited people from the world of think tanks to her leadership campaign. She’s worked in a range of government departments including the Treasury. She co wrote a policy book (Britannia Unchained) and gives every sign of being able to think through policy for herself. She’s been a success at the Foreign Office (where Boris struggled). Civil servants have noted her persistence and determination. She stood up to Putin over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. She seems to have out manoeuvered Sunak and his Treasury backers in the leadership contest.
So no, I don’t believe she is hard of thinking and neither did her teachers at school, professors at Oxford, employers at Shell and C&W, fellow economists at Reform, electors of her Norfolk constituency and colleagues when she worked at the Treasury.
IMHO, setting party politics aside, and considering education, training, experience and aptitude, her ability to set an economic and policy strategy and to implement it without ‘spaffing money up the wall’, I cannot see a current politician better qualified to be PM. (If you think this is an absurd opinion, you’ll need to name a politician you think is better qualified – in comments I make a case for why Keir Starmer isn’t better qualified).
Perhaps we could also be reasonable about what we require of our PMs. No human could simultaneously meet the highest standards in all the characteristics that are desirable in a PM – intelligence, strategic ability, courage, knowledge, energy, organisation, persistence, probity, eloquence, charisma, looks … Pick your favourite PM from history and I guarantee there will be human failings in amongst the sterling qualities and achievements.
(IMHO our media is heavily biased towards negativity – comments taken out of context, got-cha moments, snide attacks. Critical review is necessary, but there should be more balance and objectivity; and if the media won’t provide it, we need to provide it ourselves).
Perhaps that’s part of why our system works, it splits the leadership responsibilities; with the monarch representing the state as a figurehead and providing continuity and support, as the wonderful Queen Elizabeth II did so admirably.
As for the reasoning abilities of the person who asked this question, the jury is still out.
Postscript: Its not just the questioner. Looking at the comment thread, the belief that ‘anyone who doesn’t agree with me must be thick’ is quite prevalent. I’d suggest that belief is not itself an indicator of particularly high intelligence.
Source: https://www.quora.com/Could-Liz-Truss-be-the-thickest-ever-UK-prime-minister