Photo: freeparkingPaul Kimelman lives in Alamo, Calif., and is C.T.O. of the Texas-based microcontroller company Luminary Micro. He is the sort of blog reader we are very fortunate to have. He writes to us now and again with such interesting queries that they’re worth putting up on the blog in their entirety.
Here’s his latest:
I was speaking with a colleague the other day and he was remarking on an accomplishment I have had in my field (of microprocessor design). He assumed I had been a straight-A student all through school.
When I noted that I was far from it, he was shocked. This got me to thinking: we usually just assume that somehow grades in school (at any level) are predictors of future success, or certainly of intelligence; but I highly doubt it. I tried to find some good studies, but found five problems immediately:
1. The very definition of success is elusive.
Is a straight-A student who went all the way through Harvard Business School a success if she sells insurance? If she opens a business, what determines when it is a success? A hardware store in Iowa may not cut it, but creating Home Depot presumably does; what about all the variance in between?
It is even more complex in many other areas. In engineering, being a worker bee is success, but great advancements do not come from those people; so what are we even trying to measure? If we try to put a scale on it, what metric should we use?
Income, even attempts at “earned income,” is tricky for many reasons, but most obviously the inequity of different fields in terms of income potential. A highly successful grade-school teacher (measured by students who become motivated [by that teacher], and [were] thus successful) will always do poorly compared to even a middling professional football player. The highly successful lawyer who does a lot of pro bono work comes off worse than the ambulance chaser.
Hierarchy in the field does not really work, since few fields have clear gradations or career paths, and many such paths are not reflections of success, but only reflections of time.
2. How do you measure validity of grades?
Besides the obvious problem of the A from a poor-quality school being worth less than from a high-quality one, you also have grade inflation, subjective measurements, and, more importantly, subject difficulty.
[Subject difficulty] is more problematic. Someone who gets all A’s in “communications” at a university is probably not working as hard as someone who gets all A’s in physics. Yet this is all subjective. Why would we assume that physics is “harder” than, say, literary critique?
This is especially problematic in high school and middle school, where many “hard” subjects are about memorizing and repeating well-defined steps. Literary critique has no well-defined guide posts (unless you cheat and plagiarize), and so requires a deeper understanding of what is to be done.
3. Most middle schools and high schools put so much emphasis on homework versus actual understanding that they are measuring behavior and compliance far more than what has been learned.
So we end up with two issues: we may well predict success [only] at compliance-oriented fields, and we do not know how many have been trampled so that their possible future success has been lost. Further, this method likely pushes more people towards compliance-oriented behavior, and so reduces their potential for success outside of this narrow measure. We certainly see this in other countries (e.g. Japan).
4. Creativity and creative people tend to mess up metrics at each level.
Creative people tend to do worse on grades at each level of schooling, yet their success measures can be very high in their fields. However, creative people can also be abject failures as a result of their creative natures; so we have no good metric that predicts [how successful] these people [will be]. Even trying to separate out creative people in schools is hard, as much of their behavior is similar to those who are just lazy, have A.D.H.D., or are generally disruptive.
We often do not know the underpinnings of their behaviors until much later, and many may have been crushed under the molding systems of our schools. Further, many of the most successful [people] are specifically creative with high strengths in mathematics and its implementation: in economics, physics, chemistry, engineering (including civil; think of many of the most dramatic bridges and buildings), and so on.
5. Any research I could find was done at some university which tended to bias results using university metrics of success.
This is likely unavoidable for the above reasons, but results from different studies were so contradictory that you have to conclude filtering and selection bias had a very large role to play as well.
What interests me is whether the present system actually produces more success or heavily limits it.
Would a different system with less emphasis on conformity produce more of our best and brightest? Or does the annealing effect of being crushed by the system help to produce those best and brightest?
If you look at those who have commonly advanced our thinking, our abilities, our technologies, and our economy (through business sense), many did poorly in schools, yet they persisted. The persistence may have been the critical element, and it would have perhaps been lost had they been encouraged more.
So does this mean we need more of those mediocre middle school and high school teachers acting as the forge to both create the worker bees we need, as well as the best [and most successful] by trying to destroy them?
Thoughts?
and 
. You can also watch it on 
It’s an interesting question. It is also one of the things that bothered me about the Freakonomics book.
The section that compared how many books parents owned to how often the parents read to their children focused on the IQ of the children. That is fine if your goal as a parent is to maximize your child’s IQ but if there is very little correlation between success and IQ, what is the point?
As someone who was an all A student through high school and then almost failed out of college, I agree with Mr. Kimelman that persistence is important. My brother, a far less “successful” student in terms of grades is much more successful within his chosen profession than I am. We have talked about it several times, and always come to the conclusion that since he had to work hard and come up with solutions to his educational problems, whereas I understood things more quickly and never learned to work hard in school, he has a greater ability to learn from his mistakes and work hard to get success. There is a lot of psychology at play in this question, as well, which complicates matters.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
1
The best proxy for success may be: the ability to choose what you want to do. Will good grades provide you the ability to choose what path you’d like to take in life? That’s a success and that’s really what the question’s after.
I suspect that in different fields you’d find a different sort of distribution, and then the obvious outliers. You don’t need good grades to be a great football player, if that’s what you want.
Very dynamic system and as such Taleb would probably have something interesting to say about it.
A generation or so ago university students who couldn’t “cut it” in any other applied disciplines went to teacher’s colleges. Then the pendulum swung so far the other way that at some schools high grades became the only or primary measure of future teaching ability, with no regard for temperment, background or prior experience.
Or consider where the cream of the crop of business schools end up, and what they end up doing. I’m quite certain that the current state of the markets is not now, nor will be in the future considered a success.
The use of school grades at any educational level as predictors of future success is so mutable to be meaningless.
I know lots of ‘successful’ people who got terrible grades. But I don’t know very many people who got good grades who weren’t successful, and those that weren’t tended to have mental health issues.
I’d suggest that it’s easy to be smart and get bad grades, but it’s pretty hard to be stupid and get good ones.
As far as what constitutes ‘success’, I think people are over thinking the issue. Let’s assume that it means professional success rather than unanswerables about the nature of humanity.
Success is what you do with your NATURAL abilities – not schooled. Education is a barometer of how intellectual you are, but not what you can do with your abilities.
2) If SATs and the like were really a measure of intelligence, studying and test prep classes wouldn’t be allowed, and your first student would get a lower grade more indicative of their actual intellectual ability.
The latter student is the more intelligent one, however, the former is smart enough to realize he can’t measure up on brainpower alone and supplements his ability with preparation.
That’s why these touchy-feely definitions are obstacles to acquiring information, not just exercises in contemplation. Let’s not use “success” as the benchmark. Let’s use something that’s more quantifiable such as gross income at 30, 40, & 50. Because what we’re really looking for is a corollary, and ultimately a predictor.