Do Diverse Groups Define Success Differently?

Melinda Carpenter
Teachers for Global Classrooms, India Cohort
Data Collected on 8 May 2015 and 18 June 2015
Introduction: In the modern age, success is often seen as the key to happiness. The two terms are even used
interchangeably. If one is successful, obviously one is happy and vice versa. For the research project assigned
for the Indian Cohort, I decided to use the deceivingly simple question: How do you define SUCCESS?
Procedure: Two test groups were used; students from Nicholas County High School, in West Virginia and
students from Shri Shikshyatan School in Kolkata, India. The test groups were of two different sexes, cultural
backgrounds, ethnicities, religions, family dynamics, and income levels.
In each setting, students were given paper and pencil, instructed not to speak to each other or look around, and
then given the research question. Students were allotted 15 minutes to think about a response and write it down.
Response papers were then collected. Student identities were not gathered in either setting. Ethnicities,
religions, family dynamic, and income levels were all rounded to the most common among each group, using
pre-collected school data. Students were not directly asked about any of these identifiers in order to protect
privacy.
Nicholas County High School Student Sample Demographic Norms: male, Caucasian, Christian, nuclear
family/divorced parents/single parent/child living with grandparents, middle to low socioeconomic status*
Shri Shikshyatan School Student Sample Demographic Norms: female, Indian, Hindu/Muslim, joint
family/nuclear family, middle to higher socioeconomic status*
*Please note that these are norms only for the students sampled for this specific research question. It should not be
assumed that these are the norms for the entirety of either school, school system, or state.

Key Factors of Success*

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

*as indicated by students at SSS, India

*as indicated by students at NCHS, WV

Data:
Results were categorized by what the students mentioned in their responses: who the student viewed as
successful (i.e. mother or father), material possessions, money, family, education, employment, happiness,

religion, travel, friendship, health, beauty, fame, etc. None of the categories were mentioned to the students
before or during the writing prompt to prevent swaying of student responses.

Results and Conclusion: As shown in the above graph, the Shri Shikshyatan School student sample had high
marks on education, employment, and working hard. Most of the SSS students had specific examples of
successful people, the majority being relatives. Possessions, money, and happiness did not rank high on the
SSS list. The Shri Shikshyatan School students have been taught to value a quality education in order to obtain
the most prestigious employment possible, in their case in the engineering, medical, and business fields.
Specific possessions or monetary amounts were rarely mentioned (I believe it is considered rude). It was
interesting to note that happiness did not rank highly among SSS students. After speaking with several teachers
at SSS, it was learned that in Indian culture puts enormous pressure on its students to work hard in school to
become doctors and engineers. This leads to high levels of stress for students and even cases of suicide.
The Nicholas County High School student sample had high marks on money. Employment, possessions, family,
and happiness were mentioned quite often, as well. Most NCHS students did not have specific examples of
successful people or types of employment, nor did the majority mention education. Nicholas County High
School students view money as success, but most do not have a clear plan on obtaining it. Most did not
mention a career path nor higher education. A few students mentioned plans to work in the coal industry, which
is a dying trade. The culture around Nicholas County High School does not emphasize an importance on
education as a key to success. They deem just having employment that will pay for a house, car, and bills as
sufficient. This was evident in the student writings. A higher emphasis was placed on happiness and family in
the NCHS sample group, than in the SSS sample group.
It was concluded that the results seem to coincide with each groups socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic
status (SES) is often measured as a combination of education, income and occupation. It is commonly
conceptualized as the social standing or class of an individual or group1. Families with high socioeconomic
status often have more success in preparing their children for school because they typically have access to a
wide range of resources to promote, emphasize, and support student development. High SES families often will
place emphasis on social status, educational fulfillment and long-term success. Families with low
socioeconomic status often lack the financial, social, and educational supports that characterize families with

high socioeconomic status. They often do not place emphasis on student development2. Low SES families often
will place emphasis on family, short term goals, and immediate happiness. If more time were available for this
research question, a definite connection between SES and descriptions of success would be investigated.

Resources:
1

http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-education.aspx

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/earlycld/ea7lk5.htm