Gladwell's theory supports Wharton UG

Colleges & Universities University of Pennsylvania
1

<p>I’m sure that most of us are familiar with Malcom Gladwell, his works have become a popular sensation after all. But, just in case you are not, Gladwell is a journalist and an author. He is also a leading thinker on the nurturing of success, much of his work centers around financing common patterns among ultra successful people. His recent book, Outliners, details his research into that question. Essentially, Gladwell argues that experience is everything. </p>

<p>Here is a video of one of his lectures, it encapsulates everything in the book well: <a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh9ax4QvzoQ[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh9ax4QvzoQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>So what does Gladwell have to do with anything? </p>

<p>Well, Gladwell argues that in order to be truly great at something that requires cognitive skill; you MUST put in ten thousand hours of work into it to master it. Now, I’m sure we Whartonites have often heard the refrain, “You pick up everything the Wharton kids learned after 6 months in training.” While this may be true on a superficial level, it seems that Gladwell would argue that the Whartonites are far more likely to master their art since they spent 4 years completely surrounded by it. They are thousands of hours ahead of the HYPSM grads as a result, and are much more likely to have developed a sense of intuition that lasts far longer than 6 months after training.
If you look at the top businessmen in the world, the one thing they had in common is that they all knew that business is what they wanted to do. They all got a head start on everyone else at doing it, either by trading in their dorm room or actually studying business.</p>

<p>Warren Buffett springs to mind with finance, Bill Gates with programming, the Ambani brothers with general business. Just look at sports, (as Gladwell does), almost everyone who plays in the NHL started playing when they were little kids and knew that this is what they wanted to do. You do not get to the NHL by saying in college, “Oh, I think I want to play hockey. If I study this skating manual for two weeks I should be able to catch up with the guys who have been skating since they were 3, skating is simple after all.” It just does not work that way, you don’t have the intuition of the skater that started out young. You may be able to skate just fine, but you will likely be hard pressed to develop the finesse and intuition of a kid who has been skating since they were little. Wharton gives you intuition that you cannot get elsewhere; well, nowhere near as easily at least. </p>

<p>That is probably why so few Wharton kids need to get MBAs. Most probably tend to be the top analysts because of the intuition they developed and are promoted directly. The HYP kids have a steep learning curve to get over – which they do, but there is a difference between functionality and excellence. They go get an MBA to help them catch up. </p>

<p>So even though the other kids catch up on a functional level after six months, the Wharton kids still have an advantage because they have been practicing for longer; their business education is also far more in-depth than the education provided during the job training session.</p>

<p>So do you agree with Gladwell, does Wharton put you at a competitive advantage?</p>

<p>Remember, at Wharton you are still able to take liberal arts courses so you still have a liberal arts experience.</p>

2

<p>“They are thousands of hours ahead of the HYPSM grads as a result, and are much more likely to have developed a sense of intuition that lasts far longer than 6 months after training.” …
“Most probably tend to be the top analysts because of the intuition they developed and are promoted directly.”</p>

<p>Intuition is an innate quality. It is a pure and untaught aspect of intelligence. You can’t teach someone to be intuitive, but you CAN teach them have greater cognitive reasoning skills.</p>

<p>A strong business sense is definetely developed at Wharton. The students are bright and learn a lot. But kids who attend HYPSM are clearly smart as well; if they recieve an MBA from a rigorous institution (not just Wharton), they will have an edge over business undergrads due to their strong background in another area (like economics, chem, bio, engineering, etc.). This gives them a greater appeal to companies. </p>

<p>Although it is a 2-year program and not a 4-year program, an MBA has sole focus on business. A 4-year undergrad major in business can’t say that. MBA programs (at top institutions) are much more rigorous than ANY undegrad business program (Wharton included).</p>

3

<p>

</p>

<p>Ehh, I’ve heard differently.</p>

<p>From Wharton faculty.</p>

4

<p>I am wondering if the MBA vs Wharton Undergrad comparison holds for say an MBA from University of Maryland vs. Wharton Undergraduate. I’m not even sure a Harvard MBA specializing in finance can claim to be better than a Wharton Undergrad with a finance concentration (esp if the person went far beyond the 4 required concentration courses).</p>

5

<p>In general, most ppl in the know (profs, recruiters etc) will tell you that undergrad curriculums tend to be more rigorous than MBA’s for business. MBA’s are meant to supplement existing experience, not breed mean lean business doing machines :P. </p>

<p>@ learner12, that is incorrect. Intuition draws heavily on experience as you extend existing patterns (whether consciously or not). It can and does improve as you learn more about a subject. There are no real ‘genius traders’ etc. It’s all built up through experience.</p>

6

<p>Any other takers ?</p>