The 10,000-Hour Rule

I found this book to be intterguing and interesting. It captured my attention right away from the start. It talks about success and it's a topic that I am very interested. Gladwell points that "The emerging picture from such studies is that ten thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert-in anything"(Gladwell 40). He revels the the amount of hours that Mozart and the Beatles which is 10,000 hours that is equalievent to 10 years. This was very surprising and I was amazed by this discovery. Now I know that many legends become successful within years and more specially 10 years. It shows that commitment is needed for success in everything. Many people should learn from this chapter that anything they want to succeed is based on the commitment that they show. Now from me personally learning this I am going to be more patient on  my success because it comes within years of commitment. Gladwell illustrates clearly that doing what one wants to be successful in is not the same as showing the commitment towards what one is doing. Commitment is a key to success and I have lost over the years and now that it has been pointed out I have found it again.

Mamadou Diallo
Sunday, January 31

Sources Discussed: The 10,000 Hour Rule and The Problem With Geniuses 

          Due to the fact that we are high school juniors in the midst of our college process, this is currently the most opportune time for us to contemplate the message conveyed in these pages. Gladwell has transformed my previous outlook on the correlation between innate intellect and academic success. He cleverly proves that past a certain border, this correlation ceases to exist and success begins to depend on other complementary characteristics.
          In Chapter 2, Gladwell uses prominent billionaires, sports stars, and musicians to push his claim that, egardless of a person's innate talent, people seldom achieve success without exerting a considerable amount of hard work; at least 10,000 hours. Gladwell's examples are sufficient enough to convince me of this claim and they incited me to notice some more common examples. Today, the socioeconomic body that performs the best on standardized tests and gains the most admission to prestigious educational institutions are rich, white kids. This comes as no surprise since their wealth grants them access to individualized test prep and better schooling. In the end, the kids in this group get more hours of efficient test prep and consequently, they are more prepared for their SAT and for the rigor of college courses. Rich, White kids aren't inherently smarter than us minorities. Rather, all students are created equal but, as a result of experiences and the lack of, they develop differently.
       Similar to his contest of the concept of innate talent, Gladwell goes on to debase the fantasies and misconceptions that surround geniuses, or people of abnormal intellectual abilities. Though Gladwell acknowledges that a person of high intellectual capacity possesses a higher chance of success in life, he argues that after a certain intellectual threshold, intellect ceases to yield apparent benefits. This latter concept completely makes sense and is relevant to the college process. All colleges judge their applicants on a holistic agenda;they consider every part of a student's application. For this reason, it is irrational to believe that the only way to gain admission to a prestigious university is by acing the SAT and attaining an A+ GPA. Indeed, as Gladwell points out, Harvard regularly rejects these types of students. If one can attain  grades that are high enough to prove their intelligence and academic capability, standardized tests and GPA will become less important in the eyes of admissions officers and they will begin to look at other aspects; extracurriculars,  teacher recommendations, personal statement, etc.
     

The Truth About Geniuses, Part 2

       Malcolm Gladwell ends the idea that success is only determined by your IQ. In the beginning of the chapter Gladwell starts to go in to detail about Chris Langan's background. Chris Langan is genius with an IQ of 195. He goes on to explain how Langan was offered two scholarships, one to Reed College in Oregon and another to the University of Chicago. He chose Reed but he later believed it was a huge mistake. Chris Langan ended up losing the scholarship because of his mother forgot to fill out the financial statements. He dropped out of college and found himself working factory jobs and minor civil service positions. Reading this made me a little mad because why would a college simply take away a scholarship from someone without contacting them? Further on in the chapter, Gladwell tells us a story about another genius, Robert Oppenheimer. He went to Harvard and then to Cambridge University to pursue a doctorate physics. He had a tutor named, Patrick Blackett, was forcing him to attend "the minutiae of experimental physics, which [Oppenheimer] hated," (98). Oppenheimer was struggling with depression his entire life and he became even more emotionally unstable. One day he took chemicals from the lab and attempted to poison his tutor. The university was informed and put him on probation. Now when I read this I honestly thought this was a little funny but I was also confused. Why would they put him on probation? He obviously attempted to kill another human being. At first I wasn't seeing the connection between Oppenheimer and Langan until we reached part 3 of the chapter. Gladwell begins to address the difference between "practical knowledge" and "analytical knowledge". The difference between the two is that Robert Oppenheimer "possessed the savvy that allowed him to get what he wanted from the world," (100) where as Chris Langan did not. Although he did try to kill someone, he was able to get people to listen to his ideas.
      I became even more interested when Gladwell brought up the that practical intelligence comes from out families. The experiment presented in the chapter was conducted by a sociologist named Annette Lareau. She picked 12 different families that were both black and white, also from both rich and poor families. She saw that the children from wealthier parents were more engaged in their children's time. The children would have many activities they were involved in and their parents would always ask them about their teachers and coaches. The poor children didn't have the same intensive scheduling. The wealthier parents intervened on their children behalf and taught their kids to speak up. This shows the difference between the Oppenheimer and Langan. Although both are geniuses, one possessed the skill that allowed him to negotiate to get his way. From his childhood Chris Langan learned "distrust, authority and be independent" (110). He didn't learn how to speak up to gain what he wanted , which caused him to be unable to put his talent up to its full potential. This chapter was very though provoking because it made me think about how something so small as what type of family your born into can determine your future. The skills you learn as a child will determine whether you will actually be successful or not. Robert Oppenheimer and Chris Langan both had really high IQ's but one has the possessed the practical knowledge that allowed him to navigate the world with his control.

Outliers: The Trouble With Geniuses, Part 2

I think it is a common misconception that having a higher IQ lead to success but, the Outliers breaks the misconception by revealing that having a high IQ doesn’t guarantee a successful life. The chapter, The Trouble With Geniuses, Part 2 the author, Malcolm Gladwell, addresses an important factor of success known as, ‘practical intelligence’ (Gladwell 101). It bewildered me that Chris Langan got his scholarship taken away because, he wasn’t able to reach the deadline for his financial aid. On the other hand, Oppenheimer's was sent to a psychiatrist because, he tried poisoning his tutor. Langan and Oppenheimer might have been geniuses but, what really distinguished a successful guy like Oppenheimer who later lead the atomic bomb effort was that, Oppenheimer got others to listen to what he had to say. This revealed that having a higher IQ didn't mean you were automatically guaranteed a successful life because, it didn’t guarantee an authoritative presence.

I choose to write about this because, I’m taking a Speech course for college which I think shows how important communicating effectively with others is. Children whose parents are wealthier tend to be successful not because of racial preference but, because they are taught how to question those who are seen as authoritative figures like doctors instead of being submissive. This kind of reminds me of Donald Trump who although I believe doesn't have the highest IQ, his success really comes from how he is able to assert an authoritative presence that captivate others to pay attention to him.

The Outliers: The Book of Success

 At first when I looked at the book I believed that these book is going to talk about a student in highschool who is described as an outlier where they don't have anyone to talk to and does not fit in that school. Then when I read the first page it was an introduction about how to be successful and I was thinking I need this book because I definitely want to be successful, I mean who wouldn't. Later on, Gladwell defines an outlier as a person out of the ordinary “who doesn't fit into our normal understanding of achievement.” According to Gladwell, great men and women are beneficiaries of specialization, collaboration, time, place, and culture. An outlier’s recipe for success is not personal mythos but the synthesis of opportunity and time on task. I thought that maybe in other words he was saying that hard work equals success, but I kinda argued that because there other people that haven't worked hard and receives opportunities other people don't get and receive money easier than other people. For example if you have a rich family your father is a billionaire and your mother is a millionaire they would give their child everything and then didn't work hard to get what he needs. I might be wrong, but I digress. Framed around the biblical parable of the talents, or “The Matthew Effect,” Part One examines opportunity as a function of timing. Canadian hockey players born closer to the magic birthday of January 1 reap advantages that compound over time. Likewise, computer programmers Bill Joy and Bill Gates, both born in the 1950s, have taken advantage of the relative-age effect to become industry giants in the 1980s. Gladwell not only debunks the romantic mystique of self-determinism, but also the myth that genius is born, not made. He claims that Mozart and The Beatles are not so much innate musical prodigies but grinders who thrived only after 10,000 hours of practice. The more hours you work on something the more you're good at it which in the future if you continue doing what you love you will be good at it and become successful. It's just like going to school the more work you put into your classes the more points you gain in that class and if you continue doing hard work you’ll graduate and get a diploma. Part Two of Outliers focuses on cultural legacies, which Gladwell says “persist, generation after generation, virtually intact...and they play such a role in directing attitudes and behavior that we cannot make sense of our world without them." Gladwell is more eclectic here, and he examines both success and failure. He deftly moves from the dooming “culture of honor” in Appalachia to the rice paddy cultivation in China that fosters patient problem solving. Gladwell is at his best when he illustrates how a cultural legacy of failure can be transformed into one of success. Korean airlines, once very likely to crash their planes because of rigid power structures among pilots, have since fostered collaboration in the cockpit and, therefore, attained high safety ratings. Overall, this book is  a great book for people who want to know how to gain success and how much effort must a person put to achieve his goal. I believe everyone should be able to read this book and understand how to reach success and thanks Ms. Brannon for the book.

The Matthew Effect

First off, what a great way to start the book. It was immediately intriguing, thought provoking, and it opened my eyes to many new ideas and facts I don't think I would have ever tried to find out on my own time. I am really glad that we got to read Outliers for the break, and I would love to have anyone recommend more books like this.

"The Matthew Effect" talks about how success is perceived and achieved. Most people think of success as commitment like the "10,000 Hour Rule" in the following chapter, blood and toil, and obviously some sort of skill or talent in that work. Gladwell reveals a different side to success that many people ignore, which is "the beneficiaries of hidden advantages and extraordinary opportunities and cultural legacies" that different people experience.

The study of Canadian hockey players and how they were singled out by age surprised me because it was so logical yet illogical at the same time. Players who have physically matured more have a higher chance at being picked because they have more strength and the better physique to play in a higher league, pushing down players who are born at the later months of the year. It makes sense and it produces a better output of skilled players, but is a very unfair method. This age advantage is applied in an academic setting as well, which made me sad as a September child, but I can not use that as an excuse because there are no "handouts" for success. I agree with the idea of "accumulative advantage" because those who cannot receive these privileges are almost always guaranteed to lag behind those who do. Not always, and not permanently, but that lag plays a profound effect on the entirety of a career.

So on this hand, someone's success is attributed the luxury of advantage and privilege they have like birth year, age, race, sex, etc. On the other, people who have little privilege build their success on that blood and toil we are familiar with. This doesn't mean that everyone who has privilege has never sweat in their life, it is just the ones who have received "a small loan of a million dollars" who are not exactly qualified to talk about success to disadvantaged people. There is a clear difference between the journeys to success between someone who came from very little and someone who came from an abundance of opportunity.

The Trouble with Geniuses, Part 1

I want to start off by saying that I really enjoyed Outliers. I feel like it's accurate in every point it makes and the way it makes those points is great. One thing that really stood out to me was in chapter 3, "The Trouble With Geniuses Part 1," where it talks about Lewis Terman's study. Gladwell states that what Terman saw as a way of figuring out who could or would be successful was the same view that most everyone shared. It then goes on to explain how these views and methods are not exactly accurate. The chapter, and the chapters after it, elaborate on how being classified a “Genius” by a test does not mean you are going to be successful, it just means that you just so happen to be more intellectual than others.

Gladwell gives some examples of how we classify who is a genius or who is most likely to succeed. He cites classes for “gifted students,” IQ tests, and tests that measure one's cognitive abilities as common ways. What stands out the most to me is when he states that “Elite universities often require that students take an intelligence test (such as the American Scholastic Aptitude Test) for admission,” that exam is most commonly known to us as the SAT. The SAT which we are taking in a little over a month from now. The test that will play a huge role in whether or not we get accepted to the colleges we favor. When you think about it, if you do poorly on the test then there is a possibility that as a result you don’t get accepted to a good college and you may likely turn out to not be successful. Is that fair? I think not.

From what I gathered from Outliers, the SAT just tests one part of my skills and perhaps those are not my greatest skills, I will be penalized anyway. As Gladwell makes clear, just because you’re book smart does not mean you’re going to be successful, there are many other things that contribute to someone becoming successful. Savvy people. Outspoken people. Charismatic people. Experienced people. Those are the people who typically succeed. Colleges should look at more than just SAT scores, maybe they should look for more than just people with strong cognitive skills.

The Ethnic Theory of Plane Crashes

This chapter has a lot of information to sink in since there's a lot of facts about multiple pane crashes. I was intrigued by the fact that your culture can differ with your capabilities of communication and dealing with authority. It's not like where you're from prohibits you from getting something done, it mostly has to do with how we view things and act upon certain situations. In this chapter there's the instance of Ratwatte having good communication skills which allowed him to successfully land a plane when there was a crisis. This instance is compared to how in other incidents, the pilots would lack precision when communicating information and sometimes feared speaking up against authority. The way someone says something isn't only important as a pilot but in life in general and the situations vary depending on where you're from (Not always but in the cases that Gladwell includes).  While reading I thought to myself whether or not I fear overpowering authority or sometimes sugar coat what I am trying to get across and then I realized that many people have different opinions on what's seen as appropriate or not. I think I shouldn't become a pilot because I am not sure if the way I was raised will allow me to handle the pressures of landing a plane while it's running out of fuel.......

Outliers: The Trouble With Geniuses Part 1

I found it interesting to hear that our educational system was indeed unfair. Students are conditioned to have skills in fields superior to others and this conditioning sprouts from their birth. The birth of an athlete or student, according to Gladwell, determines just how far a student will go. Getting into a specialized program is determined by age and maturity instead of work ethic and personal worth. It is also determined by innate talent that the individual has. Of course, by the time the student is a professional soccer player or college genius their innate talent has already been molded and played with to unleash an individual's full potential. So what happens to those who didn't have this opportunity? Well, they are all but left behind.
     It's sad to see, honestly, that our educational system is based on age rather than individual worth and effort. I think about birthdays now and what month someone was born, after reading this book it really is appalling to see that education really is this flawed. Because of cutoff dates and the like, not everyone is getting the equal opportunity they rightfully deserve. Only a select few people are privileged and that is based on their age and maturity. Maybe it is also based on intelligence, that's not untrue, but after reading all that Gladwell has to say then individual intelligence is not all that determines if someone will get into a specialized program.
     Furthermore, Gladwell makes us think about a very important question early on: what does IQ really mean? What does it measure? CNN says that IQ tests measure critical thinking and reasoning skills and that is our "smartness" and "brains." But then again, Gladwell proves just how IQ really is not either of those things. If IQ is not smartness or brains, then what is it? How can we measure intelligence if the very tests that do are not right either?

The Trouble With Geniuses, Part 1

What really interested me about Outliers was the idea of the current education system we have basically faulting and not being as reliable as we thought. I’m sure that students have surely felt this way, but in Outliers the idea was definitely solidified and broadened in such a way that goes beyond our high school years, and extends to the rest of our lives. By the end of The Trouble With Geniuses Part 1, I was seriously confused as to what IQ actually measures. According to CNN, an IQ score measures your critical thinking and reasoning skills. Gladwell’s ability to challenge the ideas of our society  without making it seem like an attack and outright condemnation of the beliefs we have been presented with allows us to critically re-imagine the way we look at things and determine whether they are ‘right.’ Gladwell makes is clear that IQ isn’t everything. If IQ measures critical thinking and reasoning skills, which translates as ‘smartness’ or brains, but isn’t actually either of those things, then what does it mean to be smart and how do we calculate it?

After reading this chapter I was feeling philosophical (to say the least) and this chapter got me thinking. Such a large part of our lives is focused on education, shown when Gladwell points out the way we categorize students early on, but I think the big message from this chapter was that we actually have no idea what being smart means. We have tried in numerous ways to calculate it, through IQ, the ‘experiment’ that Terman did with the prospective students, and they all have failed to an extent. This says more about our society and what we as a whole consider ‘smart,’ but really, what does it mean to be smart?   

I find this book extremely interesting! I feel like this book answers a lot of questions that we may have about success and how it can be obtained. It makes me think that becoming successful is not just about ambition and hard work, the way we normally think about success. Becoming successful is up to the opportunities that are available to you as well as the hard work and practice that you put in. Success is mostly about advantages that you have that, when combined with ambition and determination, will get you somewhere. I was amazed at how hockey players and soccer players who were born in the beginning of the year have a certain advantage because they are the older kids. Because they are older, they are open to more opportunities and receive better training whereas those that are born in the other half of the year "have all been discouraged, or overlooked, or pushed out of the sport" (page 31). Not everyone has a fair chance. I especially agree with Gladwell's statement that "Because we so profoundly personalize success, we miss opportunities to lift others onto the top rung. We make rules that frustrate achievement. We prematurely write off people as failures" (Page 32). I chose this part because to me, it was very interesting to learn that success is mostly about advantages that you have. In order to be successful, you have to have some type of advantage to help you out because people do in fact, as Gladwell said, personalize success. Not everyone has a fair chance at becoming successful because not everyone has those certain advantages. For example, hockey players and soccer players that are born later on in the year are barely payed attention to because coaches focus more on those who are older and who were born earlier. They don't give the younger kids a chance to prove themselves and they immediately categorize them as failures. This really surprised me because I never really thought about things that way. I always thought that being successful is all up to how determined you are to make it and how hard you try. Overall, this book is makes me view success in a different way.

The 10,000-Hour Rule

"The emerging picture from such studies is that ten thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert-in anything"(pg.40)

      In this chapter Gladwell takes the phrase "practice makes perfect" to a whole new meaning. He uncovers the secrets behind the success of people like Mozart and the Beatles. Oddly enough they each had  10,000 hours of practice, if not more, to become the legends they are now. I was just amazed when reading this chapter. The break down of how people usually achieve the 10,000 hours all come down to commitment. Its also important to have the support of family behind you because at some point practice is the only thing in your life. Knowing this rule now, I am trying to test the difficulty by adopting a new hobby to see how many hours I can get in before I quit completely.
            I chose this point because our generation today look at legends and wonder how they became who the are. The one part we always neglect is there commitment and practice. It is just amazing to see how a matter of hours determine your greatness in just about anything.

Comment: Overall, I find Malcolm Gladwell's book to be very intriguing. With every page I read, I fall in love with his writing. The simplicity of his words help me understand every secret he uncovers. From the first chapter I read about the Roseto Mystery, I knew this book would be compelling. I hope to read more of his books.

Question: Did you guys come to any realizations when reading this chapter? Are you more willing or less likely to try something new?

Age and Success

I found this book to be really interesting. The very first topic discussed in the book caught my immediate attention so I decided to write about it. I am referring to when the author Malcolm Gladwell links together when a person is born with success. I never really thought about how one's birth month can drastically affect their lives. Being born in the early months of the year means that in most activities where there are others born in the same year, that person will be the eldest. That's what many people know. What others, including myself, never thought of before is that because those people are older, they had more time to mature and develop themselves. A few months difference doesn't seem like a lot, but when putting it into an educational context, when one is born is extremely important. People who are born early in the year tend to do better than those born in the end of the year because they stand out. That only makes sense because those born in lets say January are almost a year older than those born in December. That's almost one year of extra learning that the January kid had in comparison to the December kid. I don't think its fair that people who are older are able to have more opportunities because of the underlying factor of age. Like the book says on page 33, “Elementary and Middle schools could put the January through April- born students in one class, the May through August in another class, and those born in September through December in a third class”. This sounds like a great idea. By having kids be in a class where there are others on the same level of development, it allows all children to have a fair shot at becoming advanced. I think all schools should adopt this idea and give all their students an equal shot at being successful.

Model Minority Stereotype

I'm up to "Rice Paddies and Math Tests" and I knew he wasn't going to involve Indians because when you think of Asian only Japan, Korea, or China really come up so I wasn't surprised. But what really irks me is how he says, "Go to any Western college campus and you'll find that Asian students have a reputation for being in the library after everyone else has left. Sometimes people of Asian background get offended when their culture is described this way, because they think that the stereotype is being used as a form of disparagement" (page 238-239). I love when non Asian people tell me that a stereotype that is used to mock and define Asians is not at all belittling because it's not like Asians are constantly told, "You should be good at math because you're Asian" or "You should become an Engineer or go into Business because you're Asian", oh no not "a disparagement" says the non Asian person. Sure you can say rice paddies and the number system is what makes Asians good at math, but what about the rest of Asia? What about the Asians who are wealthy and grew up in urban areas? Sure you can say those Chinese proverbs do encourage hard work but that's because their lives depended on those rice paddies, but that doesn't automatically make Asians good at math, it's because they learned various skills to help them survive. People think that Asians don't have learning disabilities, or are quick to laugh about family pressure like that meme about the Asian father disowning their child because he got a B on his test, that sure was hilarious :). I don't care if it's a positive stereotype, or that every stereotype has some truth to it because it doesn't apply to everyone in that group. You try being Asian and being told by your family you're a disgrace for being an artist. You try being Asian and being constantly told "you're smart" just for being Asian. You try being Asian and having to deal with intense family pressure of having to become successful for your parents because family is so big in your culture (as is in many cultures). You try being Asian and being mentally ill and having it brushed aside because people expect you to be a workaholic 24/7. Try, because I'm sure if you could, you would see that this stereotype is definitely a disparagement. I don't need Gladwell telling me why I'm supposed to be good at math, I can speak for myself and not be the stereotype he's so persistent to prove. This stereotype is almost dehumanizing and maybe I'm overreacting but I rather overreact then let people define me with this assumption.

If you don't believe me or support my point at all, you don't have to, but to go further on this I have a source that is a report done by The University of Texas at Austin that goes into more depth on why the Model Minority Stereotype (e.g Asians being good at math) does more harm than good:
http://cmhc.utexas.edu/modelminority.html

This message has been brought to you by your local Asian American. :)

Outliers- Avianca Plane Crash

Thank you Navdeep for asking my thoughts on the Colombian Plane Crash in the 2nd part of the book.

As I am sure most of you are unaware, I am of Colombian decent from both sides of my family. So I was very interested in what this book had to say about my heritage and it's ties to "legacy." In these moments my father is in his birth place of Medellin, Colombia and is due to fly back up to JFK in two days, so this really has a connection to me at this moment. 

In the question I was asked by Navdeep, there is a quote from the book on page 202 in which Ratwatte (a skilled pilot himself) states that "What if there was something about the pilots' being Colombian that led to the crash?" By reading this in the question I immediately thought, "of course not! Why should a specific ethnicity matter?" I then went further into trying to find why this might be the case. Gladwell points out on page 194 the act of mitigating and why this isn't the best thing a pilot should do in an emergency situation. Mitigating is usually done when someone is speaking to another who is ranked higher than they are. In page 201, Ratwatte brings up that Air Traffic Control (ATC) in New York City can be rude and aggressive because they need to control so many flights in such a small period of time. The pilots on the Avianca flight 52 were both Colombian and Caviedes (51) had some difficulty speaking in English with ATC and wanted translating when he got to tiered. His co-pilot Klotz (28) throughout the transcript didn't use terminology that he needed to in an emergency situation and continued to mitigate instead of saying that they were in an emergency situation. 

One thing that came to my mind is how much I could relate with Klotz when he was speaking to ATC. I mitigate in almost every conversation I have. I don't directly say anything just so I wont sound rude and aggressive (much like the opposite of ATC in NYC). Caviedes and Klotz even in a dire situation like the one they were in weren't going to say, "This is an EMERGENCY situation! We are limited on fuel and we need to land ASAP." That wasn't going to happen. So I can agree that this could have affected the mistakes leading up to the crash. I then read on pages 207-209 about power distance index and how Colombia is ranked as one of the higher ones. This means typically Colombians tend to respect authority and see themselves underneath superiors. This was what led Klotz to not being assertive enough to place the planes need above the demands of ATC. I feel that the evidence Gladwell used to explain this idea was good but I don't actually agree with it. Yes, there can be that respect of authority that Colombians might have but there can be differences within the population itself. Colombia is a place of many cultures and there is plenty of places where PDI can be higher than others. If Gladwell wanted to make a bigger point, he should have researched the different places Caviedes and Klotz came from within Colombia. If they had came from farming regions in the southeast where guerrilla warfare is something to be worried about than they will have some kind of respect for those above them. If Caviedes or Klotz came from the city there would be a much lower PDI. 

Yes, there can be some culture ties related to plane crash but it was really the lack of miscommunication the pilots had with ATC. I found an article from the LA Times which states that Colombian pilots at the time never used the terminology that the Americans at ATC were accustomed to.   http://articles.latimes.com/1990-06-22/news/mn-109_1_specific-emergency 
They didn't have to use this terminology because they would just say what was happening instead of using these terms. It might not have to do with culture after all but just what is said and done to train the pilots themselves.  

       

Outliers

I'm really glad this book turned out to be way better than I expected. I think it is incredible how when I start reading the book I completely get lost in time. The two points that I found most interesting in Part 1, was the idea that to be truly successful or “pro- good” at something you need to have 10,000 thousand hours of practice in the specific area. When Gladwell first mentioned it, I was like “no way, people can do it in less time” but as I started to read the stories of all the outliers and the time they spent practicing in what they chose to do,  realized that maybe he was right and 10,000 was the magic number that does make someone successful. Although I feel like 10,000 hours of practice is the magic number, i'm still not willing to completely accepted. I feel like there is a few prodigies out there that can become as successful as Gladwell says in less than 10,000 hours. The other idea that messed me up and got me thinking was the idea that almost nobody goes from “rags to riches” on their own. These people, like Bill Joy, become successful, but only through the opportunities offered to them or presented to them. It got me thinking that in order to be somebody big, you have to have an advantage that somebody else doesn't and that you're not going to become big based only on your ambition but on who helps you feed that ambition. That is something that's going to take me a while to get my head wrapped around. Honestly, I can say that i'm truly enjoying this book.

Outliers

As I read through chapter two, The 10,000 Hour Rule, I noticed that Gladwell made an important point when he states that the events occurring in society during a person's life contribute to the opportunities they have or the way they think. For instance, Gladwell points out that Bill Joy was successful due to the computer advancements (time-sharing) that were made in the mid-1960s before he became interested in programming. I believe that this connects all of us, since the decisions that our nation makes and different events that occur around the world impact our lives. Let's say Bernie Sanders somehow manages to make colleges free, then students will be granted with more opportunities but other aspects of our lives would be impacted. Another example would be the opportunities that were granted to undocumented students in the United States. That law will grant many students with benefits that they would otherwise not have. Overall, I think that Gladwell's point in the second chapter is relevant to society, as well.

@Danna Garcia I wanted to ask you about chapter 7 in Part 2, "Legacy" and wanted to hear your response on Ratwatte saying, "What if there was something about the pilots' being Colombian that led to the crash?" (page 202), do you agree or disagree with Ratwatte's statement and how Gladwell uses sources to describe Colombian culture? Is it accurate in your opinion? I'm really excited for your response so take your time!!! ^_^

Outliers

In chapter 2 "The 10,000- Hour Rule", I found it interesting how almost everyone who has reached success had been working for at least 10,000 hours. The chapter focuses on how those who are most successful generally study or work for 10,000 hours or more. I just found this really surprising because when I think of success I don't tend to think about the amount of time they put into their work, sure, they work a lot but working for 10,000 hours never crossed my mind. Also the chart in part 6 of chapter 2 shows the wealthiest people in all of history. This chart shows how wealthy people were but it also shows where they came from and what's most surprising is that 14 of them come from the United States. This isn't the only shocking part, but what's even more shocking is that these 14 people were all born around the same time, from 1831-1840. These people all had the luck of being born around the time that the American economy was facing its greatest boom yet. If t wasn't for them being born around this time, would they still be able to become as wealthy as they did? It might be highly unlikely, just like Gladwell states, "If you were born in the late 1840s you missed it. You were too young to take advantage of that moment. If you were born in the 1820s you were too old: your mind-set was shaped by the pre-Civil War paradigm," (pg 62). All of this makes me wonder if the same will happen for our generation, or if it's already too late, especially since those born in the 1950s have already found success. This just adds to the stress that teenagers already feel, 'will I be successful?' and 'how can I make sure that I will be able to live a comfortable life?'. Seeing previous generations become successful gives us hope, but there is always going to be those who aren't as successful as others and Outliers allows us to see that.

-Ashley M.

Students, I hope you are enjoying a much needed respite from classes. I also trust that you are finding Outliers both interesting and thought provoking. (I can't wait to discuss it in class!) As I said, your only HW this week is to read that book and to discuss it with your classmates. Each of you will be responsible for posting a two-to-three hundred word response to the book here at least once (although you can feel free to do so more). Be sure to refer to a specific passage in your post, and explain why you chose it. You can ask a question, make a connection, comment on style or content, etc. Then, you will respond to at least TWO of your classmates' posts. Initial posts should be made no later than Sunday, and your responses are due on Monday night. Enjoy the book and the rest of the week.