Connor Doria Professor Padgett 3/18/2013 English 1102 Interpretive Essay

Adam Padgett 4/9/13 5:01 PM Comment [1]: Can you come up with a more creative title?

Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell is a novel that attempts to convince readers that the rich and successful are not all there cracked up to be. Through luck and opportunity, a lot of these self made, rags to riches stories came about. The book is giving an excuse to all of its readers not to work hard because even if you do, without the right connections and experiences you will never be successful. Outliers left me with a pessimistic view and although an interesting read, it is not helpful to the reader. Gladwell's writing does not promote success; instead, it has a negative effect on its readers and to a greater extent, society. Personal experience is the main reason I disagree with Gladwell. Growing up, I was fortunate to have great people around me: my parents, grandparents, friends. They always said, Connor you can make yourself into whatever you want to be, as long as you set your mind to it. They try to inspire greatness, giving me hope for success in all my endeavors. Up until I read this book, I believed strongly in this set of ideals. After reading Outliers, my mind began questioning itself. I was left pondering the passages about Bill Gates and Bill Joy. Gladwell say things like Ideally you want to be 20 or 21 which is to say born in 1954 or 1955(65). Both Bills were born in 1955(65, 68). It's hard to believe that arbitrary dates put them ahead of anyone else in this field, resulting in their
Adam Padgett 4/9/13 5:05 PM Comment [6]: Subject-verb agreement. Adam Padgett 4/9/13 5:02 PM Comment [2]: :) I like this claim. Straightforward and very clear. Adam Padgett 4/9/13 5:02 PM Comment [3]: If it left you with a pessimistic view, did it convince you of its argument? Adam Padgett 4/9/13 5:04 PM Comment [4]: Yikes, big claim here. So you think the book, if anything, is hurting society. Also, I feel like these last three sentences pretty much repeat themselves. Can you write a conclusion that brings the readers into the conversation as opposed to slapping them with your argument right out of the gate? Adam Padgett 4/9/13 5:05 PM Comment [5]: Good.

billionaire status. Also, when Gladwell is talking about the Canadian hockey players: 40% born between January and March, 30% between April and June, 20% July and September and 10% for the last months(23). All because the Canadian decided that the cut off dates were January 1st. for the deciding factor in what year you play in, the year before or after (24). Believing that hard work and perseverance were the keys to success before reading this book, even though it may be thought nave from Gladwells standpoint, I was better off. After giving example after example all of this research I am afraid that I have changed my beliefs on success and prosperity. Outliers has made me think and question all success stories I hear from now on. Gladwell makes the point that success cannot always be determined by hard work but by age and time of birth. A certain birth month or year can give you a leg up on your competitors, creating a natural selection effect. If it changed my mind, who's to say it could not change others? Personally, I guess I just have to keep working hard and hope that one day I will get a grand opportunity such as some of the greats from the book. Resulting in my success from opportunity.
Adam Padgett 4/9/13 5:06 PM Deleted: nieve Adam Padgett 4/9/13 5:07 PM Comment [7]: But are his claims false? You might do well to put those ideas in a better context. Maybe you should define what success means to you.

Adam Padgett 4/9/13 5:08 PM Comment [8]: Okay, so you disagree with the book, but you buy into what it is suggesting? Adam Padgett 4/9/13 5:11 PM Comment [9]: Natural selection suggest survival of the fittest, so Im not sure if the analogy you going with here works. I think the scenario Gladwell describes suggests that timing trumps, in certain respects, the advantage of the most fit. Right? Adam Padgett 4/9/13 5:16 PM Comment [10]: Connor, you have some really good analysis here. I really like how you describe your own point of view regarding the conversation here and what the implications are of Gladwells argument(s). I am confused on your overall argument. You say you reject Gladwells suggestions, but then you cave at the end and accept them. Im not sure what the point of this essay is, in that case. Also, I was very engaged in the things you had to say and then you seemed to just stop. There is fertile ground here for further discussion, and Id like to see you take this further. If what Gladwell says has negative implications for society, you need to explain why you think that. What would happen if everyone understood that success was highly dependent on luck? What about hard work? What does success mean if people just work hard? What does Gladwell mean by an outlier. Is he only talking about the exremenly successful? Could hard work without luck bring at least moderate success?