In my experience and knowledge I find that top rankers in school are not the most successful in later life. Why is that ? Every theory has exceptions but I am talking about the majority and in general.
I've done well for myself but I was definitely not a great student. My theory (which may be wrong) is that it has to do with the fact that some kids learn differently from others, and don't necessarily do well following the traditional public school model.<p>I was the kid that never did his homework, never read the books before the quiz, and always skated by, primarily because I only like doing things that I know I can be great at -- things I'm passionate about. I was always spending my time hacking on computers and learning things about software development while other kids were studying for the AP exam.<p>There are plenty of overachievers in school that go on to do great things, but public education doesn't seem to be well-suited for those of us that excel at taking a more unconventional path.
Even though i would like to agree with it, i believe it's a simple case of "sample bias". you deduct a general rule out of personal experience or anecdotal "evidence".<p>if someone does great at school and later sucks, then this is a story worth telling. if somebody sucked at school and then later achieved (relative) success then this is another great story. if somebody which had a strong interrest in chemistry and was an A+ student later becomes a chemistry master then this is a boring story, if somebody was a complete drunk and now holds speeches about neanderthal RNA then this is a good story (sidenode: yes, dominik i'm talking about you....).<p>but then again, i could be wrong, but i'm very sceptic of such claims - especially if they sound like a great story.
By allowing failure to be an option, the door is open for unconventional pursuits and thinking that lead to the biggest opportunities...<p>...or so an idealized explanation would go. There is nothing I have that actually proves that claim.