In defence of "deferred success"

You’ve all been laughing at the idea that schools should replace “failure” with “deferred success.” And you’re all wrong. It’s a good idea.

Some of the greatest businessmen and innovators have regarded failure precisely in this way.

“Failure is the opportunity to begin again, more intelligently” – Henry Ford.

“If I find 10,000 ways something won't work, I haven't failed. I am not discouraged, because every wrong attempt discarded is often a step forward” – Thomas Edison.

“I view this year's failure as next year's opportunity to try it again. Failures are not something to be avoided. You want to have them happen as quickly as you can so you can make progress rapidly.” – Gordon Moore.

Failure teaches us what doesn’t work. It shows us that we’ve got to do something different. It is, therefore, often a stepping stone to success – an essential part of the learning process.

I’m learning to play guitar. A few months ago, there were several things I couldn’t play which I can play now. My failure to play them then was, literally, deferred success – because it spurred me on to practice more.

In this sense, there’s no harm at all in rebranding failure as deferred success.

They key thing is that the stress is upon “deferred”, not “success.” Telling a student s/he is a deferred success only makes sense if you tell them why the success is deferred – that you show them how they can improve; one suggestion, of course, could be that they give up and try donig something else entirely.

Indeed, redescribing failure could be a force for higher standards. If examiners become more willing to use the words “deferred success” than “failure”, they’ll stop cutting the pass-marks for exams to absurdly low levels.

So, there is a good case for using the phrase deferred success instead of failure. Far from being a symptom of dumbing down, it could be a way of raising standards.

Could it be that those who object to the idea are those who regard education as a way of branding people, rather than as a means of developing their potential?

Comments

[Daniel Cowdrill]

Your'e quite right. Both the article by Martyn Griffiths and my own comment, point out that failure is central to success. If you replace failure with 'deferred success' you are simply making the presumption that you will suceeed. This in a way takes the edge off experiencing failure, and forms less of an impetus to identify ways to improve. Furthermore, what if a student who has taken a particular subject simply isn't able to do better. In exams, a fail indicates that a student has been unable to meet the required score for the lowest grade. This might indicate that the student is better sutited for another subject.

[James Hamilton]

You're quite right, although I wish that you and the coiners of "deferred success" meant the same thing. My dreary suspicion is that all they want to do is downgrade success, not create a learning curve.

[Laban Tall]

"Could it be that those who object to the idea are those who regard education as a way of branding people, rather than as a means of developing their potential?"

No it couldn't.

(I presume by 'branding' you mean pigeon-holing rather than in the marketing or hot irons sense)

[rjw]

it's very comforting to read that failure is a springboard to success :) hope this isn't biasing our judgement of the merits of the case (sorry -couldn't resist)

[EU Serf]

Failure can be a spring board to success or a road to further failure.

As James says, the coiners of this phrase are against competition rather than recognising that we learn from failure.

[Tom Morris]

Part of being successful is recognising your failures and cutting your losses. For instance, I was at a crap university last year, doing a pointless course. I had to admit that it was a 'failure', cut my losses and move on.

But you can't cut your losses if you don't realise your losses. Saying that it's not a failure is mere sophistry, even with this justification.