In revisionist history, Malcolm Gladwell makes strong arguments about the strong link/weak link. He used two different sports, soccer and basketball for illustration. He breaks it down by explaining how one is a weak link game and the other a strong link game.

In exploring these arguments, it brought a lot questions to mind. The strong link weak link simply suggests that some situations could be changed or improved with the help of one person while other situations need a continuous chain of help to reach their final goals. In a society where philanthropy is prominent, it is not clear why those who give money to rich schools do it. It would be logical to think that a less richer school would need money more and therefore receive such generosity. However, that’s not the case as it seems the aim of philanthropist differ. Arguably, it can be said that the reason why people give is to fulfill their selfish interest.The fame and popularity they get from supporting already prominent schools is more important than the actual needs of the schools. Inevitably, it boils down to having genuine concern for one another. It has been said that what’s a grain of rice added to a bag of rice? The effect of that grain is insignificant, but there’s also a saying which goes little drops of water make a mighty ocean. In the case of the strong link weak link, the phrase about little drops of water would apply to it and the strong link would apply to the insignificance of a grain of rice. A very typical scenario of the argument was illustrated in Malcolm Gladwell’s podcast my litttle hundred million where the example of giving 50 billion dollars to revamp the airline industry. It was said in the podcast that the least reasonable thing to do , would be to go to DENVER with a state of the art airport, but it would make more sense going to Laguardia in New York as the airline industry is limited by how good other airports are. Also is the act of individuals or companies giving money to schools that already have money seems unreasonable. It is also possible that individuals who seem to help local schools do it not really to help, but to gain cheap publicity and popularity. As it’s said that the one eyed man is king in the land of the blind. Believing that if their money cannot get them recognized in bigger schools, it will in poorer school.Giving money doesn’t really mean helping or generosity, its the reason behind that matters.

In building a stronger economy all together, would it not be reasonable to have as many educated people as possible and not let raw talents go to waste? A way of building the economy would be to invest in promising kids who because of poor financial hardship cannot do it on their own. It takes a village to raise a child. If all the people giving money do so by channelling it to the right places and not concentrating the resources amongst an exclusive few, helping local schools with bright kids it would be a better place in the long run. When focus is placed on the rich bright kids who can afford to get the best education, they turn out successful most times, however the population of the rich kids success alone isn’t enough to sustain the nation in the future. Success from cross sections of the economy will bring diversity and innovations.

On the other hand, the government offers tax exemptions to schools. For what? It’s true the government can’t impose poor students on the schools for scholarships or grants but the systems can be structured that schools should meet a certain quota of scholarships and grants before they get the tax exemptions. Rich schools make so much money, benefitting from the generosity of the public in form of tax exemptions and yet, some of those taxpayers kids would never be able to attend those schools. Not because they are not smart enough, but because they cannot afford it and avenues have not been created to accommodate them. The tax exemptions can be cut and all that tax money allocated to funding schools that actually need them.

In recent news, the state of new york has decided to offer free college to kids whose families earn less than 100k starting 2017 fall. This is a great improvement and this gives

more smarter kids the chance to get a college education without having to worry about college funds. Hopefully other states would emulate this great step. Education is valuable no matter where it’s gotten as long as it’s impacted and put to good use. The craze about attending ivy league schools makes even such a generous offer from the state of new york look ordinary. Too much hype is placed on attending ivy league schools that it makes a 4 year college certificate look like child’s play simply because it does not carry”the name”.

There should be general public sensitization and the views about a graduate from an ivy league school being better should be eradicated. All graduates should be given equal opportunities based on qualification rather that background.It’s been said that big organisation go in search of top students in class from ivy league schools and offer employment to these students before graduating. Why does this not happen in regular schools? Do the students in regular colleges lack intellect or is it more of financial privilege they lack?Its true quality of education may differ from school to school, nevertheless, emphasis should not be placed on it. Every effort put in by students should count.

In general, the system is a weak link system, it cannot be done single handedly by one person. Everyone has to step in and make a contribution for a total successful outcome like the game of soccer. Many poor underprivileged kids have made it out of hard situations to the top, but how about those who couldn’t make it, even when they were willing. This goes to say no matter how strong a link is, when it stands or works alone amongst other weak links in regards to the educational system, it inadvertently becomes a weak link. It cannot be done alone.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.