In his 2008 book, The Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell introduced a revolutionary idea that has changed how our society views success and practice. This idea is the “Ten Thousand Hour Rule.” Gladwell’s assertion is that “. . .ten thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert--in anything.” I agree with Gladwell to a great extent that rigorous practice is necessary to become a world-class expert, but I disagree to a great extent that 10,000 hours is the amount of practice necessary to be an expert in any field. I believe that the 10,000 hour rule is too narrow-minded and specific, and thus, cannot apply to everybody and every situation. Depending on the activity and the person, mastery can be achieved before 10,000 hours. Furthermore, it has not …show more content…
There are many instances of people rising to elite levels without having 10,000 hours of practice, and while Gladwell says that “Ten thousand hours is the magic number of greatness,” studies show that every activity, and every person, is different, meaning that the amount of time needed to become an expert varies greatly with the situation. Gladwell’s 10,000 Hour Rule is too one-dimensional and focuses on just one element of what it takes to be successful He fails to address all other factors, such as practice intensity, coaching, and the way the practice is conducted. While Gladwell is correct that practice is essential to mastery, his 10,000 hour rule misses the mark due to how specific and narrow-minded it is. Gladwell’s 10,000 hour rule rule fails to predict whether or not someone will become an expert because the sheer number of time is not the single determining factor of success; there are various factors that contribute to whether or not someone will achieve