<p>This is the new book by Malcolm Gladwell, author of Blink, The Tipping Point, etc.</p>
<p>In Chapter 4 he makes a compelling case that it's better to be the big fish in a small pond when it comes to college -- that going to the most selective school can be demoralizing if you're no longer at the top, and, plus, that you may be more successful if you choose not to. Worth a read. (Ironically, it worked out well for me and my husband not going to a top school just as Gladwell predicts, but then we sent our oldest off to a more highly ranked one. Hope we made a good choice.)</p>
<p>Well, it can be demoralizing if you struggle just to maintain a 2.0 GPA… but many of the more selective schools have ample grade inflation so that even the lower GPA students there have what might ordinarily be “respectable” GPAs.</p>
<p>Also, each major at each school may have a pond of varying student ability and motivation. The range may be relatively narrow in engineering (at least for students who continue and graduate in engineering) across different schools, but much wider in business across different schools. Such differences may affect both the intellectual experience the student has and the grades the student earns.</p>
<p>It’s worth reading the chapter and specific examples within. Is Brown known for grade inflation? MIT? Harvard? I think you still know where you stand relative to others regardless of grade inflation or lack thereof.</p>
<p>It’s just not as simple as grade inflation, and the statistics he uses to illustrate his point are to do with things like publications and people staying in their fields. It’s also not just applicable to the undergrad level.</p>
<p>Gladwell is always interesting, but not always accurate. </p>
<p>I agree overall with his premise that many students would be better off at schools other than Ivies, but he also says in the book that there is a major shortage of STEM majors and a surplus of STEM jobs, which at best is an oversimplification. He doesnt distinguish between math, engineering, pure science jobs etc.</p>
<p>He often has good points but his journalism. Like many authors, he is marshalling his evidence to prove his points while leaving out contrary facts and theories.</p>
<p>I find Gladwell to be a good story teller, but definitely willing to selectively shape the facts in service to the narrative. Or over-generalize his anecdotal insights.</p>
<p>One chapter talks about how, for example, a guy coaching a bunch of unathletic 12 year old girls was able to win a national youth basketball championship by employing the unusual and disruptive strategy of a full court press. Then he wonders/asks why other coaches at other levels don’t employ this tactic to allow David to beat Goliath.</p>
<p>As any hoopsters know, the full court press is most often used by Goliath to beat David – e.g. John Wooden’s UCLA teams and Rick Pitino’s Kentucky and Louisville teams. </p>
<p>The reason it worked for the untalented 12 year old girls? Cause they aren’t strong enough yet to throw full court passes over the top of the press. Once that happens, a full court press is basically the way David commits suicide against Goliath. But a nice read…</p>
<p>Unfortunately, that is a popular oversimplication, even in these forums. Meanwhile, legions of biology majors graduate every year with mediocre job prospects at the bachelor’s degree level.</p>
<p>I truly do enjoy Gladwell’s writing, love listening to him read his own audiobooks, and like how the books make me think of things in a new way, but I do think that they can be a little bit like a horoscope. You can think of a way to apply his theories to a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean they are scientifically valid or predictive.</p>