Do the children who perform best early in life later become adults and reach the highest levels? A paper published in the journal Science last December poses a question more of us should be asking. According to the paper, the answer, across many fields, is usually no.
This paper, by Arne Goelich, Michael Barth, David Hambrick, and Brooke McNamara, reviews the evidence on the development of world-class performers. The authors collected 19 datasets covering 34,839 top international players, including Nobel laureates in science, Olympic champions, major classical composers, and top chess players. They compared this evidence with 66 studies conducted on young and adult artists at the highest levels.
Among youth, early performance, intense practice, and focused training often predict better performance later in childhood or adolescence. This is what most of us expect. That’s why there are so many elite schools, youth academies, gifted programs and training centers. The idea is that if you identify a gifted child before others, and give him better resources and focused training in one area, he will be more likely to move forward.
But what the study found is that the pattern changes at the highest levels of adult achievement. There was a difference between the top 10 youth chess players in the world and the top 10 adult chess players in the world later on by about 90%. Junior athletes at international level and later senior athletes at international level showed a similar dichotomy. There was also a difference between high-achieving high school students and later college students of about 90%, although I would be cautious about applying this academic comparison directly to India because the ranking trajectory from the school is robust.
The clearest evidence comes from areas where performance can be measured over time. In terms of performance, comparing sports and chess is easier than comparing law, medicine, business, or literature because rankings, records, and levels of competition can be followed from youth to adulthood. Even academic achievement is difficult to explain because each career stage rewards different things. High achievers in school and the larger world are not measured by the same results at different stages of their lives.
But the paper found some interesting trends. Many of the best adult artists progressed more slowly when they were young. They developed skills in more than one activity and specialized later than children who dominated earlier. It seems that the metaphorical tortoise has overcome the hare.
The authors suggest three possible reasons. The first focuses on exploration. A child who tries several things may find a field that suits his or her abilities and interests better, compared to a child who is pushed early into a field chosen by adults. The second relates to breadth. A child who is trained in several activities may become better at learning new skills than a child who is trained narrowly in one set of tasks. The third focuses on mental development and abilities. A child who is given more time before specializing may avoid burning out, getting injured, losing interest, or becoming trapped in a path chosen too early, compared to a child whose early success puts pressure on continuing on an imposed path.
I found this interesting because it goes completely against the educational logic most of us grew up with. Parents push their children to coaching classes early. Children are compared with peers who appear more focused, have learned marketable adult skills, or have accumulated qualifications. Reading for pleasure, the arts, drama and the humanities are set aside unless they can be converted into grades, certificates or tangible ‘practical’ value. Hobbies are treated as distractions.
India also has a culture of considering early rank as an indicator of future success in life. Class 10, Class 12, JEE and NEET are general screening events. The privileged are photographed with politicians, interviewed in newspapers, placed on billboards, used in book advertisements and training classes, and identified as national models of excellence.
At the risk of stating an obvious fact we all know, exam rankings measure performance in a single setting. Talent, training, family structure, school quality, and the ability to break down a competitive system are all woven together within this score. So, how good is a rating as an indicator of whether someone will later do original work, build organizations, ask better questions, or thrive in a field where the rules are ambiguous?
Or, more narrowly, what happens to the covers after years? It’s hard to know. We have a lot of anecdotal evidence, and little long-term public data on this topic. The best source I found is an Indian Express report that tracked 86 national toppers in Class 10 and 12 of CBSE, ICSE and ISC exams between 1996 and 2015. More than half of them lived or worked abroad. The United States was the most common destination. Much of it was in science and technology, and international technical institutes were a common university stop.
The same investigation found that toppers draw heavily from mainstream science. Of the 86 top students, 74 studied science in class XII, and 12 studied commerce. Social status was also narrow and skewed almost entirely towards privileged classes and communities. Of the 76 high achievers who responded to the newspaper’s questionnaire, only five were first-generation college students.
Several high achievers told the newspaper that the school gave them a head start but also left gaps. They spoke of intense textbook preparation, poor exposure to writing, communication, teamwork, career choice, and the more chaotic demands of adult life.
A report by ThePrint tracked 20 IIT-JEE All India Rank 1 holders from 2000 to 2019. All 20 were men. Twelve of them were working outside India. Those with previous ranks often moved toward academia and research. The later ones were more likely to move towards technology, startups, finance or industry.
So what do we conclude from all this? These are small data sets, but they complicate any easy argument. In the Indian environment, early standings determine opportunity due to gates. We all know that the examination system in India does not just identify talent; It also allocates a rare opportunity. A higher rank can bring a superior organization, a talented peer group, and a lifelong network. Once these advantages accumulate, success may subsequently multiply. There isn’t really a lot of opportunity for late success, although that’s certainly changing now.
But even with all these specific points and warnings, there needs to be greater awareness of what the scientific review found. Children are already under enormous pressure to adapt and excel in narrow disciplines early on. Tiger mothers and disciplined fathers who know what is best for you should know that there is no one opportunity or one path to success in life. It turns out there’s hope for all of us to become the best versions of ourselves yet.
(Anirban Mahapatra is a scientist and author, and recently released a popular science book titled When Drugs Don’t Work: The Hidden Epidemic That Could End Medicine. The views expressed are personal.)
