Lessons in success from Eton and the

Tiger Mother
By Lucy Kellaway
Now we know why so many dyslexics and people who lost a parent young make it to the
top
T
en days ago my husband went to a reunion at Eton College for the leavers of 1974. About
150 men crowded into the 15th-century chapel to belt out a quick Praise my Soul the
King of Heaven before settling down to eat, drink and reminisce about schoolboy pranks
while quietly trying to work out who had done best in the 40 years since then.
Afterwards he made two observations. The first was how good they all looked. These
men, blessed by breeding, education and money, still look at 57 and 58 easily
recognisable as their teenage selves.
The second was how relatively undistinguished their careers had turned out to be. Apart
from one senior politician and one former newspaper editor, they were a middling group
of lawyers, property investors and fund managers, rich by national standards, but
disappointing if you consider their start in life. They arrived at that school at 13, clever
and mostly from wealthy families, to spend five years wearing tailcoats and becoming
members of one of the worlds most elite networks. Yet there they were, in their prime,
and it had amounted to not very much at all.
His observation turns on its head the usual complaint about Eton that it is an exclusive
club of men who run the country. It is true there is currently a trinity of Etonians in
power, as prime minister, mayor of London and Archbishop of Canterbury. But they are
the exceptions to a more surprising rule that Eton is a club of men born to do great things
but who increasingly fail to do anything much at all.
Last week I stumbled on an answer to the Eton College 1974 leavers conundrum. It is
contained in the combustible new book, The Triple Package, by tiger mother Amy
Chua and her husband Jed Rubenfeld, which sets out to explain why Jews, Mormons and
the Chinese do much better than other groups in the US. They argue that it is down to
three things: a superiority complex, insecurity and impulse control. None of these is any
good on its own, it is essential to have all three. Too much superiority, you have no
incentive to lift a finger. Too much insecurity, and your doubts are paralysing. And
without impulse control, or self-discipline, it is hard to crack on with anything.

If you apply this triple package to Etonians, you see at once what holds them back. They
have superiority in spades. But they are low on insecurity, and have little impulse control
as the culture relies on any achievement appearing effortless.
Not only have Chua and Rubenfeld answered the Eton question, they have come up with
the best universal theory of success Ive seen. They intended it to apply to groups, but it
works still better at explaining why some people from the same slice of society do better
than others.
Ive never met David Cameron. But I know Archbishop Justin Welby and Mayor Boris
Johnson well enough to guess that neither is a stranger to insecurity. Both, too, have the
capacity to work like dogs.
The triple package helps make sense of other success theories. We are endlessly told how
many dyslexics and people who lost a parent young make it to the top. Now we know the
reason: such things make them insecure. We also now know for the deprivation to work,
the bereaved dyslexic must also know hes great, and be prepared to do the necessary to
become greater.
One cheering thing about the theory is it has no time for passion which has never struck
me as either a necessary or a sufficient condition of great achievement. Nor is there any
mention of other traits so often invoked including optimism, networking, resilience or
life-long learning. From the triple package theory all other characteristics will flow, as
needed.
Less cheering is that it explains why the successful are seldom good eggs. Superior
people are alienating; insecure people are exhausting. People who are both are doubly
unbearable, especially when you take into account all the dissembling they usually do to
mask both traits. And too much discipline is a dull trait in a friend as it means it is
impossible to get them to down tools and open a bottle of wine instead.
Yet as a parent I extract a shred of comfort from The Triple Package. Chuas previous
book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, upset liberal mothers everywhere, making us feel
uneasy about being such softies with our children. This time, I feel slightly let off the
hook. Surely anything I do to try to increase my childrens superiority will lessen their
feeling of inadequacy. While if I try to make them more insecure, Ill risk denting their
superiority. So the lesson I choose to extract is to muddle through, exactly as before.
lucy.kellaway@ft.com
Twitter: @lucykellaway
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b8dc242c-8e83-11e3-98c600144feab7de.html#axzz3YQttrEaQ