David and Goliath Chapter 3 Summary & Analysis

Chapter Three

Summary: Chapter Three: Caroline Sacks

Sometimes, writes Gladwell, “it is better to be a Big Fish in a Little Pond than a Little Fish in a Big Pond.” That is, it does not always serve our interest to seek approval or a credential from the most prestigious sources. Three examples illustrate the point.

Gladwell’s first example is from the world of art. In the late nineteenth century, the French Impressionists were struggling to gain public recognition. If one of their paintings was accepted for display at the Salon, the prestigious annual exhibition in Paris, the painting would usually be displayed in a disfavored location. Finally, the Impressionists decided to put on their own, independent exhibition. The show attracted enough visitors and enough attention from critics to make the rest of the art world take notice.

Gladwell’s second, main example is from the world of higher education. Graduating from high school with excellent grades and test scores, Caroline Sacks (a pseudonym) wanted to be a scientist. She chose Brown University over her backup school, the University of Maryland. Soon, Caroline was struggling in chemistry and felt stupid compared to her classmates. She ended up switching to a non-science major. Another student, a high school valedictorian, had a similar experience: he started out at Harvard University studying physics, saw that he was doing less well than his peers, and decided to study law instead.

According to Gladwell, both students would have succeeded as scientists if they had attended less competitive institutions. Their experiences illustrate the phenomenon of “relative deprivation,” first described by a researcher who observed that soldiers’ satisfaction with promotion opportunities was based on comparing their own situation to that of other soldiers in their own branch, not soldiers in other branches. “The smarter your peers,” Gladwell writes of college science majors, “the dumber you feel; the dumber you feel, the more likely you are to drop out of science.” In his view, this has implications for affirmative action: disadvantaged minority students do not necessarily benefit from easier admission to top-tier universities. In effect, affirmative action at high-prestige schools steers students toward programs they are more likely to drop out of.

Gladwell’s third example is also from academia. Some university economics departments will hire new faculty only out of the most elite graduate programs, even though those hires, on average, go on to be less productive as researchers than top students from less-elite programs. The hiring departments would be better off hiring selected Big Fish from Little Ponds than always just going after Little Fish from Big Ponds.

Analysis: Chapter Three

Here, Gladwell challenges commonly held assumptions about prestigious institutions. He implies that the Salon’s prestigious reputation is a disadvantage because it prevents people from fairly judging the institution on its merit alone. Gladwell argues that just because something is universally respected does not mean it is beneficial to everyone. When the Impressionist painters forge their own path, they ultimately create their own advantages. By insisting on their independence, the Impressionists were able to circumvent the prevailing tastes and trends of the times, thereby putting themselves in the position to create work that is still relevant today. Gladwell implicitly suggests that widening the public's tastes may allow different, more interesting work to be seen and appreciated. This suggestion supports the book's thesis: question and challenge the prevailing wisdom in society. In this case, as the trendy and traditional boundaries of art widened, these less famous but talented artists were allowed to flourish, elevating the estimation of French painting in the 19th century, contributing to cultural growth.

The crux of Gladwell’s argument lies in the misconceptions people have about advantages. Gladwell challenges the idea that Ivy League schools are always the best choice for higher education. In this example, the elite institutions are giants like Goliath and respected for their intensity and exclusivity. These two traits are the disadvantages for Sacks and the other student. Gladwell argues that Sacks and the other student would have succeeded as scientists if they had not bought into the popular belief that Ivy League schools provide superior education and opportunities. The highly competitive environment was detrimental to Sacks and comparing herself to her highly intelligent classmates left her discouraged. Sacks' choice interfered with her goals of becoming a scientist. Gladwell emphasizes, again, that popular choices are not always as advantageous as society believes them to be. He includes data on the difficulty of succeeding in STEM to further support his argument that it is not always beneficial to attend the most prestigious university. It is difficult to visualize the data, but the point Gladwell makes is that the rigid, competitive learning environment at Ivy League schools is too difficult even for some of the most intelligent students. Gladwell ends with the argument that most people would have made the same decision Sacks did because it is perceived as beneficial in the long run. Gladwell again argues that this perception is what needs to change. Just because something is presented as beneficial does not mean that it is. Sacks paid a high cost because she failed to critically analyze the negative aspects of being a so-called “little fish” in a “big pond.”

Previous section Chapter 2 Next section Chapter 4