Malcolm Gladwell: How many people truly pursue their abilities?
In asking this question, Malcolm Gladwell is referring to human capitalization rate, or “cap rate”—the percentage of people who actually pursue their abilities.
You may recognize Malcolm Gladwell as the bestselling author of Outliers and other thought-provoking works. His insights are often both exceptional and unconventional. One concept not covered in Outliers is the capitalization rate—or cap rate—a term borrowed from investing and financial analysis that Gladwell has applied in a human context.
LinkedIn image
Drawing on his background in psychology, sociology, and social science, he highlights the determinant importance of human cap rate—and the consequences that may accrue to individuals who fail to begin capitalizing on it during their K–12 years.
Unlocking human potential—measured by cap rate
In economics, human capital refers to the productivity of a nation’s potential workforce. The HSe4Metrics platform intervenes at the level of the individual K–12 student—while simultaneously scaling its impact across the entire K–12 population. Ultimately, the nation’s long-term productivity depends on the strength, preparedness, and readiness of its post–K–12 workforce pipeline.
The HSe4Metrics platform offers the potential for unprecedented cap rate development during the most effective window for that to occur: the K–12 years—and the critical years before kindergarten.
Click the + to see more and the — to see less.
The key metric the K–12 education system forgot to name
Outside this explainer site—and apart from Malcolm Gladwell’s sharp-witted use of the term—there is no widely recognized name for what we describe here as cap rate.
And yet cap rate holds immense potential for every K-12 student and throughout the post-K-12 lifetime—accordingly:
- Step one: give it a name—and cap rate works for now
- Step two: measure it
- Step three: recognize that the most strategic time to unlock cap rate is as early as possible during the K–12 years—not by happenstance decades after K–12 graduation
Cap rate—too important for a narrow Venn diagram overlap
HSe4Metrics insight: While below-minimum National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) performance logically suppresses cap-rate development, scores above the NAEP minimum by themselves do not guarantee a strong cap rate.
Visualize two circles in a Venn diagram: one representing high NAEP performance and the other representing strong cap rate.
When a formal process—such as the three steps outlined above—is not applied to cap-rate development, happenstance prevails and the overlap between these circles remains narrow, effectively denying strong cap-rate outcomes to the vast majority of K–12 students.
To paraphrase Gladwell's simple but eloquent question
What percentage of people—specifically K–12 students—with the ability to achieve something actually capitalize on that ability?
He cites a striking example from an East Tennessee high school, where only 1 in 6 students who received football scholarships ultimately went on to attend college. This disheartening cap rate of just 16.67% reveals a deeper problem. In a society intensely focused on athletics, one must ask: How much lower might cap rates be for K–12 students whose abilities lie in less celebrated fields?
Cap rate monitoring
Cap rate cannot be left to chance. U.S. competitiveness depends on accurately tracking how effectively—or ineffectively—the nation is developing its K–12 human capital. This requires intensive, continuous monitoring—both through external benchmarks such as NAEP and through internal, real-time processes that are integral to the HSe4Metrics platform innovation.
The Terman Study
Malcolm Gladwell references the Lewis Terman longitudinal study from the 1920s, which tracked individuals with IQs of 135 or higher. Terman predicted that genius-level intelligence would be the primary driver of long-term success across a 50-year span.
But within just 30 years, the data delivered a surprise: it wasn’t IQ that most strongly determined success. It was external factors.
From an early age, those factors included a student’s relationship with the education they received—and the quality of the environment in which that education was delivered. Some environments proved dramatically more enriching than others, shaped in part by the students who populated them and the opportunities those settings made possible.
Today, the HSe4Metrics innovation has the potential to become a powerful new variable in that equation—one designed not to leave success to chance, but to systematically raise outcomes at scale.
Did other federal agencies sound the alarm?
As the DOE fumbled on NAEP and cap-rate development, did any other federal agencies sound the alarm?
Take the Department of Labor. Its core metrics revolve around the size, education level, and trainability of the nation’s workforce. At some point, surely a Secretary of Labor had to recognize the direct connection between collapsing NAEP performance and future workforce readiness. After all, the potential loss of half the nation’s talent pipeline is not a rounding error—it’s an economic warning siren.
Fast forward to today. As global manufacturing leaders such as Apple, Amgen, and NVIDIA consider expanding operations inside the United States, one question consistently rises to the top: Is the American workforce ready?
Key code 1743