Analysis of The Second Chapter of David and Goliath

I decided to Analyze chapter two of David and Goliath by Malcom Gladwell for the fact that this chapter stood out to me right away on how effectively Gladwell gets his point across in a persuasive way that is backed by credible evidence. 

This Chapter is where Gladwell wants incorporates the lessons learned in chapter one, the advantage and disadvantage to two simple, (or so we thought) questions about education. How Gladwell teaches us more on this matter is with the Inverted U-curve. This topic is so important as it is constantly used throughout the book as we learn that what we think is a big advantage might not be one at all. We are brought up to speed for this discussion on education with the question, would you send your child to Shepaug Valley Middle school? Worldwide from the United States all the way to Hong Kong steps have made to downsize the classrooms, It’s one of the few things 77% of Americans agree on. It seems pretty simple, smaller class sizes allows students more one on one with teachers which results in better grades. Yet there’s evidence to support the exact opposite. Furthermore Gladwell goes on to introduce the Inverted U-Curve, parenting versus money and how there is a point at which money and resources stop making our lives better and start making them worse. 

Gladwell takes on a story about a boy from Minneapolis who became a powerful man in Hollywood, because his father was not. Raised to work hard for what he wanted, so much that it drove him to not want to live in this small town and depend on working for his father. “People are ruined by challenged economic lives. But they’re ruined by wealth as well because they lose their ambition and they lose their pride and they lose their self-worth.” Gladwell uses a n example of a graph to paint a picture in our head, automatically you would see a direct increase with the more wealthier you are the easier parenting is. His argument is backed by scholars who research happiness. They suggest that more money stops making people happier at a family income of around seventy-five thousand dollars a year. The economics call this diminishing marginal returns. They then show a graph that has a plateau of wealth versus parenting at the 75k dollar mark. The argument now switches gears to how in fact it could become harder after that dollar amount due to instead of the ability to say “no we cannot” to your child you can only honestly say “ no I will not” which leaves to a questionable attitude. The man from Hollywood falls under what Gladwell says is the inverted U-curve, where you’re at the point that money starts to make the job of raising normal and well-adjusted children difficult. The inverted U-curve tends to take us by surprise and that’s where Gladwell tries to tie his point about advantages and disadvantages, We are With this being said the graph itself could represent the naysayer, proving that in fact what you thought at first about the correlation to wealth and parenting is not at right at all, and given it a second thought you as a reader are now opened to the viewpoint based on reputable sources and life examples. 

For the next aspect of the question to tie into advantages versus disadvantage, Gladwell brings up the matter on small class sizes and how they at first they’re perceived to be the desirable at first but after understanding the inverted U-curve you get the reasoning behind Gladwell’s argument. Hoxby a noted women that researched these kind of situation stated that the difference between larger and smaller classes sizes yielding nothing. There was no disadvantage yet no advantage either, so this would be a flat line on the curve scale. To tie the two questions together Gladwell asks “ Can class be too small, the same way a parent can make too much money. Giving examples of arguing small class size is stating how too comfortable, feeling as if you’re around the kitchen table. How ones autonomy could be effected as well as bullies overpowering a class. The students started acting “like siblings in the backseat of a car.” Which ultimately leaves the teacher in a vulnerable position. 

To sum these two questions together and how it ties into advantages and disadvantages Gladwell poses them as Goliaths. We think that because a school offers amenities like golf courses they assume the fifty thousand dollars they spend a month is going to good use when in fact the class size being too small is a concerning issue that’s not addressed. The parents aren’t thinking of the bigger picture that just because money can buy nice things does not mean it can translate into real world advantages. Think back to the first chapter about David and Goliath. Goliath’s disadvantage was something at first we assumed to be an advantage. Being bigger and stronger is great but being too big you compensate on other aspects is how Gladwell ties the questions from this chapter together. The man from Hollywood could not be the parent his dad was and instill in his kids the work ethic and drive he had because he had too much money. Hotchkiss school is not where it wants to be because it’s too small.