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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like MG's talk and heard it years ago. It has been discussed ad nauseum on here and CC and reddit. It has truth to it. However as always the real world data are not as black and white.

There is data on law, med, and phD acceptance at kid's ivy (a T10)and there is also data that our professor relative has shared with us from his non-ivy T10 elite.
We have data from our other kid at one of the top two public unis.
The ivy does not grade inflate as much as the non-ivy (median graduating 3.75 vs 3.83); the public has a median GPA of 3.72.
The above-average but not phi beta kappa/top 10% from the ivy and from the T10, in other words GPA 3.75-3.90, get in to top phd, med, law. The LSATs are 170, MCATs 518. Sure you can say LSAT for law and MCAT but for PhD the GRE is rarely accepted anymore. These kids go to ivies/T25 for phD and MD, and they get in to T14 law. Very few kids from the state school get into these places and they are all 3.98-4.0 types with HIGHER MCAT and LSAT at the very top than the above average ivy-type kids.
It is in fact better to be an above-average but not top 10% kid at an ivy versus a top10% kid at the public.
The top10% kids at the ivy get in to multiple top places: already DC's senior friends who are the known starts have admission to T5 MD and phd, and some full rides to the T15 MD programs. The cycle is not even complete yet and they are sitting on many top acceptances.
Their 3.90 and 3.88 friends have T10 and ivy acceptances already.

The below average 25%ile range 3.5-3.6 students from the two elite schools get into MD programs and tier 2 law, over 50% of the time.

The below average from the state school do not get in to MD programs or law school much at all and it likely needs hooks. The charts show less than 10% acceptance below 3.6 at the state school. Of course the MCAT and LSAT ranges are higher from the students at the elites, and that likely accounts for much of the difference for the below average students.

Does it mean all elite students are successful over non-elite, of course not! For some, they likely do not function well emotionally being average and would be better off being close to the top at a lesser school.
However if they want law, MD, or Phd and they can emotionally handle not being top 5-10%, it is much better for them to go to the best school they can get into provided they will be average or better, and if they want T14/T25 law/md/phd, they need to merely pick a school where they are likely to be around top quarter and they will have more success than they would being the top 5-10% at a state school.

The best option is of course have the kid who can be 3.95+ at the ivy/T10. All doors open for that type of student in an elite setting.

Observation bias. Confirmation bias.

Other than the anecdotes it is data from the schools themselves. Students (and professors, and parents through their student)have access. Almost all schools have tables on GPA v LSAT or MCAT, and many departments share GPA ranges that have garnered acceptance to different phD programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like MG's talk and heard it years ago. It has been discussed ad nauseum on here and CC and reddit. It has truth to it. However as always the real world data are not as black and white.

There is data on law, med, and phD acceptance at kid's ivy (a T10)and there is also data that our professor relative has shared with us from his non-ivy T10 elite.
We have data from our other kid at one of the top two public unis.
The ivy does not grade inflate as much as the non-ivy (median graduating 3.75 vs 3.83); the public has a median GPA of 3.72.
The above-average but not phi beta kappa/top 10% from the ivy and from the T10, in other words GPA 3.75-3.90, get in to top phd, med, law. The LSATs are 170, MCATs 518. Sure you can say LSAT for law and MCAT but for PhD the GRE is rarely accepted anymore. These kids go to ivies/T25 for phD and MD, and they get in to T14 law. Very few kids from the state school get into these places and they are all 3.98-4.0 types with HIGHER MCAT and LSAT at the very top than the above average ivy-type kids.
It is in fact better to be an above-average but not top 10% kid at an ivy versus a top10% kid at the public.
The top10% kids at the ivy get in to multiple top places: already DC's senior friends who are the known starts have admission to T5 MD and phd, and some full rides to the T15 MD programs. The cycle is not even complete yet and they are sitting on many top acceptances.
Their 3.90 and 3.88 friends have T10 and ivy acceptances already.

The below average 25%ile range 3.5-3.6 students from the two elite schools get into MD programs and tier 2 law, over 50% of the time.

The below average from the state school do not get in to MD programs or law school much at all and it likely needs hooks. The charts show less than 10% acceptance below 3.6 at the state school. Of course the MCAT and LSAT ranges are higher from the students at the elites, and that likely accounts for much of the difference for the below average students.

Does it mean all elite students are successful over non-elite, of course not! For some, they likely do not function well emotionally being average and would be better off being close to the top at a lesser school.
However if they want law, MD, or Phd and they can emotionally handle not being top 5-10%, it is much better for them to go to the best school they can get into provided they will be average or better, and if they want T14/T25 law/md/phd, they need to merely pick a school where they are likely to be around top quarter and they will have more success than they would being the top 5-10% at a state school.

The best option is of course have the kid who can be 3.95+ at the ivy/T10. All doors open for that type of student in an elite setting.

Observation bias. Confirmation bias.

+1. This is why data does not equal a study.

[Anonymous]

When you have a kid at an elite and a kid at a typical public, the differences are stark. The opportunities provided by the elite school as well as willingness of professors to facilitate contacts at other elites is night and day, even for average students there.

[Anonymous]

Read Gladwell's books; I understand the message.

Providing the obvious conclusion with the same data.

Top 10% at MIT did better than the bottom 10% - maybe the top 10% are just more driven?

Ok - the bottom 10% MIT are better than the top 10% somewhere else? Anyone confirm that? HS GPA or SAT score? maybe they matured late and got much smarter after 4 years?

Gladwell himself says in Outliers that after a certain intelligence level other things take over. He gave the example of a basket ball player - taller you are the better the chance but after a certain height you need a bit extra. How do you know top 10% at any school may not have that extra that the bottom 10% don't?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you have a kid at an elite and a kid at a typical public, the differences are stark. The opportunities provided by the elite school as well as willingness of professors to facilitate contacts at other elites is night and day, even for average students there.

That was the experience of a good friends kid. One went to a good public flagship, the other went to a good SLAC. Both had similar HS records and SAT scores. The one that went to a SLAC breezed to a 4.0, and had professors contacting colleagues at Ivy League grads programs to help her get accepted. His son was busting his butt in a CS program to get a 3.5, and had to really advocate for himself to get professors attention. In hindsight, paying 90k a year was worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read Gladwell's books; I understand the message.

Providing the obvious conclusion with the same data.

Top 10% at MIT did better than the bottom 10% - maybe the top 10% are just more driven?

Ok - the bottom 10% MIT are better than the top 10% somewhere else? Anyone confirm that? HS GPA or SAT score? maybe they matured late and got much smarter after 4 years?

Gladwell himself says in Outliers that after a certain intelligence level other things take over. He gave the example of a basket ball player - taller you are the better the chance but after a certain height you need a bit extra. How do you know top 10% at any school may not have that extra that the bottom 10% don't?

Lots of evidence shows that’s not actually true. Good for a pop science writer to make money with though.

[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.

This absolutely happened to me. Was in the gifted program/honors and AP classes throughout high school. Went to a top college and had a very difficult time. It hit my self esteem in the worst way. I wonder how I would have done if I had chosen to go to one of the middle colleges I had gotten into (still great colleges) and felt successful there instead of struggling.

Ha. My kid wasn’t in GT in elementary or middle school because of lack of seats. Those were filled in kindergarten with the tiger parents pressuring the Principal and Kumoning the crap out of them in preschool.

Put both kids in private HS where they took off and were top of class, but HS had an environment that wasn’t uber competitive. Really learned and had great relationships with teachers.

At Ivies and instantly felt they belonged there. HS prepared them really, really well. My oldest said everyone he talks to is really really intelligent and he loves that. Top of class.

[Anonymous]

TLDR - Gladwell, while entertaining, leaves out crucial data that compromises his conclusions, or at least complicates them.

Malcolm Gladwell is entertaining, and he makes readers think that he's letting people in on something that isn't intuitively obvious.
As a professor for over 20 years, though, he examples--as explained by OP, as I haven't read the linked transcript--are not great. First of all, the retention rate at Harvard after five years is almost 100%. At Maryland, it's closer to 80%. You are much more likely to graduate with a degree, period, from Harvard than from UMD; and you are much more likely to drop out of college without a degree if you go to UMD.

Second, the output of papers for econ PhDs is actually not the "best" measure of success. Few econ PhDs actually go into R1 academia or think tanks where they are expected to publish papers. Many end up working for the fed or going into private industry, where they are not publishing papers. And if you end up, like most PhDs in academia, at an R2 or SLAC, publishing frequently is not a criteria for tenure. The number of publications is hardly measure of "success," but the average reader of Gladwell wouldn't know this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TLDR - Gladwell, while entertaining, leaves out crucial data that compromises his conclusions, or at least complicates them.

Malcolm Gladwell is entertaining, and he makes readers think that he's letting people in on something that isn't intuitively obvious.
As a professor for over 20 years, though, he examples--as explained by OP, as I haven't read the linked transcript--are not great. First of all, the retention rate at Harvard after five years is almost 100%. At Maryland, it's closer to 80%. You are much more likely to graduate with a degree, period, from Harvard than from UMD; and you are much more likely to drop out of college without a degree if you go to UMD.

Second, the output of papers for econ PhDs is actually not the "best" measure of success. Few econ PhDs actually go into R1 academia or think tanks where they are expected to publish papers. Many end up working for the fed or going into private industry, where they are not publishing papers. And if you end up, like most PhDs in academia, at an R2 or SLAC, publishing frequently is not a criteria for tenure. The number of publications is hardly measure of "success," but the average reader of Gladwell wouldn't know this.

You are incorrect about PhDs from MIT and Harvard -- the sample that Gladwell cites, not all econ PhDs -- ending up outside academia. The 'golden zip code' for econ does send the vast majority of their PhDs to academia. The ones who end up in industry or think tanks are considered professionally less than, by their professors, peers, and themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TLDR - Gladwell, while entertaining, leaves out crucial data that compromises his conclusions, or at least complicates them.

Malcolm Gladwell is entertaining, and he makes readers think that he's letting people in on something that isn't intuitively obvious.
As a professor for over 20 years, though, he examples--as explained by OP, as I haven't read the linked transcript--are not great. First of all, the retention rate at Harvard after five years is almost 100%. At Maryland, it's closer to 80%. You are much more likely to graduate with a degree, period, from Harvard than from UMD; and you are much more likely to drop out of college without a degree if you go to UMD.

Second, the output of papers for econ PhDs is actually not the "best" measure of success. Few econ PhDs actually go into R1 academia or think tanks where they are expected to publish papers. Many end up working for the fed or going into private industry, where they are not publishing papers. And if you end up, like most PhDs in academia, at an R2 or SLAC, publishing frequently is not a criteria for tenure. The number of publications is hardly measure of "success," but the average reader of Gladwell wouldn't know this.

You are incorrect about PhDs from MIT and Harvard -- the sample that Gladwell cites, not all econ PhDs -- ending up outside academia. The 'golden zip code' for econ does send the vast majority of their PhDs to academia. The ones who end up in industry or think tanks are considered professionally less than, by their professors, peers, and themselves.

And, very few MIT / Harvard econ PhDs end up at R2s or SLACs.

And you are woefully wrong about publications not being a criteria for tenure at SLACs and R2s. Certainly, the publishing standards for tenure at SLACs and R2s are lower than at R1s, but no one gets tenure these days without publications. T20 SLACs require top tier publications -- not as many in number as T50 universities, but of a very high quality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the branding power of Harvard or MIT? Even if you were at the bottom of your class. Wouldn’t you still typically get a job easily with higher salary compared to a top engineering student at UMD?
Also, isn’t everyone at Harvard or MIT really smart to begin with?

No, some of them are smart but not outstanding. No employer wants someone from the bottom of a class.

Class rank is a high school question, not an undergrad metric.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you have a kid at an elite and a kid at a typical public, the differences are stark. The opportunities provided by the elite school as well as willingness of professors to facilitate contacts at other elites is night and day, even for average students there.

That was the experience of a good friends kid. One went to a good public flagship, the other went to a good SLAC. Both had similar HS records and SAT scores. The one that went to a SLAC breezed to a 4.0, and had professors contacting colleagues at Ivy League grads programs to help her get accepted. His son was busting his butt in a CS program to get a 3.5, and had to really advocate for himself to get professors attention. In hindsight, paying 90k a year was worth it.

I think this is kid-dependent. My oldest was a self-advocate and did great at her public. My youngest was too shy to ask for recommendations at his public and had a different experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read Gladwell's books; I understand the message.

Providing the obvious conclusion with the same data.

Top 10% at MIT did better than the bottom 10% - maybe the top 10% are just more driven?

Ok - the bottom 10% MIT are better than the top 10% somewhere else? Anyone confirm that? HS GPA or SAT score? maybe they matured late and got much smarter after 4 years?

Gladwell himself says in Outliers that after a certain intelligence level other things take over. He gave the example of a basket ball player - taller you are the better the chance but after a certain height you need a bit extra. How do you know top 10% at any school may not have that extra that the bottom 10% don't?

Lots of evidence shows that’s not actually true. Good for a pop science writer to make money with though.

+1 There is no ceiling on the benefits of IQ. But people don't really like this answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some might say that TJ is a local example of Gladwell's premise.

The bottom 25% graduating from TJ might well have been top 10-20% at their base HS -- with better college admissions results.

The bottom 10-25% of TJ used to be a lot of kids that had coping issues. Neuroatypical kids, depressed kids, kids with home issues.
Now the bottom 10-25% are the DEI kids

Similarly the bottom of the class at the Ivy+ were the kids that got in on preferences. The kids with preferences and resources tended to still do OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the branding power of Harvard or MIT? Even if you were at the bottom of your class. Wouldn’t you still typically get a job easily with higher salary compared to a top engineering student at UMD?
Also, isn’t everyone at Harvard or MIT really smart to begin with?

No, it's not true. Yes, the top students at MIT/Harvard have an easier time getting jobs. But the lower 25% do not. That's the point. Go where you can excel and you will do just as well, if not better than many at the top schools. It's about your opportunities and what you do with them that matters.

The top 5-10% at VT probably has the same job opportunities as the average student at MIT.