Here is an essay (GRE Issue task) on the following topic:
"In our time, specialists of all kinds are highly overrated. We need more generalists – people who can provide broad perspectives."
I'd be much appreciated if you overviewed any part of these essay and provide me with a piece of advice on how to improve it. Thanks in advance.
There are a lot of professions, and within each profession some members may be called generalists and some other – specialists. Within a single study or work field a generalist is a person whose knowledge coverage is "horizontal", that is, a person is experienced in most of the field themes, but not too deep in each theme. A specialist is a person, whose knowledge coverage is "vertical", that is, a person is not necessarily familiar with all directions is a specified field, but instead one is highly experienced in a few of them. The topic claims specialists are currently highly overrated relatively to generalists, and implies that it is not right. To decide who is more values for society, it is necessary to compare generalists' and specialists' functions in a real-world professional spheres.
The first example is a doctor's profession. In a hospital, a generalist is a therapist, who is experienced in most kinds of human diseases and is able to consult on any problem, though not necessarily fully enough to resolve a problem completely without resorting to help of a specialist. Therapists may fully resolve not too difficult cases of general diseases. For instance, an uncomplicated flu may be cured by a therapist. However, even the simplest disease may progress in an unusual way – the primary disease may cause collateral diseases, like angina may cause problems with the heart. In this case some specialists should join the treatment process, since the heart work peculiarities are beyond the therapist's competence. In the above-mentioned example, a cardiologist should scan the patients heart and suggest appropriate moves. In some cases, therapists simply cannot do absolutely anything, but a specialist of a more narrow field is required. For example, if a person broke an arm, then a surgeon should work with this person, while a therapist is not able to help this person anyhow.
Another generalist-specialist separation may be observed in academia. In an elementary school, there are teachers who teach a little bit of everything on the elementary level – reading, writing, speaking properly, doing basic arithmetics, and so forth. These teachers are generalists, they are undoubtedly useful and they are in demand. However, not each of them is able to teach more narrow courses where more deep knowledge of a subject is required. Not every elementary school teacher is able to drive a class of higher mathematics. These separation in academia may be extended to the university level. At university, the most of professional staff are specialists, but not generalists. Each of professors is a professional in a particular field doing some scientific research in it. If one were a generalist, it would be quite a problem to invent something new in a certain area. Major discoveries being made near the utmost leaves of a knowledge tree, but not near its roots, where everything have already been discovered decades or even hundreds of years ago. Of course, its possible to make a major breakthrough in a foundation of a certain field, but it is more likely to happen in some young and undeveloped spheres of science, like genetics, but not in classical sciences like physics or mathematics.
Almost in any sphere there is a separation onto generalists and specialists, and both of these professionals are working towards making benefits for society. However, they indeed are rated differently, that is specialists are rated as more valuable for society if measure it by the wage level. That is probably because it is more difficult to become a specialist: it will take months of study to upgrade from an elementary school teacher to a high school subject teacher and years for a therapist to become a surgeon or for a high-school teacher to become a solid-state physics professor. That is why there are more generalists than specialists. Concerning the question whether the specialists are overrated, it depends on a particular sphere and context. If talk about science, it is difficult to overrate specialists; specialists are the only kind of professionals who make advances in science. Meanwhile, in medicine, generalists, that are therapists, may be more important since people more frequently get flu than brake their limbs, so there is much more work for therapists. The advantages of generalists are that they are more flexible, that is, able to work on quite diverse tasks and that it is more easy, quick, and cheap to become a generalist. The disadvantage is that generalists are not able to tackle with too specific tasks. Advantages of specialists are that they are able to solve very specific tasks and they are able to move science forward. The disadvantage of specialists is that their skills are too narrow, so that they will not be able to solve "simple" problems out of their competence area. Who is more valued, that is who should be rated more highly, depends on society's requirements in a particular region and time.
Is it better to be a specialist or a generalist when furthering your web design career? It’s a question that often gets discussed with varied opinions.
In one of those oddly regular coincidences in life as I began working on this post about generalists and specialists, I was pointed to an article and podcast with some of those opinions.
The article, All Hail the Generalist, makes the argument that business is showing declining returns from the specialist. The 8 minute podcast from Pagebreak discusses the article.
I think both specialists and generalists have important roles to play. Each has its own strength and both contribute to the bottom line.
I’d characterize myself as more of a generalist. I get bored doing the same thing all the time and enjoy the challenge of being thrown into something new. I like seeing how seemingly disparate things relate to one another.
Look at any group of objects or concepts and patterns will emerge. Specialist and generalists are both able to recognize patterns. It’s a characteristic of human beings to form and find patterns. The difference between specialists and generalists is they’re looking at different things and so they discover different patterns.
- Specialist — looks deeply at a specific discipline to find the patterns within it
- Generalist — looks at different disciplines to find the patterns across them
In a sense they work perpendicular to each other and the patterns one sees are often obscured from the other. It’s likely why we sometimes think the patterns another recognizes are pulled from thin air. We simply can’t see the same dimension they see, since we’re focused on another.
You’ve probably seen a representation of what a 2-dimensional world would look like to a 1-dimensional being. The 1d being would see a line where a plane exists, since the being is unaware of the other dimension.
You can think of specialists and generalists in a similar way. Each is looking at something represented by 2 dimensions, though a single dimension. The specialist sees one dimension while the generalist sees the other and because of that each sees patterns the other doesn’t.
Both types of patterns are important, though.
- within — leads to frequent and gradual improvement in a specific industry
- across — leads to infrequent, though sweeping disruptions and new industries
The difference between specialists and generalists is they’re looking at different things and so they discover different patterns.
Imagine one person dedicates his life to painting. All he does all day long is break out one canvas after another and paints. Another person dedicates her life to practicing as many creative pursuits as possible. Some days she paints. Other days she plays music or writes or sculpts, or designs.
The first person likely becomes the better painter. He’ll come to better understand the differences between one canvas and the next or how different kinds of paint interact with each other or with sunlight. He’ll have practiced many ways to apply a dab of paint and know how to communicate better through the medium of paint on canvas.
The second person likely gains a greater understanding of art and creativity as a whole. She sees the connection between the brush strokes in a painting with the rhythm of sounds in a musical composition and the rhythm of words in writing. She may not know the best way to mix different paints to product a particular color, but she better understands the effects of color and its relationship to the rhythmic patterns mentioned above.
Again both are important. Each sees different patterns due to the different things they encounter and study.
Specialists and Generalists
The time and effort it takes to go from complete novice to an advanced beginner is relatively little compared to the time it takes to become an expert. The learning for the novice is wider, while the learning for the expert is deeper.
Despite the shallow learning, by the time someone becomes an advanced beginner they have likely seen and gained familiarity with the majority of the entire discipline. It’s a shallow familiarity, but it’s a wide awareness.
On the other hand the deeper learning of the specialist takes him to places the generalist never sees and may never be aware exists.
For years becoming a specialist has usually been the way to advance your career. Where specialists are seen as experts and authorities, generalist have often been seen as drifters unable to focus on something long enough to become a specialist.
However, the world needs both. Each discovers new solutions to existing problems and new problems to solve. They just do it in different dimensions.
Where the specialist studies a particular tree in the forest and understands it better than anyone, the generalist sees the whole forest and knows a little something about each of them. The specialist could figure out what is needed to help the one tree thrive where it is. The generalist can observe the tree might better survive in a different part of the forest.
The specialist is better at dealing with a specific situation he or she has studied in depth. The generalist is better at dealing with the unknown because he or she can quickly see familiar patterns from the known in the unknown.
The first to market will likely be a generalist. The one who focuses on making something better or developing a niche within a market will likely be the specialist. If you need a better mousetrap find a specialist in mousetraps. If you aren’t sure if a mousetrap is what you need, find a generalist.
The question of specialist or generalist isn’t a case of either or. The answer to the question posed by this post is yes. It’s no. It’s not that one is better than the other. They’re just different and equally valuable in different ways. Each sees patterns in things that the other can’t see.
The specialist sees deep patterns in a specific subject. The generalist sees wide patterns connecting a variety of subjects. Patterns in different dimensions.
I suspect there’s a bit of left brain, right brain thing here, with the logical and analytical among us more likely to go the specialist route, while the more creative among us tends toward the generalist. Just a hunch on my part.
Which are you? Specialist or generalist? Do you think one should be more valued in society or do you agree with me that both are important?
« Prev PostNext Post »
Download a free sample from my book, Design Fundamentals.