---

原作者：佚名

我曾经对比过中国一流大学和美国一流大学。

在中国，好大学都长一个模样–争的都是科研经费多少、论文数量、院士人数等。如果把中国名牌大学简介中关于地点和校名的短语用“某地某校”替代，那些介绍几乎是一个模子刻出来的。

我们常常认为研究型大学就是好大学，于是，二流、三流的大学都想把自己建成研究型大学，这种事情显然是不可能的，因为它违背了“众争勿往”的原则。

美国的好大学则不同，每一所学校都强调自己的特色，排名前 25位的大学都不同。它们在设置学科时会考虑必要性，会考虑某个学科是否已经有太多学校设立了。

中国不仅大学缺乏特色，中国的学生和家长在申请名校时的
做法也是千篇一律。先拼成绩，成绩接近就拼特长，比如奥数、
音乐、体育等。

实际上，当一种特长被很多人掌握之后，就不叫特长了。

真正的特长要根据孩子的特点来发展。一个身高1.6米的男生，投篮再准也成不了专业篮球运动员； 同样，一个数学在班上排名后50%的学生非要学奥数，也是勉为其难。

在美国申请好大学，特长要有创意，被录取的人常常不是成绩最好的，而是有鲜明特色的。

---

2017年，英国记者戴维·古德哈特（David Goodhart，wikipedia介绍, x帐号），提出了“Somewhere people” (SP)和“Anywhere people” (AP)的概念来分析英国社会阶级。

A fault line in Britain existed, David Goodhart suggested, between “Somewheres”, those people firmly connected to a specific community which consists of about half the population, “Inbetweeners”, and “Anywheres”, those usually living in cities, who are socially liberal and well educated, the latter being only a minority of about 20% to 25% of the total population, but who in fact had “over-ruled” the attitudes of the majority. （维基百科）

He argues that the key faultline in Britain and elsewhere now separates those who come from Somewhere – rooted in a specific place or community, usually a small town or in the countryside, socially conservative, often less educated – and those who could come from Anywhere: footloose, often urban, socially liberal and university educated. He cites polling evidence to show that Somewheres make up roughly half the population, with Anywheres accounting for 20% to 25% and the rest classified as “Inbetweeners”. （英国《卫报》）

Somewhere people, 扎根者。约占英国人口的50%。对他们居住的地方有着强烈的认同感和依赖性。他们的流动性较弱，可能一生都生活在一个地方，他们的起落荣辱都与这个地方息息相关。

Anywhere people, 迁移者 。约占英国人口的20%-25%。流动性强，适应性高。他们通常居住在大城市，受过高等教育，为了工作或其他机会，乐于搬到不同的地方生活。他们对特定地点的依恋感较弱。

古德哈特认为，这种区别正变得比传统的政治立场划分更重要。在全球化的背景下，这种对比更加鲜明。

全球化极大地惠及了“迁移者”。高技能人才，例如程序员、企业家、研究人员和跨国公司员工，可以轻松地迁移, 到世界各地机会最好的地方工作。他们可以远程工作，通常不必固定在一个地方。

然而，“扎根者”往往被抛在后面。他们的生计与特定地点紧密相连，使他们容易受到全球经济变化的影响。

例如，一个农民可能会因为进口商品价格更低而失业。他们缺乏适应这些变化的技能和流动性。

全球化使得“迁移者”更容易在世界各地移动。

改进的通讯、标准化的基础设施和多元文化，使得人们更容易在任何地方生活和工作。

在这个年轻人全球串访的时代，要成为“迁移者”，我建议：

1. 学习英语:  熟练掌握英语, 对于获得全球机会至关重要。永远不要受时代舆论风气的影响，要有大历史观，要有能力从世界看中国, 从世界看世界。
2. 学会学习（learning how to learn）:  能够快速学习、独立思考和高效工作。
3. 掌握全球适用的技能:  学习一项能够远程工作并通过互联网获得收入的技能（例如自媒体、编程、社交媒体营销、跨境电商等等）。
4. 综合灵活运用以上技能获取机会:  打开通往更大世界的大门。

---

【备注】

全球迁移的情况，也有负面作用。这里有一些讨论：

Is Britain becoming too diverse to sustain the mutual obligations behind a good society and the welfare state? （2004年）

[The author] argued that there was a trade-off between increased diversity, through mass immigration, and social solidarity, in the form of the welfare state.

Goodhart said that for citizens willingly to hand some of their hard-earned cash to others via their taxes, they needed to feel a basic level of affinity with those others.

He wrote that in the homogenous societies of old that was never a problem: citizens felt the mutual obligation of kinship.

But in the highly mixed societies of today, such fellow-feeling was strained. Goodhart offered copious data to show that people bridled at subsidising the housing, education or welfare benefits of those whose roots in the society were shallow.

As he wrote, “To put it bluntly – most of us prefer our own kind.”

关键词释义：

A trade-off (or tradeoff) is a situational decision that involves diminishing or losing on quality, quantity, or property of a set or design in return for gains in other aspects. In simple terms, a tradeoff is where one thing increases, and another must decrease.(wikipedia)

a balance achieved between two desirable but incompatible features; a compromise. (oxford languages)

a balancing of factors all of which are not attainable at the same time （m-w.com)

accepting something bad in order to have something good (dictionary.cambridge.org)

~动词：exchange something of value, especially as part of a compromise.

（例句）”the government traded off economic advantages for political gains”

写作版本记录：

2025/10/3，首次发布。

---

当这个问题被你问了一千遍的时候，

再问一遍！

一位冠军教练员，相信自己，相信自己的学生，相信自己和学生都拥有无限的成长空间，并不断地逼问自己去寻找改进的方法。

一个自认为已经掌握全部问题答案的领导者，不会再提出任何有意义的问题。这就是停滞的开始。

不要吃老本，要立新功。

智人（homo sapiens）学习新事物的速度，超过环境变化的速度，最终才让自己这个物种在蓝色星球站稳脚跟，兴旺发达。

副标题：为什么最佳运动员往往不是最佳教练员？

---

这是冠军级教练员的入门课。

Short answer:

because being a top performer and being a top teacher/leader are two different skill-sets.

---

(注：学生就像运动员。尖子生就像一流运动员。学生不断钻研和提高自我的应试技能/ 竞技技能。而老师需要帮助学生识别心理、生理和技能上的障碍，并帮助克服障碍！因为老师相比学生，具备更高水平、更全面和深刻的见识、经验和实践型科学方法论；老师想方设法和学生形成一个合作团队，就像冠军教练和运动员是一个合作团队，发挥1+2+3 >100的功效。同理，神枪手和教导员（甚至将军）所掌握的技能组合是不一样的。）

The scientific literature shows that playing skill alone is a poor predictor of coaching effectiveness — instead coaching success depends on pedagogy, communication, emotional intelligence, leadership, and task-/practice-design — skills that elite athletes don’t automatically have.

(注：教练员是一个高度专业化、科学化的职业。)

Below it indicates the main mechanisms and cite research evidence for each point.

Why the best athletes often aren’t the best coaches — mechanisms + evidence

1. Expertise doesn’t equal teachability (the “expert-blind-spot” / expertise-reversal).
   • Experts develop automatic, highly compressed knowledge and often omit steps they find “obvious.” That makes it hard for them to explain, sequence, or scaffold learning for novices. Cognitive-science research on the expertise-reversal / expert-blind-spot phenomenon documents these effects and explains why instructional methods that work for experts can fail novices. SpringerLink+1
2. Coaching is largely a pedagogical + interpersonal job, not just technical demonstration.
   • Effective coaches design practice, give appropriate feedback, structure progressions, and adapt instruction to each athlete’s learning stage — skills studied by coaching researchers and shown to predict athlete outcomes. Studies find coach behaviours (supportive vs controlling), transformational leadership, and coach-athlete relationship quality strongly link to athlete motivation, learning, and performance. PMC+1
3. Emotional intelligence & relationship skills matter — and these are independent of playing ability.
   • Meta-analyses and systematic reviews show emotional intelligence (EI) and quality coach–athlete relationships are important determinants of athlete performance, burnout, and satisfaction. High EI helps coaches manage athlete anxiety, build trust, and keep athletes in optimal states — things world-class athletes don’t automatically know how to do with others. ResearchGate+1
4. Psychological and leadership skills distinguish top coaches.
   • Quantitative research on Olympic and world-class coaches finds psychological skills and leadership behaviours discriminate the very best coaches from merely good ones — again a different profile from what makes someone an elite performer. In short: coaching excellence has its own psychological fingerprint. ScienceDirect
5. Empirical studies: ex-pro status is not a reliable predictor of coaching efficiency.
   • Econometric and league-level studies (for example analyses of Spanish professional basketball) show that being a former pro player does not guarantee coaching efficiency — foreign coaches or coaches with better pedagogical/management profiles are sometimes more efficient. Systematic reviews of coach-education interventions also show coach training (pedagogy) improves outcomes — which implies training/teaching skill matters more than playing pedigree. ResearchGate+1
6. Real-world variability & selection effects.
   • Some superstar players become excellent coaches (when they also develop teaching, leadership and organisational skills). But many do not because (a) they received coaching aimed at making them the best rather than teaching how to teach, and (b) organisations sometimes hire famous ex-players for status/marketing rather than instructional competence. Sports journalism and reviews note many high-profile examples of great players who struggled in coaching roles. SI+1