Gladwell vs Lower Class Success: Is there a difference? Success is whatever you can make out of your current situation, whether it be good or bad. Most people gain success through talent or hard work. According to Gladwell, there is no such thing as becoming successful on your own with just talent or hard work and that there are other factors that come into play. In Michiko Kakutani’s article, “It’s True: Success Succeeds, and Advantages Can Help”, Kakutani criticises Gladwell’s usual methodology as weak and clumsy. Kakutani’s claim is reasonable seeing that Gladwell’s theory of success is only supported and based upon anecdotes that are obsolete to more recent generations, which leaves his argument for each person’s own suggestion.
…show more content…
He infers that students from a poorer class family have an unlikely chance of being at the same academic level as someone from a middle class family, who can afford the special programs and camps to keep their child ahead academically. Kakutani also points this out in her article where she brings up the 1920s study of young “geniuses” conducted by Lewis Terman, a professor of psychology, where “‘almost none of the genius children from the lowest social and economic class ended up making a name for themselves.’” He also states how someone from a lower class would be more submissive in the presence of authority (104) and would most likely fall behind because of this attribute. However, recent technological innovations and social changes must be taken in consideration when referring to younger generations. When looking at more recent changes in children's social behavior, Gladwell’s analysis is no longer valid. Children, no matter what economic class they come from, are more socially independent and tend to develop their own opinions at a younger …show more content…
She also states how this theory is supported only on “a flimsy selection of colorful anecdotes and stories” which is all very reasonable seeing as Gladwell’s seeming definition of success is targeted around those who come from a higher economic and social class. For instance, one of Gladwell’s most successful Outlier mentioned was Bill Gates, who also came from a well known and wealthy family, and it just so happened that he went to a prestigious school that could afford a computer terminal when most colleges at the time didn’t even have a computer club (50). Using this information, it seems as if Bill Gates was groomed to be destined for success. Unlike someone like Katie Brindle, one of the third graders sociologist Annette Lareau observed, who comes from a working class family where her interests and skills were seen just as personality traits and weren’t cultivated or harnessed to the point where she could have one day became a professional singer or actress (103). Unfortunately, According to Gladwell, Katie was doomed to the characteristics of her social and economic class to not “make an impact on the world.” Gladwell’s limited view on success disadvantages him from seeing other views and outcomes. His bias towards lower economic and social classes leads him to theorize that one has to come from a higher economic
He infers that students from a poorer class family have an unlikely chance of being at the same academic level as someone from a middle class family, who can afford the special programs and camps to keep their child ahead academically. Kakutani also points this out in her article where she brings up the 1920s study of young “geniuses” conducted by Lewis Terman, a professor of psychology, where “‘almost none of the genius children from the lowest social and economic class ended up making a name for themselves.’” He also states how someone from a lower class would be more submissive in the presence of authority (104) and would most likely fall behind because of this attribute. However, recent technological innovations and social changes must be taken in consideration when referring to younger generations. When looking at more recent changes in children's social behavior, Gladwell’s analysis is no longer valid. Children, no matter what economic class they come from, are more socially independent and tend to develop their own opinions at a younger …show more content…
She also states how this theory is supported only on “a flimsy selection of colorful anecdotes and stories” which is all very reasonable seeing as Gladwell’s seeming definition of success is targeted around those who come from a higher economic and social class. For instance, one of Gladwell’s most successful Outlier mentioned was Bill Gates, who also came from a well known and wealthy family, and it just so happened that he went to a prestigious school that could afford a computer terminal when most colleges at the time didn’t even have a computer club (50). Using this information, it seems as if Bill Gates was groomed to be destined for success. Unlike someone like Katie Brindle, one of the third graders sociologist Annette Lareau observed, who comes from a working class family where her interests and skills were seen just as personality traits and weren’t cultivated or harnessed to the point where she could have one day became a professional singer or actress (103). Unfortunately, According to Gladwell, Katie was doomed to the characteristics of her social and economic class to not “make an impact on the world.” Gladwell’s limited view on success disadvantages him from seeing other views and outcomes. His bias towards lower economic and social classes leads him to theorize that one has to come from a higher economic