I'll have to read that article. I can't imagine what ladder Chua is talking about kicking away. To me, she seems like she is clinging white-knuckled to the ladder.
Sternberg then goes on to discuss his fund-raising efforts, which involved meeting “some of the most successful alumni of Tufts, as measured not only by their financial resources (and, hence, giving capacity) but also by the contributions they have made to society.” While Sternberg's caveats are doubtless made in good faith, the parameters he sets up implicitly reward “leadership” as conceived, quite straightforwardly, as managerial: artists and doctoral students in the humanities, no matter how “successful” in their fields, do not tend to congregate at fund-raising appeals.
I keep thinking about this. I know I've ranted about this here before. I abhor this narrow definition of success. It's everywhere. BTW, I don't say this because I am not wealthy (true) but consider myself successful (false--various reasons there, but I would say I am an underachiever who is slowly making good...part of this is due to taking time off for young children). HOWEVER, I DO have many very intelligent--gifted--friends who are not wealthy but who ARE, IMO, very successful, if by successful you mean "doing something fulfilling, important, and stimulating." You are not going to find them at a university fundraising event, though. They exist outside of that world, which often strikes me as a self-congratulatory echo chamber.
I quit an odious but well-paid corporate job, years ago. I couldn't believe what they were paying me to do basically nothing important. I MAY eventually make something close to what I made at that job (in my early 20s) again, doing what I actually like to do, in a job that doesn't suck out my lifeblood.
