In mid-December, I was invited to give a “Last Lecture”. This is an excellent idea, to invite lecturers to give a talk that summarises their parting advice to students even before they embark on their career.

Summarising my thoughts in one 40-minute talk was harder than I thought but I knew my very first point: be a “ranger”. Earlier in the year, I had stumbled upon a book by a sports journalist, David Epstein, titled “Range: How Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World” published 2020. The book begins with how when one asks successful people for their secret to success, many will say: this is how I did it, but do not follow my path. As I thought of my own path, it struck me that that was exactly what I would tell those who ask me.

My educational path is unusual. I did double-maths and physics and was headed to hardcore engineering, which was where most of my classmates landed when they won scholarships. I ended up in law. And then in a newspaper working as a journalist. And then doing a PhD in mass media, when there was no communication school in Singapore. I would echo the remarks of those interviewed by Epstein: do not follow my path.  

At a superficial level, following that line of don’t-follow-my-path thinking, it would mean that the path to success is not to follow the path of successful people. Of course, being more thoughtful (and, I would say, theoretical) there is a principle to be abstracted: and that is that one should “range”, ie try a variety of experiences because one never knows how events develop.

In the book, the contrasting metaphor is Tiger Woods vs Roger Federer. We know Tiger Woods as the golf prodigy who learned to play golf well before even going to elementary school. That is a common understanding of success: it’s Malcolm Gladwell’s 10,000-hours-of-practice model. Start early and keep on drilling, in both senses.

In contrast, Roger Federer, a world tennis champion, played different sports such as basketball and football when he was young, before settling on tennis. This is the less publicised model for success but one that is more common for most people. (There is a YouTube video of Gladwell and Epstein talking about their perspectives.)

The academic response to reconcile the two contrasting approaches would be the failsafe academic answer: it depends. It depends if the sport is “static” such as golf or chess, then 10,000 hours of practice can lead to success. On the other hand, if the sport is “dynamic” such as tennis, then a “ranging” approach could work better.

In today’s world, where there are so much more options in work and business, I think that a ranging approach offers even more scope. There are so many interesting and varied jobs and possibilities. Who could have guessed that there could be an occupation label such as “influencer”?

It is possible to succeed by specialising. In my own household, my wife is the specialist—she did accounting and has stayed in that line throughout her working career. As a volunteer in non-profit organisations, she has ended up being the treasurer.

But for more of us, the ranging approach is worth trying.

In the metaphor of Tiger Woods, Epstein ponders the current fate of the former golf champion. Perhaps having a ranging approach might better equip him to address the dynamic nature of life itself.

Go range.

Submission by:

Professor Ang Peng Hwa

Director, NTU-USP