Malcolm Gladwell has a blunt message for ambitious teenagers who dream of coding in Cambridge labs or solving equations in Ivy League lecture halls: if you want to finish a STEM degree, the most prestigious acceptance letter might be the riskiest one to sign. His warning cuts against decades of conventional wisdom that tells high achievers to grab the most elite brand they can, no matter the fit.
Instead of chasing the shiniest name, Gladwell argues that young people should think about where they will rank in the classroom and how that will shape their confidence, persistence, and eventual career. In his view, the difference between thriving and washing out of a tough major often comes down to whether you feel like a contender or an imposter when the first midterms land on your desk.
Gladwell’s STEM warning, in his own words
When I look at Malcolm Gladwell’s recent comments to young people, the core message is stark: if you want a STEM degree, “do not go to Harvard” unless you are confident you can land near the top of the curve. He has told students that if they choose a place where they are likely to sit at the bottom of the grade distribution, they may end up doubting their abilities, sliding down the class rankings, and eventually dropping out of the very fields they once loved, a pattern he has tied directly to elite environments like Harvard. In that framing, the risk is not that the coursework is impossible, but that the social comparison is relentless and unforgiving.
Gladwell has sharpened this point in conversations with podcast host Minhaj, where he has said STEM at a place like Harvard is “too hard” if you are not likely to be in the top quartile of your cohort. The logic is simple but unsettling for parents who have spent years chasing prestige: the same environment that flatters you on paper can quietly convince you that you are not cut out for science or engineering once you are surrounded by classmates who seem to solve problem sets in half the time.
From Canadian journalist to Ivy League skeptic
Gladwell’s critique carries extra weight because it comes from someone who has long chronicled how status and advantage work. As a Canadian journalist and author, Malcolm Gladwell has built a career dissecting how hidden forces shape success, and he is now telling young people to rethink the automatic rush toward the Ivy League. In his latest advice, he is not saying that elite universities are bad, but that they can be a poor match for students who would learn and perform better in a place where they are not constantly outgunned.
He has framed this as a question of persistence rather than bragging rights. For him, class rank, not institutional prestige, is what determines whether a student sticks with a demanding major or quietly migrates to something less quantitative, a point he has underscored by arguing that being near the top of your cohort is more predictive of long term success than having a famous logo on your diploma, a view reflected in his emphasis that class rank drives confidence and opportunity.
The Big Fish Little Pond effect, explained
Underneath Gladwell’s soundbite is a well studied psychological pattern often called the Big Fish Little Pond effect. The idea is that a student’s self concept depends less on their absolute ability and more on how they stack up against the people around them, so a strong math student can feel brilliant at a mid tier college but mediocre at a hyper selective one, even if their actual skills have not changed, a dynamic that researchers describe as the Big Fish Little Pond theory. In practice, that means the same teenager could either flourish or flounder depending on which acceptance letter they act on.
When I apply that lens to STEM, the stakes become obvious. Introductory physics or computer science courses are already intimidating, and if you are surrounded by peers who seem to breeze through every lab, it is easy to decide that you simply are not a “math person.” The Big Fish Little Pond effect predicts that students who feel like small fish in a giant, hyper competitive pond are more likely to lose motivation and change majors, even when their raw talent would have carried them comfortably to the top of the class at a less selective institution.
How “David and Goliath” reframed elite education
Gladwell did not arrive at this argument overnight. In his book David and Goliath, he explored how apparent disadvantages can become strengths and how underdogs sometimes win by refusing to play on the giant’s terms. One of his most provocative claims in that book was that choosing a school where you can excel may be more important than choosing the most selective campus that will admit you, especially in fields that demand sustained confidence and practice.
Education analysts have picked up that thread, noting that his argument implies a very different strategy for STEM hopefuls. Instead of treating the admissions process as a single ranking where the “best” school is always the most competitive, he suggests that a better question is where you will be most likely to complete your degree. Advisers who focus on “college fit” have echoed this, pointing out that Gladwell’s work on David and Goliath supports the idea that a slightly less selective program can dramatically increase the odds that a student actually finishes a STEM major.
“Go to the lousy schools”: a decade of provocation
Long before his latest viral comments, Gladwell was already telling audiences not to reflexively choose the most prestigious option. He once summarized his view with a deliberately provocative line: do not go to Harvard, go to the “lousy schools,” meaning the places where you will be relatively smarter than those around you and therefore more likely to feel capable, engaged, and resilient when the work gets hard, a sentiment captured in discussions of Lousy Schools. The phrase is intentionally sharp, but the underlying point is about fit, not snobbery in reverse.
Online debates have tried to formalize this intuition into frameworks and acronyms. One discussion of Gladwell’s ideas, for example, refers to “Gladwell’s EICD Theory,” shorthand for the notion that you should not go to Harvard but instead choose a lesser school where you will be relatively smarter than those around you, and then asks whether there are convincing studies in this area, a question raised in a thread about Gladwell’s EICD Theory. Whether or not one buys the branding, the conversation reflects a growing willingness to question the automatic prestige chase.
STEM attrition and the cost of being “average” at Harvard
Behind the rhetoric is a sobering pattern: a large share of students who start in STEM never finish those degrees, and Gladwell argues that the environment plays a central role. He has warned that if you go to a place like Harvard and end up at the bottom of your class, you may decide that you are not cut out for science or engineering and drop out of STEM entirely, a risk he has highlighted in interviews where he tells young people bluntly that “you may end up at the bottom of your class and drop out,” a line that has been widely quoted and discussed by writers such as Sasha Rogelberg. The implication is that the same student might have thrived and persisted if they had chosen a slightly less selective environment.
From my perspective, this is not an argument against ambition but a warning about context. A teenager who would be in the top 10 percent of a solid state university’s engineering program might land in the bottom third at an Ivy League campus, even with identical test scores and preparation. If that student internalizes their new rank as evidence that they are not “good enough,” they may abandon STEM, even though their absolute ability has not changed. Gladwell’s critics sometimes accuse him of oversimplifying, but the attrition numbers in tough majors suggest that the psychological weight of being “average” in an elite setting is not a trivial factor.
Big fish, big confidence: how self belief shapes performance
Psychologists who study the Big Fish Little Pond effect have documented how relative standing can shape motivation, and Gladwell has drawn heavily on that work. One analysis of the question “Is It Better to Be a Little Fish in a Big Pond or a Big Fish in a Little Pond?” notes that in his book David and Goliath he describes how students who move from being top performers in a smaller setting to average performers in a more competitive one can see their confidence erode, which in turn diminishes their motivation, a pattern that has been explored in detail in discussions of Little Fish Big Pond. That erosion is particularly dangerous in fields where persistence and practice are everything.
When I talk to students, I often see how quickly self belief can swing based on a single semester’s grades. A teenager who aced calculus in high school can feel like a fraud after one brutal exam curve in college, even if the material is objectively harder and the competition fiercer. Gladwell’s argument is that if you can choose an environment where you are more likely to feel like a big fish, you are also more likely to keep investing the hours needed to master difficult concepts, rather than deciding that you simply lack the talent.
Why “second choice” schools may be the smartest bet
Gladwell’s practical advice follows directly from this psychology. He has encouraged prospective college students to pick their second choice school, not the most prestigious one that admits them, especially if they are aiming for STEM, arguing that they will have a better shot at landing near the top of the class and building a track record of success, a recommendation that has been tied to his suggestion that students look beyond the highest ranked option in U.S. News style rankings. In his view, the marginal prestige gain from a slightly higher ranked campus is often outweighed by the risk of being pushed to the bottom of the curve.
College counselors have been wrestling with this idea for years. Some have framed it as a challenge to the mantra that you should always go to the “best school you get into,” asking whether it might be wiser to choose a place where you will be a standout rather than a struggler. One advisory piece put it bluntly, asking “DON’T Go to the Best School You Get Into? Really?” before summarizing Gladwell’s position that when it comes to choosing your undergraduate institution, you should consider whether you would be better off at a less competitive school, a question raised in a discussion titled Best School You Get Into. The fact that this debate keeps resurfacing suggests that families are hungry for a more nuanced playbook than “aim as high as possible.”
How families can apply the research without overreacting
For parents and students staring at a stack of acceptance letters, the challenge is to use Gladwell’s insights without turning them into a rigid rule. The Big Fish Little Pond effect is real, and the evidence that class rank shapes persistence in STEM is compelling, but that does not mean every high achiever should automatically turn down elite offers. Instead, I see his work as an invitation to ask harder questions: where will you have access to mentoring, where will you feel comfortable asking for help, and where will you be more than a mid list name in a giant lecture hall, questions that echo the broader warning to beware the Big Fish Little Pond trap.
Gladwell’s critics are right to note that individual students vary widely. Some thrive on being surrounded by people who are better than they are, using that pressure as fuel rather than discouragement. Others need early wins and visible progress to stay engaged. The key, in my view, is to treat prestige as one variable among many, not the sole objective. That means weighing financial aid, campus culture, mental health support, and the likelihood of graduating in your chosen major alongside the thrill of telling relatives that you got into Harvard.
Rethinking what “winning” looks like for STEM kids
Gladwell’s message lands at a moment when the pipeline into science and engineering is under scrutiny, from K 12 math preparation to graduate school attrition. His argument that class rank, not institutional prestige, is what determines persistence forces families to reconsider what success looks like for a STEM obsessed teenager. If the goal is to become a working engineer, data scientist, or physicist, then the best choice may be the campus where you can build a strong GPA, secure research opportunities, and graduate with confidence, not the one that impresses people at dinner parties, a point that aligns with his emphasis on college fit as key to completion.
In that sense, telling STEM kids not to pick Harvard is less about Harvard itself and more about puncturing the myth that there is a single, obvious “best” choice for every high achiever. The real provocation is the suggestion that being a big fish in a slightly smaller pond can be a smarter, more sustainable way to build a life in science and technology. For families willing to look past the rankings, that might be the most liberating advice they hear all application season.
More from MorningOverview