contact us

Use the form on the right to contact us.

You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right.

New York, New York

Columbia '14 | urbanite | foodie | explorer | aspiring ukulelist | wanderlust 

Thought Sketches



Filtering by Category: Models

The Myth of Well-Roundedness

Sarah Chang

Time and time again, I hear this aspiration of “well-roundedness” being perpetuated. Being good at everything surely must get you what you want—those good schools, great internships, and even better jobs that will inevitably propel you into a successful career and thereby successful life. 

It’s a myth.

As a high school student applying to college, you need to be strong academically and take the hardest classes. You need to ace your standardized tests. You need to show leadership and sustained involvement in extracurriculars. And you probably need to volunteer a bit on the side to give back to the community, to show that you’re not just a happy robot.

As a college student applying to jobs? Well, those great jobs at high-flying banks or consulting firms can be yours, too—provided you have a good GPA, a few summers at big brand companies where you’ve made noteworthy impact, a few gigs on committees of campus clubs, and a healthy social life to make all the contacts you need to even be considered for interviews in the first place. And on and on. Sound about right?

Turns out, the all-around superstar is not a superstar at all—nobody remembers the guy who was pretty good at everything. Yet the myth lives on.

The danger of well-roundedness is that well-roundedness of the individual gets confused with well-roundedness of the group. And while the latter is to be desired because we are community-oriented beings operating in a social context, the former is futile to aspire to. It’s great if your college has an Olympic pole vaulter, a New York Times columnist, and an aspiring particle physics PhD. But they most certainly will not and should not be the same person. 

The implications are all too real. 

Can you imagine starting a company and writing job descriptions for people who are pretty good at all of the above: programming, sales, finance, marketing, and design? Maybe you want your heart surgeon to have had a former life as an optometrist and podiatrist…I sure don’t. Stanley Kubrick never professed to be an academic all-star, and the world of cinematography thanks him for it.

The truth is, as much as well-roundedness seems like it would be good, we’re dazzled and intrigued and impressed by spikes in ability so much more. Once you’ve truly maxed out in any one area, all you really need to do is to check the “sufficient” box for the rest.

There’s a clear mismatch between what schools, recruiters, and companies say they’re looking for and what is actually valued. It’s foolish to delude ourselves into thinking well-roundedness reigns supreme, when in reality, as the rubber hits the road, it’s specialization and disproportionate ability in something that make you interesting. 

As we leave the old, one-path-fits-all system, the metric that replaces well-roundedness is a convincing narrative—the story and brand you create for yourself based off of your collective experiences and coveted skills.

Being specialized doesn’t have to mean being a one-trick pony. But at the end of the day, even a one-trick pony will get more eyes and love than a jack of all trades.


The Benefits of Staggered Learning Curves

Sarah Chang

How many times have you wanted to learn something new -- play guitar, learn a language, pick up photography -- only to lose interest after a few weeks of concentrated interest?

Something I’ve been thinking about recently is organizing everything I’m learning into a matrix of staggered learning curves. It comes from the basic idea of the Four Stages of Competence, but instead of tracking progress for a single task, it’s more fitting to apply the theory to everything I’m learning concurrently

The model uses the theory behind the Dunning-Kruger effect (the idea that you know so little about something that you don’t know how bad you are, and dangerously, think you’re better than you actually are) to illustrate a ladder of competency: 

  1. Unconscious incompetence: you’re so bad don’t know how bad you are 
  2. Conscious incompetence: you’re at least good enough to know how bad you are
  3. Conscious competence: you’re only good with deliberate effort
  4. Unconscious competence: you’re so good it becomes second nature


Taking it a step beyond what the ladder categorizes and applying it in useful ways, ideally my goal is to be at a different stage in each competency level at any given time.

For instance, I picked up ukulele five months ago and am at third tier of conscious competence, whereas my design skills as of two weeks ago are barely emerging out of the first stage of unconscious incompetence. 

I’m finding that it’s a good way to manage progress across several areas at once, and you can easily assess where you’re at in terms of progress and estimate how much longer it will take you to reach a final level of mastery.

There are so many benefits to measuring progress this way:

  1. It’s staggered growth. You’re creating a more systematic approach to control how quickly you’re advancing in any given area. There’s more consistency, predictability, and relative measurement of progress.
  2. You’ll reach unconscious competence fairly consistently after certain intervals of time (though this can be several months). This leads to sustainable, predictable periods of feeling the “high’s” of accomplishment that encourage you to keep learning things with a long-term perspective. 
  3. It minimizes the frustration of learning something new. It’s often easy to get disheartened in the beginning when there’s a large amount of resistance when facing a steep learning curve. If you spread out when you start learning several new things, you’ll be able to avoid being stuck at the bottom of the curve for all the things at once (as well as the disappointment that comes with it).
  4. The learning process is smoother if you’re adding new skills and diversifying what you’re doing day-to-day. There’s less room for boredom, and you won’t tire as easily of doing the same activities, again adding to the longevity of trying to learn and master something new.
  5. If at any point you take a hiatus, there’s enough accumulated experience in any given new skill so there’s something to pick back up in the future

I've found this way of thinking of every new skill, interest, or hobby I'm starting to be really effective in avoiding burnout, lost of interest, and general die-down of motivation after the first few days

Skills (or more aptly, lack of skills) in the first two stages really are not that useful or anything to speak of, so it's important to be able to push beyond the point when everyone else gives up because it's "too hard". Only after that will you transcend the boundary to contribute something both valuable and interesting.