I'm specifically talking about him in middle school (parent teacher with syla). You could argue that the teacher just wants the best for all his students and even though MC is getting A's he could (somehow) be doing better.....but that same teacher is "blackamiled" by syla because she has big tits in a few seconds so I doubt their "merit" as a pure hearted teacher
imo it makes more sense that MC is getting Cs and stuff while sleeping in class clearly showing that he could be doing better but perhaps that's my apathy for the education system showing?
In the end, this particular instance is a matter of perspective. In my experience, there are 3 types of people with average or less than average grades:
1. Kids on the the learning disability spectrum in a school that isn't equipped to handle them.
2. Students that are too good for the material and don't get stimulated enough.
3. Dumb kids.
Dumb kids don't have strokes of genius. They don't suddenly start realising how stuff works. They are the types that will put effort once, think that they did their part and fail anyway. Could they be helped? I can't tell. Those I knew about probably wouldn't and they can only learn things that they have some talent with, or through extreme repetition if forced. These kids are actually less common than people think.
Kids with learning disabilities can be quite intelligent and it will probably show at some point in the future, but they are also fairly easy to identify unless your are a dumb teacher. I mean if the kid can't spell a simple word correctly after 3 years in school, can't read fluently or have the will to learn but lack in focus, it's obvious what's going on.
The kids that don't get stimulated enough are usually the recipients of "He has potential, but ..". Let's face it, 90% of the curriculum is fairly simple, and the other 10% is super hard exercises designed to test how the well the kids can work inside the framework without really having any intuition about the concepts they are taught.
So with that perspective, when the teacher says "MC has potential but", the only thing I hear is "MC doesn't give a shit about my class and I'm angry about it" or "I just don't have any good feedback to give to the parent why the kid underperforms". If it wasn't that common an expression, I may had taken it at face value, but I think WW is trying to tell us something beyond the obvious here.
Is there not any proof that Liz could have better grades than amber if she tried at all? That might be an assumption because (while they were still alive) amber had to put in tons of work to even be able to be around her in anything but maybe that's only physical stuff and academics is an exception to the usual amber/Liz dynamic
Sorry to answer a question with a question but, would you call Liz "smart" if no one ever mentioned her abilities? She acts like the dumbest bimbo in existence throughout the game. There's no doubt that Liz could excel in most things she put her mind to, but this isn't reflected in her behavior. MC has a lot of similarities. He acts dumb but when push comes to shove he finds a way, as for player input..
Unless I'm mistaken the poker is objectively "player choice" not in that you have to win a hand of poker as the player but that if you don't have enough training Stat you just don't beat alice at the party (or maybe after?) and she plays the game at the casino but the game continues on. WW even asked on stream a few weeks ago if he ended up putting it In the game or not. Just because almost everyone knows to listen to the big tiddy goth gf and train as much the game let's you doesn't mean it's "canon"
Look, I see what you are getting at, but I think this idea is a bit more nuanced than what you are presenting it to be. Let me explain:
1. Fight against Klaus
MC has the option of going big, or staying small and agile. The player can pick whatever he wants, only one choice leads to victory.
The thing is, when the player picks "close quarters and agility", MC does something unprecedented. He cooks up a new form that the player has no information about at this point. Would you attribute this to MC's ability, or player choice?
2. MC during the debate with Elijah in college
If you choose to halfass it, MC will halfass it.
If you choose to destroy Elijah, MC makes him look dumb, despite knowing that most of what Elijah says is actually true.
Again, is this MC's ability, or player choice?
In the example we are talking about, there are different outcomes depending on if the player has prioritised training or not. However the player has no idea how MC will act based on these choices. The player doesn't control if MC will become good at poker or not. He only controls if by the time of the casino, MC will have unlocked the ability and have the tool to use in this particular situation.
There exists a time constraint here. If the player is slow with training, MC will lose the chance to apply his knowledge, but by the end of the first arc he still has the ability and he can still develop his method if some future situation calls for it.
This is the reason why I think that "player choice" is not a good general argument. There are very limited instances where MC fails on direct player input. Examples are when training his liquid form, or choosing if to cut below or above the collar. Would you say that examples like this speak to MC's intelligence, or they are more of a test for how much the player was paying attention? I tend to think the latter, even if I'm not 100% on it.