Malcolm Gladwell seems to think attending an elite college or working for a famous company could kill your dreams.
I'm generally a huge Gladwell fan but assuming this BI article is an accurate synopsis, his latest book is complete horse shit.
He suggests that its better to be the best among a mediocre/sub-par set vs. be mediocre among the best. One of the examples he gives is that a programmer is better off going to an unknown tech co. vs. Google since he/she will be more likely to be a star at the lesser firm. What kind of hippie bullshit is that? Let's for one second ignore the Gladwell's foregone conclusion that you will be mediocre. I understand he's referring to everyone (who is a representative of the average person, i.e., is mediocre).... but why would your strive for that?
At first glance I thought the key takeaway was going to be that you're better off going to the unknown tech co. because you'll have more confidence etc and will in long run develop a lot more, gain unique skills you won't gain among a sea of Sergey Brins, and eventually surpass the same version of yourself that went the Google route. That would have been somewhat insightful. But from the article, thats not what he's saying.
Since when did motivation stop being about actual achievement and instead change to a warm fuzzy feelings of being special. Everyone shouldn't feel special and exceptional, because everyone is not. That's one of the reason we had the housing crisis. Everyone thinks they're special and they deserve something. Everyone deserve to own a home. No you fucking don't, you can't afford it.
Should aspiring bankers aim for Goldman Sachs or start at a boutique municipal bond company?Based on his logic in "David and Goliath," Gladwell's answer would almost definitely be to go small. "Rarely do we stop and consider," he writes, "whether the most prestigious of institutions is always in our best interest." In academia particularly, he says, "The Big Pond takes really bright students and demoralizes them."
If by demoralizes them he means "makes them believe they are not exceptional" then I think that phenomenal is called LIFE.
The older I get the more I see previously exceptional (I use this word loosely in this instance) people falling off and reverting to the mean... and even below it. You see this throughout life. The child prodigy that literally barely made it through a state college. The super smart hot chick in HS who ended up looking mediocre and really doing nothing in life. The whip smart kid in college who ended up becoming a mortgage broker. The kids in your analysts class that all went to the best schools but just didn't measure up against their peers in the professional world. This could go on forever and in every aspect of life.... from school to work to money to women.
I understand its human nature to think you're special. Everyone thinks "I am different than everyone else" and in that respect, they're all the same. We all think we're different, we all think we are exceptional. Its human nature. As you progress through life you find out exactly which part of the bell curve you fall on. That's the real world. Everyone can't be the best and to surround yourself with sub-par people just to feel good about yourself is pathetic.
Gladwell's book is David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits and the Art of Battling Giants.
If you ask me, the art of battling giants is to become one.
Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/malcolm-gladwells-david-and-goliath-2013…
Great write up. I personally don't think that you can take research or claims like this at face value. There are a massive amount of variables to consider. These studies are valuable though I think because they attemp to reject conventional wisdom. While it might not change the overall status quo, it presents a topic that should at least be challenged (be it right or wrong), and brings to question how people make career/life decisions.
I think it is interesting too, since this board constantly has posts regarding rankings and prestige in which most people seem to completely disregard the other factors that this book considers.
Totally agree. Gladwell also seems to argue against his last book. Think about the hockey example where the kids with the advantageous birthday were physically more mature and got to train with the better team and better coaches. Now he's saying they should quit and go join District 5 with Gordon Bombay working off his DUI arrest?
Typically if I'm battling a giant pokemon like Onix or Steelix I'll use my Charizard - I taught it metal claw so super effective against onix, and fire is super effective against steelix (e.g., flamethrower). However, I do have a weakness to rock moves for my charizard, so it's kind of like a double edged sword. Good thing I can outspeed them since charizard has naturally high speed
But in all seriousness, what a load of BS - there's a reason why "the track" works and has been in place for years.
Brady4MVP is trolling in his grave right now.
In all seriousness, though, I think there is some value to his insight. By and large, these big companies and top business schools give people the experience, network, and means to live a life that most can only dream of. But these big companies/schools often shepherd you along a beaten path.
Someone so busy sticking to the beaten path might never get to use their skills to change the world in a different way. Most of the brilliant kids at top PE firms are in the perfect situation. But for some of them, the PE firm might be holding them back from something they are capable of achieving and the kid might not even know it, like the next blue-chip startup or world-changing non-profit.
Obviously these are going to be the exception, but these exceptions to the norm are Gladwell's bread and butter.
I agree that being the big fish in the little pond can be limiting, and in most cases, especially if you're trapped in that pond, it is damning.
But I know a guy who didn't graduate college but started his own mortgage brokerage in my hometown (population: ~200,000). 10 years later, he clears about $400,000 in a town known for low cost of living, has an assistant that does ALL the heavy lifting, works 25-30 hours a week, has a network of the wealthiest people in the city, and spends all his time doing whatever he wants. He's a medium-sized fish in a little pond, and I guarantee he wouldn't trade it for HSW or GS ever.
EDIT: I don't disagree with any of the above posts, by the way. I just know what its like to get on a beaten path and that it's not for everyone. For the record, I'm trying very hard to get onto another beaten path (M7/MBB) because I know it's right for me.
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but I also see what Gladwell is saying to a certain extent. Ever since going to college became a requisite to a prosperous life, students are constantly encouraged to shoot for the stars and go to the best possible school and get the best possible job. That’s great for the exceptional people who can excel in a challenging environment; but as you said, most people aren’t exceptional.
My takeaway from Gladwell’s idea (I haven’t actually read the book, so I’m just going off of summaries I’ve seen) is that it’s unrealistic for every student to expect to be able to perform with the big dogs. By raising children to believe that they’re a special snowflake, we have given them undeserved confidence, which makes them think they should go to the best schools. Once they get there, they realize they aren’t as special as they thought, and they do poorly and/or mediocre. So I think Gladwell is saying that if those normal people weren’t made to believe that they were exceptional, they would have gone to a school that was a better fit, and probably would have performed better.
Again, I haven’t read the book, but I think it’s a mistake to look at this idea as a way to build up confidence. I think it’s more of a practical idea where people should understand their bounds and not put themselves in situations for which they are not suited.
I read an article along these lines last year about the negative effects of affirmative action on the students themselves. Here’s a quote:
Obviously this isn’t a perfect comparison, but I think it has some similarities to what Gladwell is saying.
Clearly anything that is on WSO is subject to a selection bias... but I'd argue that if we're instilling this false sense of confidence... the solution to that is not to perpetuate these delusions by putting your child in an inferior peer group, but rather correcting that person's perception of themselves.
I actually met someone a few days ago who's self-image was several standard deviations off of reality and it was just mind boggling how that person made it through life thus far with such a distorted set of eyes.
One of my favorite quotes:
Great quote. I'm by all means a fan of daring to do mighty things (as I think most people on this site are).
But I have to ask..I agree with you that it would be better to correct the person's perception of themselves, but how is putting them in a situation that they can't handle a constructive way of doing that? Doesn't seem like a good solution to me.
Like any Gladwell writing, you really have to pick and choose the pieces from which you extract value and meaning and discard the rest on a subjective basis.
While I disagree with it, I think there is a lot of merit to the notion that it is better to be the best in a small pool than mediocre in a large (or more elite) one. A pertinent though not perfect example that comes to mind is this: after graduating, would you rather move to SLC to work ops/research at Goldman, or work as a front office investment banking analyst for a regional boutique? Many smart people I know that graduated from state schools were faced with this question. Would you be drawn to the brand, allure and elite reputation of GS with the hopes of eventually making it to the FO, or start immediately in the FO with the chance to excel amongst your peers at a lesser known institution? An argument could be made for both sides. Gladwell prefers the latter.
I dislike how much weight Gladwell assigns to uncontrollable variables, nominally, other people. The concept of being "mediocre" inherently involves other people's success and behavior which, given an infinite array of personal and life goals, doesn't matter. He makes it sound as if personal improvement isn't possible (i.e. when you join a top talent pool, you'll always be stuck in the middle no matter how much you learn/improve). I'm too competitive to subscribe to the notion that performance is inelastic.
Always swing for the fences.
Nice. +1.
His stuff is ok at best. I've read a couple of his earlier books and it is really just dumbed down research for people to consume. Blink is a perfect example of this. Read it in a day and threw it away.
Outliers was great but I don't know about this. If you are joining a lesser known firm for a better/well rounded skillset then sure. But just lowering your standards? WTF?
I will never advocate lowering your standards to make life easier on yourself. I don't know why but I want at money and power to a degree sufficient to make me want to follow the beaten path.
But some sometimes I see the simple, happy people that have all the time they want to do whatever they want, even if it costs them the ability to have money and power and wonder if they'd choose what I'm choosing. I suppose not, which is just as well. I know I wouldn't choose their life, but for some people that's ideal.
"But some sometimes I see the simple, happy people that have all the time they want to do whatever they want, even if it costs them the ability to have money and power "
This I totally agree with. If I could have a small internet start-up (decent paycheck, nothing big) and work while traveling and set my own hours, I'd probably be more than content. I have too many extracurricular interests (traveling,music etc) that I want to pursue that aren't really possible with a normal job.
This is something I had to mull over for some time. I have not read the book, but I think Gladwell is referencing research that I have encountered before. Whereby, those being first or among the best, reap a vastly disproportionate amount of the success allocated. So in particular instances, unless you can be the absolute best of breed, you are better off not competing in said environment.
Think hedge funds for instance, the top two dozen or so get most of the first looks from discerning LP's despite there literally being thousands to choose from. Or for every one rockstar, there are ten thousand musicians making your Dopio at Starbucks.
I think this is more of what Gladwell is touching on rather than just giving it up - to become a piker.
whats wrong with being a big fish in a big pond?
Someone that kind of followed Gladwell's blueprint can be Blankfein. Wasn't he the proverbial big fish in a small pond (@J Aron) before it was acquired by GS?
I have an anecdote about myself/college friends that links to Gladwell's point made earlier.
I killed it in high school went on to a target Ivy, and would describe myself as an average achiever there. However, when looking for jobs/applying to grad schools I feel as though you're not being compared on an apples to apples basis as those applying for the same spots. For example, when a company posts a minimum GPA, is this supposed to be constant for every school they're recruiting from? I've been rejected for interviews because my middle of the road grade point was too low, while people from XYZ college (not as prestigious school) with a 3.9 were accepted. I understand this a douchey argument, but the common feeling between my friends and I was, "If I had gone to XYZ college I could have easily done that well".
It doesn't seem like a stretch at all to say that when you surround yourself with average achievers, it's easier to stand out. I'm of the belief that in the long run (and even near-term) my school choice will pay off, but was somewhat bitter about this issue when I started my job search in college.
I don't think it's a douchey argument, I just think people in that scenario need to understand their station.
If you're middle of the road Ivy, you don't have the same luxuries as the top of your Ivy class. You're in the next tier down... meaning your direct competitors are the top performers at lesser schools, as well as all of the other middle of the road Ivy leaguers. You probably don't get to just show up to on-campus recruiting and grab a top offer. Get on the phone, start networking, send out some emails... essentially do whatever anyone else who isn't at an Ivy HAS to do, and you still have an enormous advantage over them given the institution you come from and the network it has in place in literally every top industry.
Do you think it's easier or harder for someone to get a 3.9 at a "not as prestigious school" (like Berkeley, USC, UCLA, Notre Dame, Michigan) or a 3.3-3.5 at a "target Ivy" (like Harvard, Yale)?
The guy with the 3.9 GPA doesn't even get acknowledged by the firms that considered you, so how did he land an interview? What you're not seeing is all the behind the scenes work that went into him/her getting their resume noticed and landing an interview.
If he is getting an interview... his GPA Is a non-issue. It could have been a 3.3 GPA, whatever front-end work he did made up for his less than impressive academic credentials.
I don't necessarily think this is douchy but top kids from non-targets are often every bit as smart as kids from targets. Some non-target courses/programs are equally as hard as ivy courses.
BYU undergrad, for example, is a non-target but still sends a good 3 kids a year to MBB, and up to 10 to BB and another 10 to MM IB. Not including the ST kids and the kids that went to Google and Facebook. I have a feeling there are a lot of non-target, non-ivy schools that attract top talent for whatever reason.
At the end of the day everybody is competing against themselves to get the jobs they want because regardless of the kids around you, you can shine or drown in each phase: school, recruiting, interviewing. You have to make things happen for yourself, and often the non-target kids do this better because they have to be scrappy to rise to the top.
Speaking as an Ivy grad...if you're not pulling a 3.5+ there, I don't know what to say. What's the saying about Harvard? "Hard to get in, easy to graduate." Don't kid yourself: your GPA at a Berkeley, UMich, or god-forbid NYU would be much worse. There's considerably less grade inflation, and it sounds like you're just not cutting it. Suggesting that you'd be "better off" at a shittier school with a stricter grade curve, fewer OCR opportunities, and a less-prestigious brand name because you'd be in a weaker peer group is like, laughable. Those Stern kids would cut you to shreds.
Exactly.
This is true aside from the obvious qualifications of major choice (sub 3.5 isn't as pitiful if you are doing engineering/math or a hard double major), illness, or attending Princeton.
Let's be real though, except for the truly marginal AA admittees and athletes, a low GPA from an Ivy is much more indicative of deficient work ethic than inadequate intellectual capacity. I'm convinced that's why companies place any value in GPA as a screening device (aside from laziness and time constraints).
Edit: With that said, I completely agree that Gladwell's point is lacking quality. I haven't ever been overly impressed with him, to be honest.
Is this really an issue? Is there really someone out there telling the 17 year old kid with the 3.3 GPA in Duckshit, Montana that he should be going to Harvard?
You're always going to have some kids at elite institutions down at the bottom of the bell curve... that's what the curve is for. But don't try to tell me that those kids couldn't have improved their standing with more effort. Why do we even need to research this? Undergraduate institutions, and even more so investment banks, have extensive recruiting and application processes that are tried and proven. Sure, every once in a while a few people that truly don't belong will slip through the cracks, but don't try to tell me those clowns would have been head of their class at Rutgers if they had only just decided to settle for mediocrity.
In my experience, the people that make the cut for the top positions generally have the mental and physical capacity to perform at that level. It's the other factors that get in the way... lack of ambition, lack of motivation, being on your own, whatever, who cares. These are factors that would exist at every state school, as well as every Ivy. So if you're going to be middle of the pack, why the hell would you not be middle of the pack in BB IBD rather than at Going Nowhere Capital Partners in Baton Rouge where your comp consists of $50k base and free Kuerig refills every third Tuesday.
People who have the ability and drive to go to the top, will, wherever they are. Intentionally lowering your station isn't going to make you perform better, it's just going to make you less important.
Hey fuck you I like my free free Kuerig refills every third Tuesday.
It's articles like these that keep me coming back to WSO.
Realistically I don't buy into his strategy of starting at a small firm. What if it gets bought out?, What if it fails?, What the internal politics are worse?
If you start in a no-name company and it doesn't work out, what are you left with that's marketable? Your experiences? Sure that's valuable to you, but what's going to catch a recruiter's eye. 2 Yrs at Google or 2 Yrs at ABC Technologies.
Start with a brand name, do mediocre at worst, then choose your options. The ability to make your own destiny is key.
It's pretty obvious that what he's talking about doesn't apply to business. It can't be a coincidence that so many CEOs have elite MBAs and/or a McKinsey background.
100% agree. Their performance is an attitude and not an aptitude issue.
If you have below a 3.7 for certain jobs, no matter what school you attend (unless you have sick connections) you will not get an interview. By the nature of that fact it is "easier" to get these jobs coming from a non "target Ivy" (but still good schools, like the ones you mentioned). Companies want diversity and only have a certain number of spots for certain schools. Paralleling this fact, business schools have a certain number of spots (implicitly) for certain types of people, i.e. bankers, engineers, etc. I absolutely understand the reason why companies/business schools would want diversity, but these are situations where differentiating yourself among competition you can dominate would be an advantage.
You can only become the best, if you play against the best (c) Harvey Specter
Damn Straight
Why you're confused by Malcolm Gladwell advocating for hippie, nonsense mediocrity is beyond me.
relating this to finance rather then life in general, i think it depends whether u r in a junior role or a senior/producing role. As a younger person it probably makes sense to try to be somewhere that has credibility and name recognition, but at some point it may make sense to monetize that credibility and go wherever you can make the most money. For example a 25 year old may want to be analyst at a brand named hedge fund in order to get a big name on the resume whereas a 40 year old portfolio manager probably is just going to go where he gets the ability to run the most money and have the best payout.
Agree with this...the need for the institutions you're involved with to serve as a signalling mechanism declines as you get older and acquire more experience and your priorities change.
oh and another thing...its just as easy (or just as hard) to get a 4.0 at a middle of the road school as it is at a top school. It is a well known fact that the hardest part of a place like harvard is getting in and once there they tend not to be too hard on the students so long as the check clears.
This is false for any school/program that grades on a curve, since if your performance is entirely dependent on how your peers do, the difficulty level is then dependent on the quality of your peers.
'Everyone can't be the best and to surround yourself with sub-par people just to feel good about yourself is pathetic.'
This X1000. My mindset is quite opposite to Gladwell's. One guy told me that 'your income is gonna be the average of your 10 closest friends'. This is the best career advice I've ever received. (That being said, as a female I am not interested in digging gold. Had plenty of opportunities but just couldn't do it.)
I'm with Gladwell and his hipsterish message on this.
I think the one major advantage that David has over the giant is that the giant doesn't see David coming. Being "elite" means people see you coming. And yes, I am a prolific troll on this site, so Marcus probably saw me coming and probably has a good counter-argument already. He wouldn't have seen someone who posts here once a month coming.
In situations where pedigree isn't all that important, you can get much of the other benefits of being a well-known giant with two key benefits- passion and surprise. Everyone expects you to lose, which is why it is SO MUCH FUN to win.
I've been the underdog and I've been the giant. I guess I am probably more the giant today. But frankly, it's a lot more fun to be the underdog. The giant can only lose- the underdog can only win.
Placeat corrupti consequatur hic perferendis totam. Esse autem et et hic odio odio. Minus modi nisi qui minus. Ut doloremque similique ut. Quas est quia modi fuga. Ratione aperiam blanditiis rerum officiis ipsum dignissimos. Consequuntur sunt unde officiis.
Quis libero perspiciatis hic minima est quibusdam minus. Veniam enim nam ut provident modi culpa. Dolores et deserunt nesciunt occaecati sed rerum et. Sit magni animi quibusdam repudiandae.
Error doloremque modi labore asperiores cumque a expedita. Velit dolores dolorem tempora ducimus dolorem.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Optio qui eum at minus modi maiores consectetur placeat. Consectetur dolores porro aut animi consequuntur et nostrum accusamus. Harum eum explicabo est dolor aspernatur porro aliquid molestias. Eaque consequuntur est voluptates qui dolorem natus.
Accusamus qui officiis suscipit ut quidem et corrupti. Molestias et asperiores ut. Quam placeat qui blanditiis ut occaecati modi unde.
Provident vero ullam quas. Delectus ipsa aperiam nesciunt saepe consequatur dolores officia. Sit quaerat aut sed nihil dolore fugit hic. Ab molestiae debitis et quam corporis. Accusantium adipisci voluptate deserunt.
Quis incidunt laudantium perspiciatis eveniet. Earum id voluptatem et quod sapiente quae aut. Omnis ad laboriosam cupiditate ipsam est et qui.