I’m trying to study for my English course and I need some help to understand this question.
Gladwell, Malcolm. David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2013.
As Gladwell points out in Chapter 2 of David and Goliath, we tend to think of classroom size in one way: the smaller, the better. He argues, however, that a class can, in fact, be too small.
Gladwell compares class size to the role of wealth in raising children, arguing that we have the same wrong idea about it. When parents have too much money, he writes, it can lead to negative consequences! Money is beneficial up to certain dollar amount, according to Gladwell, but after that amount, too much money can lead to children who lack motivation and don’t respect the value of a dollar.
Both of these issues can be measured, Gladwell shows us, with an inverted u-curve.
Now that you have read Chapter 2, what are your thoughts on these topics? Are you convinced by Gladwell’s argument that class sizes can be too small? Are children who are raised by wealthy parents less likely to succeed than children raised by parents of lower socioeconomic status? And, how can teachers fight the inverted u-curve of small classes? How can wealthy parents fight the inverted u-curve of their children’s likelihood of success? Be sure to use evidence from the text to support your answer.