"Big fish in an Average pond" or "average fish in top pond"? (SAT, colleges)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You certainly should have tried. This is where I think the role of parents is.
"Forcing" doesn't equal "guiding" - and an oz of wise parental guidance can be worth 20 years of random self-searching via trial-and-error.
The main reason I asked is because I heard some parents of older children arguing that there CAN be some pragmatic benefits in the "top fish in average pond" scenario.
I have several friends whose children attend the very top middle school and high-school in this larger area (both classic "pressure cookers", one feeds into the other).
Most of the families in these schools are highly educated, well-paid professionals - so unsurprisingly MOST children do very well academically.
One of them was talking about cases where high-performing (but not "the very top") children from such "pressure-cooker" schools were rejected by their university of choice because universities often cap the number of students to be admitted from specific high-performing high-schools that could theoretically send its entire class to top colleges.
Instead they prefer to take other top performing kids from less well-performing schools as well...to the point where a "top fish in an average pond" may be admitted ahead of a "second fish in a top pond", even if the latter may still have more merit, in absolute terms, than the former.
I am not sure if this really happens or not - but at least this is a theory that I heard.
People can confirm or refute it based on their experience.
I am just in the process of learning about such things - so any (coherent :-)) input is highly appreciated.
I have no numbers to prove this, but it is true that the colleges seem to have limits for the higher performing high schools, should you be looking ahead, in state. However, I know the OP lives in GA, as do I. Because of the Hope scholarship, admittance to flagship schools such as GA Tech and UGA is extremely competitive. In instances such as that, the big fish in a small pond can indeed be an advantage.
My youngest didn't have a problem getting admitted. In fact, despite not being in the top 10 of his class, in one of the "big pond" high schools, he was accepted into the honor's college there. However, many of his friends were devastated to get rejection letters, when they thought their transcripts would measure up. I can only attribute it to limits from certain well-considered high schools.
OP, none of this mattered at all until high school. Our elementary schools and middle schools ran the gamut, despite our attempts to make sure our kids had the best opportunities.
along the lines of what Mattie posted above, If you will be relying on an academic scholarship for higher ed, big fish in a small pond will have a higher ranking relative to peers in the school. Being average in a top school will get you nowhere when it comes to academic scholarship $.
If you aren't concerned with college expense or feel a specialty scholarship like athletic or music/arts is in the cards, then go with the big pond.
I agree with those who said it depends on the student.
Some will fair very well in a competitive environment where many are on equal footing. They may be better motivated to push themselves further because of the competition. Or they might be more challenged and able to pursue things they may not otherwise have available.
Others would do better to not be in such a competitive atmosphere. Some who are perfectionists, for example, would stress out completely in such a high level atmosphere. Others may need the feeling of success in order to be motivated to do well. Some may even thrive on the less is more environment due to their nature.
The "average fish in a top pond" will likely be above average when it comes to the "big pond" that is our entire country; when it comes to college admissions, this is good.
I went to a good university with a median ACT score of around 26, so a fair amount of kids that were in the ninetieth percentile. I came from a private high school taking tough honors and AP level courses and was a ho-hum student. I had no illusions about my talents and abilities coming into college, as I had peers going to Ivy league schools, West Point, Notre Dame and Northwestern, etc... I saw kids in college that were at the top of the heap in their respective small pond environments, that were shocked to find out that they were more or less average, or at least that there were lots of other kids as smart, or smarter than they were. I seriously think that it helped me realize that I wasn't all that special, and that while I was near the top according to some tests, there were tons of kids that were as good or better. Other kids had a hard wakeup on a number of fronts coming from small ponds.
^^^^This!
If we are using nationally-normed tests as reference point, my older son consistently scored in 99%. Was in the gifted program, got merit scholarship to private school, blah-blah. That was in primarily rural and small town area. We moved after his 7th grade to a place with much higher cost of living, higher concentration of people with higher level degrees etc. He is a sophomore in one of the best High Schools in the area, taking a very challenging course load. While he is doing fine, he definitely struggles with some of the classes. His biggest eye-opener was when he realized some kids had near-perfect scores on tests where he did poorly (70% or so).
However, he refuses to go one level down and take an easier course - they have three levels of the same math course, for example. He takes the highest, and while a middle-level course is also a weighted course, he feels he wouldn't learn nearly as much, although he might very well have an easy A there.
We found out long time ago with him that he has to be challenged, otherwise he just goofs off and doesn't learn anything. Might get a better grade, but the knowledge won't be there.
That's why my choice will always be "average fish in a top pond".
You certainly should have tried. This is where I think the role of parents is.
"Forcing" doesn't equal "guiding" - and an oz of wise parental guidance can be worth 20 years of random self-searching via trial-and-error.
At the time (late 80s/early 90s) Ivy schools didn't have the extreme prestige that they do today. When I graduated high school in 1991, the acceptance rate at the University of Pennsylvania was 47 percent! Yes, they were famous, but not in the same way as they are now. Since 1990 every president, most presidential nominees, and every Supreme Court justice has gone to either Harvard or Yale.
I grew up in Hawaii and even though I went to a top private school, the emphasis was going to a "good college." Most of us went to very good (and certainly expensive) colleges by most standards, but we weren't pushed, or even directed, towards the very best.
Only put your children in a top school if they actually are a top student. I went to a top 20 ranked high school in my state, and despite being a 95-99th percentile student all my life I got my ass kicked. Being a 4.0 gpa student at a top school might be a bit better than being a 4.0 student at an average school, but being a 3.5 student at a top school is considerably worse than being a 4.0 student at an average school. There was some upside for me in that my freshman and sophomore years in college were easier compared to my peers who came from average high schools, but they still managed to pull it off anyways.
Which scenario would you favor for your child and why ? I refer to public k-12 education.
Thank you so much.
I went to a high school with a huge and well-deserved pressure cooker reputation (I suspect in your neck of the woods, actually). There are plusses and minuses to going to that sort of school. On the whole I don't think a pressure cooker is a bad situation for kids of the intelligence you describe in the OP, but I think whether it's the optimal situation depends strongly on some specifics of your kid and their personality.
The pros are that you have a peer group where virtually everyone is going to college. He won't be ostracized for being intelligent. He'll have access to courses that will give him the tools to succeed in any college he may choose to go to, and access to resources that will help with getting into colleges and getting scholarships. You'll generally see very, very strong extracurriculars at that sort of school. It's likely, but not guaranteed, that he'll have to work hard and develop reasonably sophisticated habits of mind to get the grades he wants.
The cons are a workload that doesn't leave a lot of time for other interests and, as a result, a generally stressed-out student body. Because of the sheer number of high-achieving students, people who would've been great candidates for academic scholarships coming out of less competitive schools maybe didn't do as well as they would have on that score. I felt like a large percentage of people at my school were concerned with their grades and their resumes at the expense of being really interested in learning.
For a kid who has their heart set on being, say, a doctor, top pond is definitely the way to go. That sort of school is optimized for kids who want to enter the professions, and the competition will be nothing but helpful. For a kid who's a nonconformist, or who has a lot of deep passions they want to explore on their own, I'd be less inclined to go that route. Some of the rest is personality-dependent: are we talking about a competitive kid who'll be inspired by all the smart people around him and up his game, or a kid who will vastly underachieve if he feels like he can't be competitive for valedictorian? A kid who seems to thrive on stress or a kid who needs lots of downtime?
Assuming the child tends to perform in the approx. 5-10 percentile of the general population on a variety of standardized tests (ability and achievement) ..which option would you support if a parent were to ask your advice?
By "big fish in an average pond" I mean a child who tends to stand out in his school as one of the best, and the school itself is good to very good, but not necessarily "the best". The alternative would be the "average fish in a top-pond" where the child would probably be pretty average in the school context, because many other children excel there, usually because they come from highly educated, professional, overachiever type families.
This is what some people call "pressure cookers" while others see them as environments where "peer pressure" would encourage a solid education.
Which scenario would you favor for your child and why ? I refer to public k-12 education.
Thank you so much.
If it's a very good school and he's doing outstandingly, AND he's not bored, I'd keep him where he's happy. I don't like the sound of "pressure cooker". But if the child is the type who could rise to the occasion and meet the challenge, then the other school might be the better choice. Some kids don't handle that kind of stress well, though. There's certainly nothing wrong with a "very good" school!
You certainly should have tried. This is where I think the role of parents is.
"Forcing" doesn't equal "guiding" - and an oz of wise parental guidance can be worth 20 years of random self-searching via trial-and-error.
The main reason I asked is because I heard some parents of older children arguing that there CAN be some pragmatic benefits in the "top fish in average pond" scenario.
I have several friends whose children attend the very top middle school and high-school in this larger area (both classic "pressure cookers", one feeds into the other).
Most of the families in these schools are highly educated, well-paid professionals - so unsurprisingly MOST children do very well academically.
One of them was talking about cases where high-performing (but not "the very top") children from such "pressure-cooker" schools were rejected by their university of choice because universities often cap the number of students to be admitted from specific high-performing high-schools that could theoretically send its entire class to top colleges.
Instead they prefer to take other top performing kids from less well-performing schools as well...to the point where a "top fish in an average pond" may be admitted ahead of a "second fish in a top pond", even if the latter may still have more merit, in absolute terms, than the former.
I am not sure if this really happens or not - but at least this is a theory that I heard.
People can confirm or refute it based on their experience.
I am just in the process of learning about such things - so any (coherent :-)) input is highly appreciated.
In all the standardized tests I was always in the top 3%. GT classes, skipped most of first grade, offsite GT program through 6th grade 2 days a week, etc. The older I got the less my grades reflected all that brilliance. My parent(s) didn't push me, and I've paid for it my entire adult life. With different guidance I could have been a lot more than I am, I'm sure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
