The role of intellectual ability and motivation, and the personality trait conscientiousness in predicting academic performance has been well demonstrated in a great deal of previous research (e.g. Harris , 1940; see also Ziegler, Danay, Schölmerich & Bühner, 2010). The purpose of this article is to investigate the relationship between these variables and academic success. Consistent with the literature in the introduction, statistical data suggest that intellectual ability is positively associated with academic success (e.g., Dweck, 1986; Elshout & Veenman, 1992; Harris, 1940). Although the association was relatively weak, hypothesis one was supported. This implies that for students with lower intelligence, teachers, therefore, the second hypothesis was supported by the results. This correlation also replicated previous research suggesting that personality traits are more significant predictors of academic success than simple intelligence (e.g. Fonteyne, Duyck & De Fruyt, 2017; and Stadler, Aust, Becker, Niepel & Greiff, 2016). The reason this may have occurred is that individuals who have a conscientious personality type, persist in the learning process at university levels of study, play a more significant role than intelligence alone. If an individual has worked hard to understand and apply concepts and has completed a high volume of effective academic studies for their assessments, they are more likely to achieve positive results (Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic & McDougall, 2003; Spengler, Lüdtke, Martin & Brunner, 2013). An implication of these findings for teachers towards their students is the need to develop methods that increase conscientiousness, for example by introducing time management and organisation. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support the third hypothesis. This may be due to the small sample size and its non-representativeness. The results of the study could have had greater significance if the sample size had been larger. In turn, the student sample was drawn only from one university in one state, meaning that the obtained results cannot be generalized to all first-year psychology students as a population. If the study had taken a sample of psychology students from various Australian universities, this would increase its representativeness. Consequently, the study can be criticized for having reduced reliability and external validity