Malcolm Gladwell – Zeitgeist Americas 2013

>>Malcom Gladwell: It’s a real pleasure to
be here. I was — I’m acutely conscious to the fact as I listened both to our previous
speaker and also the ones before that everyone has been speaking about very consequential
and high-minded things this morning, and I’m not going to do that at all. In fact, I intend
to give what I am sure will be the most solipsistic talk ever at a Google Zeitgeist.
I simply want to talk about why on earth I decided to say yes and come here.
Here’s the situation. I’m a writer. Part of what I do to make my living is I go and give
speeches at conferences like this. And I get paid, right, as one would, and it’s that money
that I use to make my living. So how much is Google paying me for this?
Zero. It is a company with, what, $50 billion in the bank, and they don’t have a dime for
poor little old Malcolm. Now, we could talk at length about what this
says about Google, but that’s not what interests me. What interests me is what that says about
me. Why on earth would I say yes under such a circumstance? Why — you know, I’m busy.
My time is really valuable. Why did I fly all the way out here, across the country,
to give away my intellectual property for free? In fact, it wasn’t even free. I had
to print out my speech this morning in the business center. And — this is the bill — it
cost me $9.87. It is costing me to be here. [ Laughter ]
>>Malcom Gladwell: Now, you can say that I came here because there is all kinds of interesting
people here, which is true. I don’t mean to cast any aspersions on any of you, but my
life is lousy with interesting people. I got more interesting people than I know what to
— So you could say maybe I should have come here — I should come here because I can make
contacts that will help me, you know, in the business world. I’m not in the business world.
I don’t need to meet a V.C. I work out of my apartment. If I want to renovate my kitchen,
I will just go to the bank for a loan. There’s no — it doesn’t make any sense, in other
words, for me to be here. So why did I say yes? Well, the answer is
that this conference is run by Google, one of the most prestigious and successful companies
in the world. I would not have agreed to speak for free at a Yahoo! conference, would I?
[ Laughter ]>>Malcom Gladwell: In other words, my decision
to do something that is not in my best interest was caused by my association with an elite
institution. And this is what I want to talk about today. It is an argument that I make
in my new book, “David and Goliath,” which in further proof of how baffling my decision
was to come here is not available for sale at this conference.
[ Laughter ]>>Malcom Gladwell: I like to call this problem
elite institution cognitive disorder, or EICD. And it is simply that elite institutions screw
us up in all kinds of ways that we’re not always conscious of.
And since the theme of this morning’s session is “Imagine a Better World,” I want to try
and imagine what the world would look like if we freed ourself of the scourge of EICD.
So I am going to give you a couple of examples of EICD in action. Let me start with the very
thorny question of science and math education in this country. STEM as we call it.
We have a problem in turning out enough science and math graduates, right, in this country.
And it is not for lack of interest, by the way, among high school seniors. Lots and lots
and lots of high school seniors want to get science and math degrees, but approximately
half of them drop out by the end of their second year. So we have a persistence problem
in science and math education in this country. So the question is why? Why do so many kids
drop out? Well, the obvious answer is that science and math are really hard and you need
to have a certain level of cognitive ability to master those subjects and we don’t have
enough smart kids, right? So if that’s true, if science and math education
is a function of — we should be able to see in the statistics that persistence is a function
of your cognitive ability. So let’s take a look.
By the way, this is the first time in my life I have ever used PowerPoint. This is like
a fantastic moment for me. I feel like I have finally joined the 20th century. It is really
kind of amazing. Oh, wow.
Okay. So this is — I’ve just chosen Hartwick College as a proxy for American colleges for
totally random colleges. Hartwick is a small liberal arts college in upstate New York.
What we have a distribution of math S.A.T. scores by — among the people who are intending
to major in science and math. What you can see is that there is quite a
wide range of native math ability among the kids entering the freshmen STEM programs at
Hartwick, right? So what do we see when we look at the — who ends up graduating with
a STEM degree? What we see is that at Hartwick College, the kids in the top third, the top
third S.A.T. scores, end up getting well over half of the STEM degrees and the kids with
the bottom scores end up getting very few of the STEM degrees.
Those kids over there are dropping out like flies. This would seem to suggest that our
original hypothesis that persistence is a function of cognitive ability is true.
And this would also — we can also go further. We can say if this hypothesis is true, as
we go to more and more selective institutions, we should see a very different pattern of
persistence. We should see less kids dropping out because the kids are all smarter, right?
So let’s go to Harvard. These numbers are a few years old. But at Harvard, you can see
that the bottom third of math S.A.T. scores among kids doing science and math are equal
to the top third at Hartwick. The dumb students at Harvard are as smart as the smart students
at Hartwick. So you would think everybody at Harvard should be getting a math and science
degree, right? Why would they drop out? Everyone is so smart.
What do we see? Oh, dear.
What we see is the exact same pattern at Harvard that we saw at Hartwick. The smart kids — the
top kids are getting all the degrees. The kids at the bottom aren’t getting any degrees.
They are dropping out like flies, right? Even though these kids are brilliant. Right?
So what’s happening? Well, clearly what we’re seeing here is that persistence in science
and math is not simply a function of your cognitive ability. It’s a function of your
relative standing in your class. It is a function of your class rank, right?
Those kids who are really, really brilliant don’t get their math degree not because — not
as a function of their IQ but as a function of where they are in their class.
And, by the way, if you look at any college you want, you will always see, regardless
of the level of cognitive ability among the students, you will always see the same pattern.
The kids who get the science and math degrees are the ones in the top of their class. And
the kids in the bottom of their class never do. Look over at that bottom third — the
bottom third chart over there. So the name given for this phenomenon amongst
psychologists is relative deprivation theory. And it describes this exceedingly robust phenomenon
which says that as human beings we do not form our self-assessments based on our standing
in the world. We form our self-assessments based on our standing in the — in our immediate
circle, on those in the same boat as ourselves, right?
So a classic example of relative deprivation theory is which kind of country — which countries
have the highest suicide rates? Happy countries or unhappy countries? And the answer is happy
countries. If you are morbidly depressed in a country
where everyone else is really unhappy, you don’t feel that unhappy.
[ Laughter ]>>Malcom Gladwell: Right? You are not comparing
yourself to the universe — the whole universe of people out there. No. You are comparing
yourself to your neighbors and the kids at school and they are unhappy, too, so you are
sort of fine. But if you are morbidly depressed in a country
where everyone is jumping up and down for joy, you are really depressed, right? That
is a very, very, very profoundly serious place to be and so as a result, you get that sad
outcome more often. So what’s happening at Harvard then? The kid
in the bottom third of his class at Harvard does not say rationally: I’m in the 99.99th
percentile of all students in the world when it comes to native math ability, even though
that’s true. What that kid says is: That kid over there,
Johnny over there, is getting all the answers right and I’m not. I feel like I’m really
stupid and I can’t handle math so I will drop out, get a fine arts degree, move to Brooklyn,
work, make $15,000 a year and break my parents’ heart, right?
[ Laughter ]>>Malcom Gladwell: So what is the implication
of this? The implication of this is that if you want to get a science and math degree,
don’t go to Harvard, right? In fact, we can run the numbers on this. 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 S.A.T. score of your peers.
So if you are a kid and you have a choice between — if you get into Harvard and University
of Maryland is your safety, University of Maryland has 150 — on average S.A.T. 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 John Connelly and Allie Sundy — Allie
Under, rather. They looked at graduates of Ph.D. programs, economics Ph.D. 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 rated 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 Ph.D. program
at Harvard, M.I.T., 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., 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.
[ Laughter ]>>Malcom Gladwell: Let’s look at the 85th
percentile. Now, the 85th percentile at these schools, these are schools that might take
two dozen Ph.D. students every year. So if you’re in the 85th percentile in the M.I.T.
economics program, you’re the fifth or sixth best student in your class. That’s really
smart, okay? The 85th percent student at M.I.T — 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 12th best person at the greatest economics program in
the world. They could arguably say they are one of the
20-top Ph.D. economic students in the world, right? Look what their publication rate, .07.
Basically, they’re not publishing at all. By any standard by which we judge academic
economists, these people are complete failures, right?
Now, I’ve picked lousy schools. [ Laughter ]
>>Malcom Gladwell: And I’ve started with Toronto, which is where I went to school. So this is
a little masochistic moment where I basically confess to how paltry my academic pedigree
is. I have also picked B.U. and then I have also
picked — non-top 30 is simply all the schools that are so terrible I can’t bring myself
to name them. [ Laughter ]
>>Malcom Gladwell: We’ve aggregated them all so these are schools that if your child — anyone
in this room, if your child said they were going to go to one of these schools, you would
weep, okay? [ Laughter ]
>>Malcom Gladwell: What do we see here? What we see here is that the 99th percentile at
these lousy schools publish more than everyone at the top schools except for the 99th percentile,
right? Do you see that? Look at Toronto, 3.13. The only people who
publish more than the top student at Toronto are the top students at those top seven schools.
The top student at Boston is publishing three times more than the 80th percentile student
at Harvard. What does this tell us? Well, it tells us
that — oh, before I get there. The guys that did the study, having done the
study, were so stunned at what they were seeing that they end their article with this whole
thing about what on earth is going on with Harvard?
Here’s a school which is collecting the most brilliant, the most accomplished, probably
the best-looking graduate students in economics —
[ Laughter ]>>Malcom Gladwell: I can’t imagine the bar
is that high; but, nonetheless, it presumably is a selection criteria. They gather them
all together and, yet, everyone except for the very, very best students is basically
a flop. And they say, I’m quoting them, why is it that the majority of these successful
applicants who are winners and did all the right things up to the time they applied to
graduate school became so unimpressive after they are trained? Are we — and this moment
of genuine distress on the part of these two economists: Are we failing the students or
are they failing us? Right? No one’s failing anyone! What you’re just
seeing is relative deprivation in action, right? When it comes to confidence and motivation
and self-efficacy, the things that really matter when it comes to making your way in
the world, relative position matters more than absolute position.
The 80th percentile student at Harvard looks at those kids who are smarter than him and
says, “I can’t do it.” The number one student at Missouri says, “Wow,
I’m lord of the manor. I’m going to go out and conquer the world,” right?
What does it mean? Well, what it means, first of all, when it comes to hiring, it means
you should hire on the basis of class rank. And you should be completely indifferent to
the institution attended by the applicant. In fact, we should have a don’t ask, don’t
tell policy for the name of your undergraduate institution. It’s hurting us to know that.
Doesn’t help us. And when you hear some institution, some fabulous Wall Street investment bank,
some university say, “We only hire from the top schools,” you should say, “You moron!”
[ Laughter ]>>Malcom Gladwell: That’s what — that’s — that’s
the previous slide. I don’t know how to go backwards on slides.
No, you don’t want to hire from only the best schools. You want to hire from the top students
from any school under the sun. And it also means that when it comes — if you have kids
going to college, when it comes to choosing your undergraduate institution, you should
never go to the best institution you get into, never. Go to your second or your third choice.
Go to the place where you’re guaranteed to be in the top part of your class.
So why don’t we do that? Well, why did I come here when it was profoundly in my self-interest
not to, right? Because when we have an opportunity to join elite institutions, we are so enormously
flattered and pleased with ourselves that we do things that are irrational. Thank you.
[ Applause ]

100 thoughts on “Malcolm Gladwell – Zeitgeist Americas 2013”

  1. People are so easily wooed. There is nothing interesting or mysterious about why this occurs. It is cronyism. Profs gravitate towards those students “they believe” to be the best i.e. the students who are good AND agree with their prof’s pet theories. These students reap the privileges and rewards as students, and higher prospects of placement when graduated. Publishing is all a matter of being connected to the appropriate literature club of which the editors (i.e profs and friends) are members.

  2. That doesn't quite capture it Paloma. What he's talking about is more like "you'd rather be a lion cub's head than a lion king's tail."

  3. If that is true that is really interesting. I wonder if it is as competitive class room environment or maybe a different type of competition? Maybe the UK is not as susceptible to the phenomena?

  4. And, here's an alternative explanation. The faculty at these different schools may are much closer in ability than the students. So, the reason you see top students at poor schools publishing more than medium or bottom students at Harvard is because the faculty is driving most of the publications and the faculty at each school tends to work with the top students.

  5. the things is, the data is only regarding publishing rates and stem dropout rates. what about financial status, what about quantity of elite accolades, what about quality of the work produced. do the same trends emerge? Does the 55th percentile graduate go on to build a more successful company than the constantly scribbling 99th? What it really suggests is that self-delusion, a 'i'm special' ideology, is necessary to concoct and follow-through with challenging tasks.

  6. look at the spirit of individual motivation based on the upbringing of each person
    products of luxury and pomp are the greatest failures in life
    they are weaker and accomplish less than those who struggle from child to adult to achieve even the most basic of necessities by 30 I invented 4 industries
    As I stated many times over the years from acute observation Bill gates is not smarter than me he was given all the tools necessary to ensure his growth while I have been deprived all ( destitute)

  7. Oh man, when i got to my big 30k student public university, I was horrified with the students around me. I wondered "why the hell did I choose to go here?!" But it turned out all right (I've been a professional in the mechanical engineering field for 5 years).
    Kind of interesting to see it from this perspective.

  8. what happened is that Harverd STEM is much harder than Harwicks.

    other than that its a great talk as always. it surprising how many great talks Malcom Gladwell has.

  9. So people get discouraged if they're smaller fish in a bigger pond? Is that a profound statement? That most people would rather choose a brand name school even though they may not be happy or it's somehow against their interest? Again, this isn't really profound, he just makes it seem so.

  10. This was very interesting – I wonder if any of his points can be applied to the practice of grading on the curve in math and science classes?

  11. "At any college, you will always see, regardless of the level of cognitive ability among the students, you will always see the same pattern, The kids who get the science and math degrees are the ones at the top of their class and the kids in the bottom of their class never do." [15% or so in the bottom third do get their degrees. But a strong point anyway.] "We form our self-assessments based on our standing in our immediate circle…"

  12. Amazing speech… its seems so known, but still unknown..!! Getting a different perception now!! Thanks Malcolm for this incredible speech!!!

  13. Forget dropouts the graduates do not have jobs after graduation. Who get these numbers? The statistics are flawed big time.

  14. One of the the finest thinkers of our time, Malcolm Gladwell makes a strong case against the popular perception through this thoughtfully demonstrated education pattern study conducted in the elite and non-elite schools of America. Highly recommended for everyone.

  15. The bottom third become Presidents of America. Like George Bush, having graduated in the bottom 20% of Yale.

    OTH, President Obama graduated Magna cum laude, and the highest GPA of graduating students in his class.

  16. The point about publication take into account the number but not the quality, one paper published by MIT is sometimes more important and amusing to read than 20 papers from other lesser universities.

  17. And a graduate from Harvard who is the last on his class is way smarter and professional than the top student at New mexico university.

  18. STEM is pretty easy at Yale and Columbia, and the difference in prestige between those schools and Harvard, Princeton, MIT, and CalTech is pretty much negligible. 

  19. I really needed to hear this, im on the fence about transferring institutions, and currently I'm a biology major with a cumulative 4.0 ….. maybe I should just stay ..

  20. B students from second tier schools are far better suited to life than A students from top schools. I didn't say higher earners, I just said better at life.

  21. malcolm i think most students are not aware of this – thanks for pointing it out. feeling less than your peers? perhaps teachers going ahead too fast and you losing track? the widening of the gap between rich and poor syndrome? disagree that there are so many dumb students though.. the reasons for academic failure are far too complex for that label .. over-performance also interesting although publishing just means you speak more..

  22. He used that presentation on his amazing book David and Goliath underdogs misfits and the art of battling giants.

    Great great book! What a mind.

  23. It's all RELATIVE! D'uh! But seriously, MG's my favourite author ATM & in the current state of the world, this is a highly valid, even vital, discussion.

  24. Very enjoyable. Not sure i agree with all his conclusions. Any applicant with a STEM degree from Harvard is likely to be more naturally able then even the top STEM applicant from Maryland and certainly more naturally Able then the average Maryland applicant. While I agree that most would be more likely to get the STEM degree at Maryland, those with the degree from Harvard regardless of GPA

  25. Furthermore the information suggest that a top Maryland STEM student may not have been able to accomplish a degree from Harvard

  26. lol despite this, people will still strive for prestigious universities. It's not just about the success ; it is somewhat about the name of the college too. I know so many people want to go to a ivy just for its name. The society has to change.

  27. This guy's extremely smart. I think what I can take with me from this is: Make everyone close to you feel capable of doing everything they wish to accomplish, because just making them feel this way is going to make them accomplish more.

  28. dousche, what is money? is the real question. And why are we not evolving from it is the follow-up. Egotistical dousche. the obvious question is that science and math is hard? whaaaaaaaat!? evil seed dude!! no i cant see past minute number six. I mean this guy is not questioning the source of the stats. He does not stop to think that maybe the stats are this way because there is a limited purchasing power (or access, for more simple-minded folk) that creates a class-structure struggle where basic human needs are in play and at stake. I mean, if you want me to graph it out on some google circle presentation… google pictures of expensive private schools, look at some of that for a while and later google poverty and education and see where that takes you. If you standardize something like education to make it look like the rich schools (or better) would you call it comunisim? socialisim? If you say yes, then I call you an Humano Retrogrado

  29. We need to develop confidence, autonomy, and work ethic in everyone; the improved productivity would help our society immensely. 

  30. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't think the speaker expanded his argument so as to take into account that when the top students from the top universities leave the university, their relative rank immediately changes based on their new environment; likely their place of employment.  So they should begin to regain the confidence which they lost starting from day 1.

    The other potential conclusion is that universities use testing and grades as a proxy for intelligence, which I'd argue, may be an altogether poor way to judge intelligence.  There are so many individual outliers who get poor grades yet are bored by the classroom.  Many of these end up demonstrating themselves to be some of the brightest minds when judged by their life's accomplishments.  

    Also, highly intelligent people may question the value of a job at a good company or a placement at a top university. They may have more Maslow-ian goals which are not necessarily reached via attaining good grades or working for a top company. 

  31. Depression isn't a mood. Something needs to be done to get through to people. Try this; you ever been drunk? Ok, you ever try to philosophize your way sober? You ever try to cognitive therapy yourself sober? Of course not. Your brain is in a biological state. No one shrugs off drunkenness. You have to wait until the chemistry is different. You can't meditate, attitude, philosophize or anything else your way sober when you're drunk. Right? Ok.

    Latest studies suggest it's a blood circulation problem. Either way, it's not sadness or being pouty. It's a reduction in the ability to think. It's a virtual lobotomy. Research people who sustain head injuries to the frontal cortex. They experience the SAME SYMPTOMS (for different reasons). The part of the brain that thinks has been compromised. When you can't think, you can't deal with things, like situations, problems and other people. This makes you feel even worse. Then you start getting stressed and anxious. Depression is worse than cancer. People with cancer have reported being able to see the magic in life, appreciating the life they had, etc. People with depression can't even die on their own terms, as their own person. It's common among sufferers to remark that depression is hell. It is. People who've never experienced are lucky and, unfortunately and annoyingly, have an impossible time getting it.

    Remember, it's simple math. Think of being drunk. Do you attitude your way sober? Nope. Are you drunk because everyone around you is more sober than the average person? That's silly. The brain is an organ, just like the pancreas and liver. You don't attitude your way out of a pancreatic disorder. When you get a black eye, you don't use will power to get rid of the black and blue mark. Get real and stop being silly about mental illness. Thanks.

  32. You have to account for the quality of the published material. The threshold for submission to the best magazines from the best schools is very, very high. You have to be smart, insanely motivated, believe in what you do with religious zealotry, have an advisor who believes in you, and be lucky enough to have your research work out in order to get published at one of these institutions.

  33. From where does he get the data about Harvard dropout? I look at Internet, it says that Harvard has 86.2% graduation rate. Why it contradicts his data?

  34. This is kinda like how the best basketball players I've ever played against end up being the last guy on an NBA bench at BEST and usually end up with no shot at getting in the league at all

  35. There is a point where intelligence barely matters and only work ethic, discipline and luck determine how you do in school. I am certain that a very small fraction of drop-outs are due to just not being smart enough.

  36. Three points this presentation brought to my mind .
    1. A far more interesting question for Malcolm: Why do so few music students at university drop out even though they might not be very good?
    2. You have to prove yourself a genius but once –
    3. SAT scores don't tell us much about the whole person.

  37. Gladwell is brilliant, but I think he is wrong about relative deprivation being a reason for differences in student performance. If relative deprivation is the reason, weaker students would have a relatively good first year performance at varsity, followed by bad years as relative deprivation sets in. I have not observed this. Effort and performance remains fairly constant throughout a person's studies. I think the main reason for differing performance is plain old work ethic. Even lazy people can get into harvard, and lazy people generally don't do well at varsity.

  38. So, here we have a very real explanation for why it can be very hamful for college applicants to "shoot to high." I've thought this for years, but I've never seen it this well articulated. Thank you, Malcolm.

  39. I enjoy the talk but… he is showing the relative proportion of students who get STEM degrees and doesn't take into the account the graduation rates of the schools which is generally much higher at selective institutions

  40. I was top 10% of my class at the University of Missouri…and I'm a successful guy in all aspects of life except free-time (but I'll retie young).

  41. i think he has some points. when you think you are smart due to your lack of exposure to smarter people, you are more confident and daring than you would be if you were surrounded by smart people. But by going to lesser competitive schools so you can feel better about yourself is not the same as going to more competitive school and actually fight your path through a train of capable opponents. Of course not everyone has the appetite for an overachieved life. But it prepares you for a "eat or be eaten" world out there.

  42. Brilliant, let me tell my story, being a good student during my Secondary and Higher secondary school, I went to the best Engineering school of Bangladesh, its screening process is very similar of that of IITs for uninitiated people. Stood in the 10 percentile among 10,000 participants that year and maybe among 1 percentile among that year 100K prospective applicant. What I found after admission that how grueling and demanding the courses were, I were not simply ready. I struggled. I didnot study because I didn't fell the urge of studying. I was more into developing video games!!!! I huffed, I puffed…… But when the results start spawning I was near the bottom of my department. And Relative Position came into play. I thought I was not good enough, but I was. I deemed myself worthless on others perceived success. After graduation, top 10 percentile went onto top schools of US to pursue their Phds. Life became difficult, I joined a big organization but when you see your friends working in big labs under eminent professor that hurts. Hurts a lot, I might say. We put our emphasis on wrong places and therefore we might loss on things that are actually more important.

  43. Sir , can't a person take motivation and learn from people who are doing good? I think it will end up in relative upgradation rather than degradation.

  44. Sir, I am deeply pained by your conclusion. inspite of knowing the truth u collected data and conclude wrongly and controvercialy just to gain people’s were clearly knowing that getting motivated or depressed seeing other’s success depends entirely on individual’s attitude.And the people who can’t embrace the good in you can’t embrace the good in themselves.Even if u die for them they wont be affected a bit.They will find reasons for their failures because they don’t want to take the responsibility of their lives.If they want to learn can do so anywhere from anyone,if they want to justify the reasons for not doing their best and failing they can do so eighter.If they wanna get depressed they will anyhow find reasons to do so.If they wanna get inspired they will find reasons to do so.Their feeling of self worth , not only self worth but every feeling, every emotion , every action is totally dependent on them and you cant do anything on this. its their attitude which is disadvantageous to them.Not the ELITE institutions .Someone can take motivation and learn by looking at your work if he ever has a zeal to do something.If not, that person is bound to keep playing the blame game and die doing nothing..Everybody knows there are many factors which count for success .Also no one is born intelligent, only hardwork pays off. Still u play with your conclusions just to gain attention of people and remain interesting.That’s very shameful Sir.

  45. ~ acknowledge cannot teach philosophy humanities sociology behavior science vs theology. Mentalist Parapsychology Recognize Beyond ~ 100 years young from improving lives via political science solution product services Universal Principles Doctrine Procedure

  46. Having the confidence, motivation, and self-efficacy is different from having the ability and skills. This becomes quickly obvious in work environment where the recent graduates at the middle and even bottom of their class from a top college perform far above the level of recent graduates at the top of their class from, say, a 2nd tier university. Hiring managers of the top companies know this fact.

  47. I really like this view, but nothing can happen to make all this stigma stop if parents are still pushing for Harvard, and Stanford, and Yale…

  48. 99% of economists are half asses.. meaning …oblivious….
    Oblivious to the counterfeiting by the 'fed'….the NGO 'fed'….

    The 'fed' , no more federal than fedex , produces the money supply ….! Useless economists accept this swindle with eyes closed…!

    A counterfeiter produces imitation dollars…. loans these bogus scrip notes to gvt in exchange for treasury bonds… result ? Debt ! Gvt debt ? Hell no.. my debt… taxpayer's debt ! !

    99% of economists are meaningless.. ignore the fed and the taxpayer's debt the fed's owners perpetrate…
    Perpetrate on taxpayers…

    Did you vote for the members of congress.. sens.. reps… to force place 21trillion dollars of debt on our backs ? I sure didnt …..

  49. brilliant and spot on. you could say similar with black schools before integration. …but a lot is bragging rights in that you were 'smart enough' to get into harvard; so when you speak in a room being a harvard grad, it's like speaking with an english accent, lol.

  50. Being a top student works both ways. Not only you shine, but you also get all the attention from the teachers. The teachers prefer to speak with top students, suggest ideas to them, in practice you are part of the closed club of the people who publish. It's not that students get discouraged, it's that the professor's time is a scarce resource

  51. Gladwell assumes the value in a degree is the knowledge. But it isn't. The value of a Harvard degree is the fact that you WENT to Harvard, and the social connections you make there, and after college as a result. Therefore it isn't better to go to the lesser school for a STEM degree.

  52. 16:00. Don't look at the publication rates. Compare on mean income instead. That's a very different picture.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *