It is curious how students of all latitudes and longitudes mismatch the concept of being “good” with the concept of being “famous”. In statistical terms (and therefore objectively correct), if you are twenty years old and want to gamble on getting “good” in a given field of human activity, you will achieve complete success.
Once we set a given activity xyz, given enough years of practice and iterations, we will undoubtedly succeed, getting excellent at it. At the opposite, if you are twenty years old and you want to gamble on getting “famous”, this statistically bounds to bankruptcy. If we have a room with ten thousand students, only one of them might become famous (maybe) in a given field of activity. Not to mention this other fact that becoming “good” is a linear function (99%) of your skills, exercise and motivation. Whereas the mechanisms that regulate the getting “famous” machine are 99% controlled by other people.
As a corollary of this law (“Young man try to be good, not to get famous”) we have a world filled with good people who are not famous and famous people who aren’t good.