I'm familiar with a few programmes where very few people are successful in terms
of achieving what the programme supposedly prepares the members for.
A few examples come to mind.

1) People in tennis academies that prepare players for the pro tour are
statistically very unlikely to play in the pro tour.

2) People in Ph.D maths programmes that supposedly prepare students to
do research in mathematics are statistically very unlikely to do
worthwhile research that anyone pays attention to. Over 90% of them
will do either insignificant research, no research, or not get the Ph.D at all.

3) People in MFA programmes in creative writing that supposedly prepare
students to write for a living, will usually be unable to sell their work for
any significant profit, and may not even get published.

Now, for such programmes, the leaders (teachers, heads etc.) will have
in mind certain intermediate goals that the members "should" be doing.
For example, in the case of tennis, they might say "You should train for at least
four hours every day. You should [in the case of men] be able to
consistently hit first serves at over 110 mph. etc etc"
In the case of maths, they might say:
"You should be able to read and understand papers in [research
specialization]."

Now, what I think happens, in these overwhelming-failure programmes, is that there emerges a massive discrepancy
in what people "should" do or be able to do and what people actually do and
are able to do.

So here we come to my actual question.
Can anyone recommend a good phrase for what I am calling a "should/is
distinction"? You could just call it "overwhelming failure" but I'm hoping
for a more specific description. It's such a common problem in
society -- think of all the failed actors, failed athletes, failed journalists etc.
etc. and I think it would greatly help if there was a more widely known
framework or language for discussing this problem.

Thank You.

Paul Epstein

On 10/28/2022 7:00 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> Can anyone recommend a good phrase for what I am calling a "should/is
> distinction"?

The only existing term I'm aware of that is close to what you're
describing is a "weed-out course." This term is usually reserved
for university-level classes, but it's clear what it would mean
more generally.

---
Tim Chow

On 10/28/2022 7:00 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's such a common problem in
> society -- think of all the failed actors, failed athletes, failed journalists etc.
> etc. and I think it would greatly help if there was a more widely known
> framework or language for discussing this problem.

By the way, I'm not sure that I personally would describe this
phenomenon as a "problem." Take competitive sports, for example.
Lots of people want to be world champion, but there can be only
one world champion at any given time (or maybe a couple, if there
is some kind of schism in the governing body). Given these facts,
it's inevitable that any effort to coach people to be world champion
is going to lead to what you call "overwhelming failure." I don't
see that the blame lies with the coaching efforts, unless you think
that coaching shouldn't exist at all.

---
Tim Chow

On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 1:48:14 PM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 10/28/2022 7:00 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It's such a common problem in
> > society -- think of all the failed actors, failed athletes, failed journalists etc.
> > etc. and I think it would greatly help if there was a more widely known
> > framework or language for discussing this problem.
> By the way, I'm not sure that I personally would describe this
> phenomenon as a "problem." Take competitive sports, for example.
> Lots of people want to be world champion, but there can be only
> one world champion at any given time (or maybe a couple, if there
> is some kind of schism in the governing body). Given these facts,
> it's inevitable that any effort to coach people to be world champion
> is going to lead to what you call "overwhelming failure." I don't
> see that the blame lies with the coaching efforts, unless you think
> that coaching shouldn't exist at all.
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

This is weird.
I meant to post this to alt.usage.english.
It's massively OT here.

Paul

On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 1:48:14 PM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 10/28/2022 7:00 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It's such a common problem in
> > society -- think of all the failed actors, failed athletes, failed journalists etc.
> > etc. and I think it would greatly help if there was a more widely known
> > framework or language for discussing this problem.
> By the way, I'm not sure that I personally would describe this
> phenomenon as a "problem." Take competitive sports, for example.
> Lots of people want to be world champion, but there can be only
> one world champion at any given time (or maybe a couple, if there
> is some kind of schism in the governing body). Given these facts,
> it's inevitable that any effort to coach people to be world champion
> is going to lead to what you call "overwhelming failure." I don't
> see that the blame lies with the coaching efforts, unless you think
> that coaching shouldn't exist at all.
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

Interesting though brief reply.
Maybe it's a lucky mistake that I posted here instead of alt.usage.english

Paul