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

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]I think Malcolm Gladwell's EICD theory is very interesting food for thought for DCUM, which seems to over-weight prestige in college over anything else. Malcolm Gladwell has a theory that he calls Elite Institution Cognitive Disorder (EICD). In general he states that we put too much emphasis on elite institutions (especially education). Because people really care more about relative status than absolute status, the "worst" students that go to Harvard end up doing poorer in their fields than the "best" students at a much lesser institution even though they are way better than students more anywhere else.

Malcolm Gladwell gave this talk in CA a few years back, and wrote a book "David and Goliath" that he draws from. You can read the transcript of his speech here:

https://www.neil.blog/full-speech-transcript/why-did-i-say-yes-to-speak-here-by-malcolm-gladwell

Essentially, he brings evidence and analysis to the idea that you fare better and are better off if you are in an environment where you are outperforming your peers and those you are being directly compared to, rather than just squeaking into a very elite, competitive institution where you perform in the bottom third.

Here's just one brief excerpt from this speech. The whole speech is quite interesting (https://www.neil.blog/full-speech-transcript/why-did-i-say-yes-to-speak-here-by-malcolm-gladwell):

"Mitchell Chang at UCLA recently did the numbers and he says, as a rule of thumb, your odds of graduating — successfully getting a science and math degree — fall by two percentage points for every ten point increase in the average SAT score of your peers.
So if you’re a kid and you have a choice between Harvard and University of Maryland, and University of Maryland is your safety. University of Maryland has 150 -- on average SAT scores are 150 points lower at Maryland. That means your chance of graduating with a STEM degree from Maryland is 30% higher than it would be at Harvard. 
Right?
Now -- so if you choose to go to Harvard and not Maryland, you are taking an enormous gamble. You are essentially saying “This STEM degree,” -- by the way, the most valuable commodity any college graduate could have in today's economy — “I am going to take a 30% gamble in my chances of getting that degree just so I can put Harvard on my resume.”
Is that worth it?
I don't think so. Right?
But how many kids, given a choice between Harvard and Maryland, choose Maryland?
Not that many.
Why?
EICD.
Now, why does EICD persist if it is so plainly irrational?
Well, I think it is because as human beings, we dramatically underestimate the costs of being at the bottom of a hierarchy. 
Let me give you another really remarkable example of this.
This is from a paper that was, just came out from a guy named, two economists, guy named John Connelly and Allie Sundy -- Allie Under, rather. They looked at graduates of PhD programs, economics PhD programs at American universities. And what they were interested in was “What is the publication record of these graduates in the six years after they took an academic position?”
So as you know, the principal way by which we evaluate economists is how often and how well do they publish. So what these guys did is they did a little algorithm, took the top economics journals, and weighted them according to their level of prestige, and came up with a number of how many -- your score after six years of graduation.
So we get this chart here.
What you can see, first of all, look at the 99th percentile. So what this says is, the kids who are in the 99th percentile of their PhD program at Harvard, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Stanford, Chicago -- the 99th percentile, that's what they publish.
The Harvard students publish 4.31 journal articles in their first six years after graduation. That's amazing. Right?
Astounding number.
Same with M.I.T at 4.73.
All the way down the list.
What we see here is that the best students at the very best schools are extraordinary, and that comes as no surprise. You just saw Larry Summers here. I don't know where he went. Larry Summers, that's Larry Summers, right?
Brilliant. Genius. We knew that.
Let's look at the 85th percentile.
Now, the 85th percentile at these schools, these are schools that might take two dozen PhD students every year. So if you're in the 85th percentile in the MIT economics program, you're the fifth or sixth best student in your class. That's really smart, okay?
The 85th percent student at MIT -- or at Harvard, let's do Harvard — publishes basically one paper in their first six years versus 4.31 in the top student. So the gap between one and five is enormous, right? It is 5X.
Now, let's go down to the 55th percentile at Harvard. So the 55th percentile at Harvard is the -- let's say, the, uh, 12th best person at the greatest economics program in the world. They could arguably say they are one of the 20-top PhD economic students in the world, right?
Look what their publication rate.
0.07.
Basically they're not publishing at all.
By any standard by which we judge academic economists, these people are complete failures, right?"[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics