Thanks, James! I definitely use the term "mediocre" tongue-in-cheek here. Your point about defining your own life vs. letting others define it for you is exactly what I hope to teach my kids.
And don't worry: I'm breaking in the Dolomite boots this week. We're getting excited.
This “elite” college thing is really about money, power, and prestige.
That is not what life is about in my opinion.
Stories that need to be told include:
The people who adopt older children. It is truly a tough “labor of love.”
The “church ladies” who donate much of their time to make food for receptions after a funeral, make blankets and quilts to be used by the very poor, etc.
Yes, 100%. My mom is one of these people. Worked in civil service at a state psychiatric hospital for 40+ years, a large part of that in direct patient care, was (reluctant) president of our neighborhood association, cooked dinners from scratch every night, served on our Zen Center’s care committee supporting community members in times of crisis or tragedy. Her life is busy and full and fulfilling and has touched innumerable other lives. No one writes news stories about her, but they should.
I know that you're (rightfully) having a go at Brooks's piece, but your life and those of many of the rest of us in that 94% (myself included) are lives of excellence, not mediocrity. I strongly second James Callaway's closing lines in a previous comment! :o)
Thanks, Carrie-Ann. I definitely feel deeply lucky and/or blessed to be leading this life. I was just thinking the other day about how to explain the difference between excellence and status to my kids. The two are definitely not identical and may not even be that closely related, despite messaging to the contrary.
It's a really great point about being ambitious enough to encounter some amount of rejection while still being realistic.
A few months ago, I was writing a review of John Callanan's new book about Bernard Mandeville and trying to decide where I should submit it. I was slightly worried about submitting it to the Montreal Review, in part because they say that you can expect to hear from them by the end of six weeks. So if it got rejected and I had to wait that long to find out that it was rejected, I might be taking away the opportunity to get it published somewhere else, since book reviews are obviously a little time sensitive. But I took the risk anyway and it paid off because they ended up accepting it.
Thank you for writing this. I grew up lower-middle-class, got good grades, went to a mid-range school, then worked (remotely, long before Covid accelerated its popularity) for HCOL tech and media companies and spent that money in my smallish town where I lived like a queen. I'm super happy, feel both accomplished and content, and I love my non-ivy-league, non-national-attention life. Cheers from Virginia. :D
Your post is well meaning but, upon a closer examination, you and your success are the opposite of mediocrity.
Putting aside any evaluation of the type of PhD you have earned, you are actually in the top 1-2 percent (depending on how we define PhD) of the academically inclined.
I wasn’t able to read Brook’s article because it is paywalled, so I cannot fully grasp his point or his reason for writing about high achieving students. I strongly disagree with the use of “privileged” because it connotes that they received something unearned. John Rawls would you say that high IQ as well as other genetic gifts are unearned, but his philosophy completely ignores the agency that all healthy individuals possess and must actuate.
In the end we all must take action or live out our lives wondering what kind of lives we could have had. I once heard a commencement speech that warned the graduates that they would probably fail far more than they would succeed, but that they would quickly forget their failures once they discovered their path to success. I have embraced that idea and turned it on its head: individual success requires an empirical approach to rule out what doesn’t work and discover what does for each individual. In all cases, what works will be different because we are all different individuals.
I congratulate you on finding your own way but you should not claim to be mediocre or a member of mediocrity—that status must be reserved for politicians and government bureaucrats (and sadly far too many teachers).
Great article, thanks! I have often thought about this but haven't put pen to paper on it. I'm 62, and the world I grew up in didn't worship or want to be 'elites'. There were 'rich' people but we never felt less than them.
I ended up spending a lot of time in Silicon Valley (I was utterly miscast cuz I'm not a money grubbing whore - tech makes investment bankers look ethical) and watched as the same elite that rigged the financial system and 'financialized' everything were now heading into tech, beginning in the late '90s. Oracle and others would set up recruiting booths at Ivies right next to Goldman and Bain.
This is when the business went to shit, innovation slowed and it became all about monetizing. I just couldn't see through it. I was very impressed at first but over time, there was no 'there there' with many of the MBAs being turned out from the Ivy factories. I happen to be as smart or smarter than many of them - this bothered them intensely, as I have a top 1% IQ. I began to realize that I was the one who didn't understand the game as my career was pretty much a disaster in tech, as it has become for most Americans.
Today? It's run by venture capitalists and foreigners scalping every penny they can out of our economy. We need a new 'elite'. If David Brooks is an exemplar, they SUCK...
You write a loving tale and journey that mirrors an old Japanese proverb.
Happiness or success, can best be achieved by being the one defining that in your life, as opposed to letting others dictate it.
I know you know to break in those Dolomite climbing boots well before you climb those vistas.
Congratulations on a life well lived, and a family well lead.
Neither of which typically are signs of mediocrity.
Thanks, James! I definitely use the term "mediocre" tongue-in-cheek here. Your point about defining your own life vs. letting others define it for you is exactly what I hope to teach my kids.
And don't worry: I'm breaking in the Dolomite boots this week. We're getting excited.
This “elite” college thing is really about money, power, and prestige.
That is not what life is about in my opinion.
Stories that need to be told include:
The people who adopt older children. It is truly a tough “labor of love.”
The “church ladies” who donate much of their time to make food for receptions after a funeral, make blankets and quilts to be used by the very poor, etc.
Yes, 100%. My mom is one of these people. Worked in civil service at a state psychiatric hospital for 40+ years, a large part of that in direct patient care, was (reluctant) president of our neighborhood association, cooked dinners from scratch every night, served on our Zen Center’s care committee supporting community members in times of crisis or tragedy. Her life is busy and full and fulfilling and has touched innumerable other lives. No one writes news stories about her, but they should.
You should! This reply is your start.
I know that you're (rightfully) having a go at Brooks's piece, but your life and those of many of the rest of us in that 94% (myself included) are lives of excellence, not mediocrity. I strongly second James Callaway's closing lines in a previous comment! :o)
Thanks, Carrie-Ann. I definitely feel deeply lucky and/or blessed to be leading this life. I was just thinking the other day about how to explain the difference between excellence and status to my kids. The two are definitely not identical and may not even be that closely related, despite messaging to the contrary.
It's a really great point about being ambitious enough to encounter some amount of rejection while still being realistic.
A few months ago, I was writing a review of John Callanan's new book about Bernard Mandeville and trying to decide where I should submit it. I was slightly worried about submitting it to the Montreal Review, in part because they say that you can expect to hear from them by the end of six weeks. So if it got rejected and I had to wait that long to find out that it was rejected, I might be taking away the opportunity to get it published somewhere else, since book reviews are obviously a little time sensitive. But I took the risk anyway and it paid off because they ended up accepting it.
Nice win! Looking forward to reading that review when it comes out, Rob.
Thank you for writing this. I grew up lower-middle-class, got good grades, went to a mid-range school, then worked (remotely, long before Covid accelerated its popularity) for HCOL tech and media companies and spent that money in my smallish town where I lived like a queen. I'm super happy, feel both accomplished and content, and I love my non-ivy-league, non-national-attention life. Cheers from Virginia. :D
Your post is well meaning but, upon a closer examination, you and your success are the opposite of mediocrity.
Putting aside any evaluation of the type of PhD you have earned, you are actually in the top 1-2 percent (depending on how we define PhD) of the academically inclined.
I wasn’t able to read Brook’s article because it is paywalled, so I cannot fully grasp his point or his reason for writing about high achieving students. I strongly disagree with the use of “privileged” because it connotes that they received something unearned. John Rawls would you say that high IQ as well as other genetic gifts are unearned, but his philosophy completely ignores the agency that all healthy individuals possess and must actuate.
In the end we all must take action or live out our lives wondering what kind of lives we could have had. I once heard a commencement speech that warned the graduates that they would probably fail far more than they would succeed, but that they would quickly forget their failures once they discovered their path to success. I have embraced that idea and turned it on its head: individual success requires an empirical approach to rule out what doesn’t work and discover what does for each individual. In all cases, what works will be different because we are all different individuals.
I congratulate you on finding your own way but you should not claim to be mediocre or a member of mediocrity—that status must be reserved for politicians and government bureaucrats (and sadly far too many teachers).
Great article, thanks! I have often thought about this but haven't put pen to paper on it. I'm 62, and the world I grew up in didn't worship or want to be 'elites'. There were 'rich' people but we never felt less than them.
I ended up spending a lot of time in Silicon Valley (I was utterly miscast cuz I'm not a money grubbing whore - tech makes investment bankers look ethical) and watched as the same elite that rigged the financial system and 'financialized' everything were now heading into tech, beginning in the late '90s. Oracle and others would set up recruiting booths at Ivies right next to Goldman and Bain.
This is when the business went to shit, innovation slowed and it became all about monetizing. I just couldn't see through it. I was very impressed at first but over time, there was no 'there there' with many of the MBAs being turned out from the Ivy factories. I happen to be as smart or smarter than many of them - this bothered them intensely, as I have a top 1% IQ. I began to realize that I was the one who didn't understand the game as my career was pretty much a disaster in tech, as it has become for most Americans.
Today? It's run by venture capitalists and foreigners scalping every penny they can out of our economy. We need a new 'elite'. If David Brooks is an exemplar, they SUCK...
Changing "the stories we tell" this way is where I've dedicated my life.
Oddly enough, one of the best things I've written about this was a challenge to a challenge to David Brooks. (8 years back, now! :-) ) https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/when-language-privilege-git-r-done