Is it better to be a "Big Fish in a Small Pond" - Gladwell's Elite Cognitive Disorder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The dude has to sell books.

It he has to spout some new bullsh@t. He can’t keep writing the same thing.

A kid from Harvard is going to have more opportunities than a genius at CNU. Duh

+100

My kid is at an Ivy unhooked RD. He wasn’t the superstar at his HS. Teachers loved him. He was a great student, but not valedictorian or student body president, club President, etc.

He won a departmental award his first year at the Ivy, got glowing reviews on his papers. Great faculty relationships. He’s thriving. He got in off the WL too.

Gladwell has to sell books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there's something else going on.

I've known kids who got into top schools who planned to be premed. When they hit organic chem and other courses, they didn't do well and realized that they might not be cut out to be a doctor. They switched into a different major. They went into a different occupation. Some are wistful and think "If only I'd gone to state U I'd have gotten better grades and maybe I'd have gotten into med school."

Then I know kids who went to a much lower ranked college and were premed. They got much better grades. They took the MCATS and bombed them. They took a year working as an EMT while studying for the MCAT. Took it again. Did a bit better. Didn't get into med school. Sometimes they try again, but very rarely do they get in on the third attempt.

They now have an undergrad degree in biology.They are a couple of years post college with part time experience as an EMT or doing research.

One of the people I know who did this was considered a superstar at his college. Superb grades. Bombed MCAT. Tried again after working parttime and spending most of his time taking a MCAT prep course. Still didn't make med school. He's now a podiatrist. Another one is a nurse practitioner after 4 attempts to get into medical school.

If you look at Malcolm's rubric, the kids who attended the lower tier colleges did "better" because they graduated with a STEM degree--usually biology. But they didn't make it into med school and biology isn't a good degree to have if you're seeking a job. The kids who attended the more elite college did "worse" because they didn't graduate with a STEM degree. But neither did they waste 1 to 3 years post graduation trying to get into med school. They pivoted away into a different field earlier.

Interesting!

Class has to have something to do with it. Race, too, right? Because a happy student of color at UMBC - for example a Meyerhoff scholar surrounded by smart, diverse classmates - is going to … do better on the MCAT and in his career more generally than if he’d gone to Princeton. No?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a very real phenomenon. The hit that you take to your confidence and sense of your own abilities can be very hard at a top school. It’s best to be where you are challenged but also fit in. This happened to me in college and I often wonder what my path would have been like at a different school.

I agree.

I also agree. I went to a top public school and everything was graded on a curve. Often a 50% on an exam was a C+/B-. No matter how good my grades were, I left the exams feeling like a failure. I think if I had attended a different school, I would have graduated with more confidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dude has to sell books.

It he has to spout some new bullsh@t. He can’t keep writing the same thing.

A kid from Harvard is going to have more opportunities than a genius at CNU. Duh

+100

My kid is at an Ivy unhooked RD. He wasn’t the superstar at his HS. Teachers loved him. He was a great student, but not valedictorian or student body president, club President, etc.

He won a departmental award his first year at the Ivy, got glowing reviews on his papers. Great faculty relationships. He’s thriving. He got in off the WL too.

Gladwell has to sell books. [/quote

Sure, but think of what your son could have done if he had gone to Radford.

[Anonymous]

First not every kid ( From top quartile of T20) is interested in publishing in journals. Typ the most academic amongst them will do.

Second, majority of publications are cut/ paste and garbage in /out embellished with jargon and mathematics sophistry ( I exaggerate but you get the point)

[Anonymous]

Might have to actually confront this choice for a high-stats kid who, within the last 48 hours, was admitted EA to Michigan and invited to a preliminary interview for the Chancellor’s scholarship at Pitt. Of course there’s also a massive difference in price, which Gladwell didn’t get into.

[Anonymous]

Summers is a fraud with a fake drawl. His uncle Samuelson was a genius no doubt but Summers is a clear disappointment. Often wrong and sometimes monumentally so . Unfortunately for the country it was a huge setback ( 2007 financial crisis)

[Anonymous]

Of course the lower half of the econ Ph.D. class from Harvard/MIT have practically zero publications, as they don’t stay in academia but make big bucks in industry!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First not every kid ( From top quartile of T20) is interested in publishing in journals. Typ the most academic amongst them will do.

Second, majority of publications are cut/ paste and garbage in /out embellished with jargon and mathematics sophistry ( I exaggerate but you get the point)

Neither of these things is accurate with regard to top PhD econ programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course the lower half of the econ Ph.D. class from Harvard/MIT have practically zero publications, as they don’t stay in academia but make big bucks in industry!

Not quite. Last year Harvard had 31 grads and 20 went into academia. In the last six years, MIT has had 135 grads and 103 went to academia. The 55th percentile referenced is still an academic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really depends on the person, I guess. I was a whale in a small pond, and it did not feel good at all, and I also don’t think it helped professionally. Sorry, if I were to do it again, I’d aim for a better school.

I imagine there's a sweet spot, or sweet range, where you're not struggling, surrounded by people who are performing at a much higher level than you, and also not exasperated because the people around you (and therefore the professors) aren't engaging with the material at a level that satisfies and challenges you.

I want to find that sweet spot for my kid so he can be challenged, growing, happy and confident.

This is why honors colleges were created - my DC went the honors college path because professional school was the long term plan and the opportunities and experience set them up for life. Honors college lead to multiple campus leadership positions and a visiting student spot at Oxford which set the stage for elite grad school and career placements. Being at the top of the class built a level of confidence and poise I really didn’t think much about until reading this post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course the lower half of the econ Ph.D. class from Harvard/MIT have practically zero publications, as they don’t stay in academia but make big bucks in industry!

Not quite. Last year Harvard had 31 grads and 20 went into academia. In the last six years, MIT has had 135 grads and 103 went to academia. The 55th percentile referenced is still an academic.

The authors assumed the top 20/31 grads stayed in academia and the bottom 11/30 went in industry or govt? I bet a few of those in academia were the bottom of the barrel!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course the lower half of the econ Ph.D. class from Harvard/MIT have practically zero publications, as they don’t stay in academia but make big bucks in industry!

Not true. Most of the top students in any field go make big bucks in industry. No one in the cohort thinks that the academic were near exclusively the best students. They lament that the best minds sell out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course the lower half of the econ Ph.D. class from Harvard/MIT have practically zero publications, as they don’t stay in academia but make big bucks in industry!

Not quite. Last year Harvard had 31 grads and 20 went into academia. In the last six years, MIT has had 135 grads and 103 went to academia. The 55th percentile referenced is still an academic.

The authors assumed the top 20/31 grads stayed in academia and the bottom 11/30 went in industry or govt? I bet a few of those in academia were the bottom of the barrel!

Meta-ironically that is just further evidence that the top students aren't academics!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course the lower half of the econ Ph.D. class from Harvard/MIT have practically zero publications, as they don’t stay in academia but make big bucks in industry!

Not quite. Last year Harvard had 31 grads and 20 went into academia. In the last six years, MIT has had 135 grads and 103 went to academia. The 55th percentile referenced is still an academic.

The authors assumed the top 20/31 grads stayed in academia and the bottom 11/30 went in industry or govt? I bet a few of those in academia were the bottom of the barrel!

No, not the authors, I’m just saying (from the Harvard website) that anywhere from 2/3s to 3/4s (MIT website) go into academia. So the finding referenced that the 55th percentile had almost no publications can’t be explained away by saying “well, half don’t go into academia so don’t publish.”