4 ms·

Malcolm Gladwell explains why it's statistically FAR better to be among the smartest kids at a 2nd or 3rd tier school than struggling to get into some elite ins

by nO0b 4y ago

Malcolm Gladwell explains why it's statistically FAR better to be among the smartest kids at a 2nd or 3rd tier school than struggling to get into some elite institution where you will be below average among your peers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UEwbRWFZVc&t=220s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UEwbRWFZVc&t=220s If you're borrowing money to pay for a degree, going to a school where you are not at the very top of the class is really taking a big risk.

giardini 4y ago
Thank you for posting Gladwell's talk, which should be required viewing for any young, bright and hopeful high-school graduate. I wish all my nephews and nieces had watched it.
WalterBright 4y ago
I thoroughly enjoyed being around students a lot smarter than me in college. I also enjoy working with people smarter and better educated than me. It's just more fun, and it also puts me on my best game.
texaslonghorn5 4y ago
that's such a loser mindset, you should want to be challenged and pushed by peers stronger than you edit: I agree that the first part of this comment is too harsh, see child thread
- bushbaba 4y ago
  What! A 2nd tier school still has strong peers which you can surround yourself in. If you're at the top of a 2nd tier school you can push yourself to be near the PHD researchers and graduate students giving you similar academic peer rigor.
  - texaslonghorn5 4y ago
    I agree with you from an academic standpoint! Maybe my comment was too harsh, I think surrounding yourself with PHD researchers and graduate students counts as challenging and pushing yourself. But it's more fun when the people pushing you are your friends and peers. In contrast, how many PHD researchers with a spouse and kids want to study and get coffee with a 19 year old undergrad?
kelnos 4y ago
Given all the trash Gladwell has spouted as truth over the years, it's hard to take him seriously. Even if sometimes what he says has merit, it's hard to know when to believe him and when not to. I especially cringe at the idea that Gladwell is saying it's statistically better to do something, when he has a known history of deliberately misinterpreting data and massaging numbers to get the result he wants. While I think people should be much more accepting of 2nd- and 3rd-tier schools as options than they often are, kids should absolutely push themselves for the best-ranked school they can get into (assuming they also have a solid program for whatever field/major they're interested in). Not only is it beneficial to surround yourself with people who are smarter than you are, there are also second-order effects to attending an elite university, like making connections that can help you along with your career later. Not to mention that if a recruiter sees two recent-grad resumes that are identical except for the name of the school, they're going to pick the candidate that went to the "better" school. Certainly you don't want to set yourself up for failure; if that elite school is going to be such a struggle that you're eventually going to be washed out, that's probably not a good outcome, and a lower-tier school would have been a better choice. But, absent that, I think it's good advice to attend the best school you can get into.
- nO0b 4y ago
  Everything you said is valid assuming the student GRADUATES which is precisely the point Gladwell is trying to make.
  - onos 4y ago
    another point is if you are the big fish in a small pond you’ll get more attention from the teachers and gain confidence. Both can be valuable.
neilparikh 4y ago
I think with the rise of online communities, it's not as applicable anymore. Gladwell says you're only comparing against yourself against your peers at your school, and not the world, but for me, I've absolutely compared myself from people from other universities (and for that matter, other countries). For example, there are people 2-3 years younger than me who have a public output of projects/writing that is 100 times more than mine. I'm probably somewhat high up among in my own university in project output, but I still made this comparison, partially because online communities allow me to hear about these people.

by nO0b 4y ago

giardini 4y ago

Thank you for posting Gladwell's talk, which should be required viewing for any young, bright and hopeful high-school graduate. I wish all my nephews and nieces had watched it.

WalterBright 4y ago

I thoroughly enjoyed being around students a lot smarter than me in college. I also enjoy working with people smarter and better educated than me. It's just more fun, and it also puts me on my best game.

texaslonghorn5 4y ago

that's such a loser mindset, you should want to be challenged and pushed by peers stronger than you edit: I agree that the first part of this comment is too harsh, see child thread

bushbaba 4y ago
What! A 2nd tier school still has strong peers which you can surround yourself in. If you're at the top of a 2nd tier school you can push yourself to be near the PHD researchers and graduate students giving you similar academic peer rigor.
- texaslonghorn5 4y ago
  I agree with you from an academic standpoint! Maybe my comment was too harsh, I think surrounding yourself with PHD researchers and graduate students counts as challenging and pushing yourself. But it's more fun when the people pushing you are your friends and peers. In contrast, how many PHD researchers with a spouse and kids want to study and get coffee with a 19 year old undergrad?

kelnos 4y ago

Given all the trash Gladwell has spouted as truth over the years, it's hard to take him seriously. Even if sometimes what he says has merit, it's hard to know when to believe him and when not to. I especially cringe at the idea that Gladwell is saying it's statistically better to do something, when he has a known history of deliberately misinterpreting data and massaging numbers to get the result he wants. While I think people should be much more accepting of 2nd- and 3rd-tier schools as options than they often are, kids should absolutely push themselves for the best-ranked school they can get into (assuming they also have a solid program for whatever field/major they're interested in). Not only is it beneficial to surround yourself with people who are smarter than you are, there are also second-order effects to attending an elite university, like making connections that can help you along with your career later. Not to mention that if a recruiter sees two recent-grad resumes that are identical except for the name of the school, they're going to pick the candidate that went to the "better" school. Certainly you don't want to set yourself up for failure; if that elite school is going to be such a struggle that you're eventually going to be washed out, that's probably not a good outcome, and a lower-tier school would have been a better choice. But, absent that, I think it's good advice to attend the best school you can get into.

nO0b 4y ago
Everything you said is valid assuming the student GRADUATES which is precisely the point Gladwell is trying to make.
- onos 4y ago
  another point is if you are the big fish in a small pond you’ll get more attention from the teachers and gain confidence. Both can be valuable.

neilparikh 4y ago

I think with the rise of online communities, it's not as applicable anymore. Gladwell says you're only comparing against yourself against your peers at your school, and not the world, but for me, I've absolutely compared myself from people from other universities (and for that matter, other countries). For example, there are people 2-3 years younger than me who have a public output of projects/writing that is 100 times more than mine. I'm probably somewhat high up among in my own university in project output, but I still made this comparison, partially because online communities allow me to hear about these people.