Table of Contents
A researcher at Boston College named Karen Arnold, followed eighty-one high school first and second highest academic rank students from graduation onward to see what becomes of those who lead the academic pack. Of the 95 percent who went on to graduate college, their average GPA was 3.6, and by 1994, 60 percent had received a graduate degree. There was little debate that high school success predicted college success. Nearly 90 percent are now in professional careers with 40 percent in the highest tier jobs. They are reliable, consistent, and well-adjusted, and by all measures the majority have good lives.
But how many of these number-one high school performers go on to change the world, run the world, or impress the world? The answer seems to be clear: zero.
Commenting on the success trajectories of her subjects, Karen Arnold said, “Even though most are strong occupational achievers, the great majority of former high school top scholars do not appear headed for the very top of adult achievement arenas.” In another interview Arnold said, “These top scholars aren’t likely to be the future’s visionaries . . . they typically settle into the system instead of shaking it up.”
Was it just that these eighty-one didn’t happen to reach the stratosphere? No. Research shows that what makes students likely to be impressive in the classroom is the same thing that makes them less likely to be home-run hitters outside the classroom.
So why are the number ones in high school so rarely the number ones in real life? There are two reasons. The first reason, schools reward students who consistently do what they are told. Academic grades correlate only loosely with intelligence (standardized tests are better at measuring IQ). Grades are, however, an excellent predictor of self-discipline, attentiveness, and the ability to comply with rules.
In an interview, Arnold said, “Essentially, we are rewarding conformity and the willingness to go along with the system.” Many of the top scholars admitted to not being the smartest kid in class, just the hardest worker. Others said that it was more an issue of giving teachers what they wanted than actually knowing the material better. Most of the subjects in the study were classified as “careerists”: they saw their job as getting good grades, not really as learning.
The second reason is that schools reward being a generalist. There is little recognition of student passion or expertise. The real world, however, does the reverse. Arnold, talking about these scholars, said, “They’re extremely well rounded and successful, personally and professionally, but they’ve never been devoted to a single area in which they put all their passion. That is not usually a recipe for eminence.”
If you want to do well in school and you’re passionate about math, you need to stop working on it to make sure you get an A in history too. This generalist approach doesn’t lead to expertise. Yet eventually we almost all go on to careers in which one skill is highly rewarded and other skills aren’t that important.
Ironically, Arnold found that intellectual students who enjoy learning struggle in high school. They have passions they want to focus on, are more interested in achieving mastery, and find the structure of school restrictive. Meanwhile, the scholars are intensely rational. They follow the rules and prize A’s over skills and deep understanding.
The school has clear rules. Life often doesn’t. When there’s no clear path to follow, academic high achievers break down.
Shawn Achor’s research at Harvard shows that college grades aren’t any more predictive of subsequent life success than rolling dice. A study of over seven hundred American millionaires showed their average college GPA was 2.9.
Following the rules doesn’t create success; it just eliminates extremes—both good and bad. While this is usually good and all but eliminates downside risk, it also frequently eliminates earth-shaking accomplishments. It’s like putting a governor on your engine that stops the car from going over fifty-five; you’re far less likely to get into a lethal crash, but you won’t be setting any land speed records either.
So if those who play by the rules don’t end up at the very top, who does?
Research shows that very creative people are more arrogant, dishonest, and disorganized. They also get lower grades in school. Despite what teachers may say, they dislike creative students because those children often don’t do what they’re told. Does this sound like a great employee to you? Hardly. So it’s no surprise that creativity is inversely correlated with employee performance reviews. Creative people are less likely to be promoted to CEO.
So what is your opinion on this and where do you stand at the present juncture of life? Are you living one ordinary life or doing things that will probably bring masterstroke success in your life? (Excerpt is from ‘Barking Up the Wrong Tree’ by Eric Barker).
