The Kids from KIPP, and a Few Final Thoughts

In the final chapter of Outliers, Gladwell profiles teachers and students at a KIPP Academy in New York.  History, from www.kipp.org: 

KIPP began in 1994 with a powerful idea: to create a classroom that helped children develop the knowledge, skills, character, and habits necessary to succeed in college and build a better tomorrow for their communities. Founders Mike Feinberg and Dave Levin began by redefining what was possible for a classroom of public school students in Houston. The following year, they opened two KIPP middle schools, one in Houston and one in New York City. By 1999, these original KIPP charter schools were among the highest-performing schools in their respective communities.

This "powerful idea" turned out to benothing short of amazing.  KIPP teaches kids who are disadvantaged in so many ways, creates high expectations, gives them extra time in school, demands the support of their families and their own commitment - and sends most of them on to college, where they continue to succeed.  In a way, KIPP represents all of the values that Gladwell defines as making a person successful:  a supportive village, putting in the time, working hard. 

Overall, this book was an interesting read, and challenged some of my beliefs.  I didn't completely agree with all of Gladwell's assertions; some felt a little too pat and tied with a ribbon.  But the concept that with hard work and support we can create our own success is one that I agree with.

Math, or Yet Another Reason that Putting in the Time Makes a Difference

It's a trusim that Asians are good at math.  It shows in international rankings, where Asian students consistently outperform their non-Asian peers, and in US test scores broken out by ethnicity; Asian students consistently outperform their non-Asisan American peers.  Why?  Genetics?  Tiger moms?  Rice paddies?

Gladwell posits that the discipline required to be a successful rice farmer is the underlying reason that Asian students do so well in math.  His detailed dissection of the neverending, intricate process of rice farming leads him to conclude that a cultural tradition of attention to detail and the willingness to make consistent, difficult effort leads to success not only in the rice paddy, but also in the classroom.  It extends the argument he made earlier in the book about putting in the time. 

He also examines circumstances where American students, given time and encouragement, grasp concepts and make strides in understanding.  Most students give up too quickly, which, whether due to the influence of the rice paddy or something else, most Asian students do not.

I had the opportunity to attend a high school math award ceremony this spring.  In his opening remarks, Dr. deCraene, the math department chair, asked the 150 or so students who were there to receive awards (it's a big high school) to stand if they had:

• attended morning support
• asked a teacher for help
• asked a friend for help
• sought tutoring
• sought assistance from any other source, or
• taken more than a day to complete a problem

As you might imagine, by the time he was finished, all of the students were standing.  And before commending them on their performance in math, he commended them for their hard work, which he noted will serve them well in math and in life.

How grateful I am for teachers who acknowledge difficulty and then support, encourage, push and pull kids through the swamp of confusion that sometimes/oftentimes precedes understanding!  American kids can do math, but how often do we give them what they need to do it?  Is that the root of the problem with our system of education?

"Memo to overscheduling, hovering, upper-middle-class mothers and fathers: Keep up the good work."

Edward Tenner reviewed Outliers for Slate in 2008 and made the statement above in regard to unfairness in context: someone with incredible capacity likely will not succeed absent a supportive "village." 

I'm sure that his comment was tongue in cheek, but it made me think about the overscheduled children of hovering tiger moms and dads.  Two stories.

I recall reading an interview with Chris Evert a number of years ago.  It was striking for two reasons.  One, her assertion that her father, who was also her her coach, made it clear that if she wanted to play tennis she could play, but if she didn't want to, that was fine, too.  The drive to compete and to win and to master the game was hers.  The second was that her children, who were young at the time, didn't know that she had been a tennis star and were once quite confused when she was approached by fans asking her to sign their tennis shoes.  Apparently one of her children made the same request - she happily complied.

The second story involves my husband, who is a talented and committed amateur pianist.  Jim loves music in general and the piano in particular, and both are centrally important to his happiness.  When our daughter, Emma, was old enough to begin music lessons we started her on the piano with a lovely woman who came to the house. After a few years she asked to stop piano and begin clarinet, which she still plays and which gives her considerable enjoyment.  When I asked Jim if he was disappointed that Emma had quit piano, he said he knew that she would quit; at some point to really play an instrument you have to come to it on your own.  She had never done that with piano.

So, if Chris Evert's father and my husband understand that excellence and mastery and joy come, in part from embracing and owning the thing to be mastered, what of the overscheduled children forced to play the piano or play tennis or heaven knows what else in the service of ...what?? Would Bill Gates be Bill Gates without his passion for computers, just because someone caused him to put in the time?

Read the Tenner review at:  http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_book_club/features/2008/outliers/outliers_have_outliers_too.html

The Hatfields, McCoys and the Southern Culture of Honor?

 

Part two of Outliers examines the ways that culture influences behavior and ultimately success, and posits that we are all, to some extent, prisoners of our own cultural heritage and ethnic history.    

To make his case, Gladwell examines remote Harlan County, Kentucky, which has been the home of apparently epic family feuds since the 19th century.  He extrapolates the violence of this area to the region as a whole, because similar feuds were common, declaring it a pattern.  Sociologists have identified a "culture of honor" as the underlying reason for the settling of minor disputes with loaded guns. 

Arising in marginally fertile areas where many make their living as herdsmen, the culture of honor arises from fear of loss.  Herding is solitary, and if one allows encroachment, starvation may follow.  According to Gladwell, the culture of honor is present in rocky, marginally fertile Appalachia because the area was settled by clannish Scots-Irish herdsmen who brought this cultural legacy with them from their rocky, marginally fertile homeland, where loyaly could mean the difference between survival and death.  This cultural legacy is thus said to explain a certain kind of Southern violence, enduring to this day.

Or not.  I'm with him, in general, when he says that where you are from matters, and that the culture in which you were raised does, too.  The idea that violent and ignorant behavior from generations back may well explain the actions of an individual; cycles of violence are real, as studies of domestic abuse so tragically reveal.  Not so sure that they apply, however, to entire regions of 21st century America. 

The underlying science may be a little funky, too; here is an interesting rebuttal:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200904/is-southern-violence-due-culture-honor

The 10,000 Hour Rule, or Putting in the Time

Concluding part one of Outliers, I am struck by a few key ideas.  First, that success truly is a group affair, and that accidents of time and place can have a lot to do with whether and how successful a person may become.  Second, that genius without support is not enough.  Finally, the difference between the merely successful and the wildly successful comes down, in large part, to very, very hard work.

10,000 hours of effort equates to roughly 10 years, and research supports the assertion that this baseline number applies to mastery across fields, from music to computer programming to elite athletics.  Innate talent isn't enough; it takes sustained effort, and the kind of support that allows a person to sustain that kind of effort.

What could any of us have mastered if we had given it 10,000 hours?  Maybe more importantly, what could we achieve in the future with that kind of devotion?

Malcom Gladwell talks about the 10,000 hour rule (among other things) with Anderson Cooper:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz4hPbHIZ6Y

Turning Disadvantage into Advantage

How can being born during the depression to immigrant Jewish garment workers be an advantage that leads to success as a New York lawyer?

Expanding on the theory that circumstances shape extreme examples of success as much as individual effort, Gladwell tells the story of Joe Flom, representative of a class of powerful attorneys from similar humble backgrounds.  Flom was born to immigrant Jewish parents who worked in the garment trade in New York City during the depression.  He rose to become one of the most powerful lawyers in that city, and a name partner at one of the world's largest law firms, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom. 

Gladwell recasts those disadvantages as advantages:

• Birthrates fell during the depression; a small demographic cohort meant that public schools were not overcrowded, nor was the job market when it was time for that age cohort to begin work
• Discrimination against Jews meant that Jewish lawyers were not hired by the best firms, and so in many cases founded their own firms, in part because of the example set by their parents, who
• Worked in the garment trade and passed on a legacy of the relationship between hard work and reward

While this argument is fascinating, I wonder if similar circumstances and similar effort would produce the same outcomes today.  For example, Generation X (roughly 1967 - 1981) is a small birth cohort, but their entry into the job market has not been smooth.  Discrimination still exists, and many minority entrepreneurs pass on a legacy that clearly connects hard work and reward. 

How likely is Joe Flom's story to be played out today?

The Trouble with Genuises
     Gladwell presents the stories of two brilliant men, one of whom grew up in poverty without much direction or support, the other who lived comfortably and had the support of his parents and teachers.  The first, perhaps predictably, does not succeed in the work world; he dropped out of college and worked a series of menial jobs.  The other finds success. Gladwell posits that at least some of the difference in outcome can be attributed to "practical intelligence," the kind of knowledge that helps a person "read situations correctly and get what you want."
     While the story that Gladwell tells is dramatic, the lack of cultural understanding plays out as a disadvantage in the workplace in more subtle ways everyday.  How can someone best develop an undesrtanding of the unwritten rules of a workplace or an educational institution or a community?  Can this skill or understanding be taught?