Is it age or opportunity?

     Hi guys! This post was inspired by Kristine's post "Talent or Age?" where she talked about Malcolm Gladwell's theory that the month you are born in is key to your success, mainly because the older you are, the more experience you have and the better you perform. While I see the logic behind this argument, I'm still hesitant to believe that age is more important than opportunity because my own experiences tell me otherwise.
     Born on November 18, 1998, I was put into school a year earlier than I should have been (I went in the 2003-04 school year, even though I was born past the recommended September deadline). I have always been one of the youngest in our grade, finally turning 16 while most other people will be turning 17, and yet, most of the time, I don't think it really holds me back. Yes, it sucks that I can't drive or get a job yet, but I don't feel like it has held me back in academics at all. I'd like to think that because we had similar opportunities, I was able to mature at the same rate as everyone else. In fact, I sometimes think that the only reason I feel so determined to do good in school is because I've spent my whole life trying to show that my age doesn't hold me back.
    I'd always try to keep my age a secret from my teachers because every once in a while, I'd have a teacher that treat me differently because of it. There were times in Jacobsma's class where he would call me out as the "baby" of the group, especially before watching videos or saying things that younger students might not have known or understood. A few weeks ago, when Garvin found out I was still 15, she was shocked, and now every time my age is mentioned, she gives me this weird "I know something that you don't" smile. Despite the fact that teachers automatically assumed I would have a harder time understanding certain things because of my age, it just made me more determined to learn.   Being surrounded by older people didn't hurt me: it helped me. There were times when I would stay up all night studying for a test just because I wanted to get the same grades as the older kids, or when I would ask my close friends about certain social and cultural references that i didn't really understand, both because of my age and my protective parents. So yes, sometimes I would have to put in a little extra effort to understand things, but if I was surrounded by people who were younger than me and didn't have to put in any effort, would that be any better?
     All in all, despite the assumption that my age would have a negative effect on my education, I feel that my age didn't matter much at all. I was still in the same classes as everyone else, learning the same material, being offered the same help and opportunities, and in the end, it comes down to how hard I'm willing to work, the same way it does for all of you. Being younger doesn't make me dumber the same way being older doesn't automatically make you smarter. So in this case, I think Gladwell's argument was more of a hasty generalization (I finally get to use one of the argument terms we learned!) based off of one hockey team.

What do you guys think? Does it depend on what type of talent or skill we're talking about (academics, sports, artistic ability)? Or does it just depend on the person?

Once again. sorry for the really long post, and I hope some of you actually make it all the way through it :)

-Lina :)