"Big fish in an Average pond" or "average fish in top pond"? (university, degrees)
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.
Did you mean 90-95th percentile, meaning the child scores higher that 90-95% of the test population? Or did you actually mean 5-10th percentile, meaning the child scores lower that 90-95% of the test population?
If you mean the first and the child is a high achiever, I don't see why you wouldn't give the child the best academic environment possible. Personally, though, I think the "big fish in a little pond" vs "little fish in a big pond" is a more important consideration when it comes to higher education than k-12. For k-12, like I said, you just choose the best option available.
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.
We sought the top pond scenario during our several relocations around the country. It helps to have competitive children who tend to thrive under those conditions. But, that applied to only two of ours, the third was a middle-of-the-road type. He still benefited overall I think. The top pond schools frequently have better facilities, and strong teachers.
Last edited by toobusytoday; 12-10-2013 at 05:35 AM..
Reason: removed previously deleted quote and your comment
I was an average fish in a top pond. I felt like all my friends were smarter than me and I had a really hard time in high school.
When I got to university I was shocked how easy it was, I was getting straight A's doing barely anything at all. I got in a grad program and couldn't believe the people around me were in the same program as me, it felt like they apparently just let anyone in.
However, my self esteem never recovered from my high school days. Every situation I go in I assume everyone is brighter, smarter than me, then am just more shocked and dumbfounded that they are not. For me, I would have rather been a top dog at an average high school.
Did you mean 90-95th percentile, meaning the child scores higher that 90-95% of the test population? Or did you actually mean 5-10th percentile, meaning the child scores lower that 90-95% of the test population?
If you mean the first and the child is a high achiever, I don't see why you wouldn't give the child the best academic environment possible. Personally, though, I think the "big fish in a little pond" vs "little fish in a big pond" is a more important consideration when it comes to higher education than k-12. For k-12, like I said, you just choose the best option available.
I meant 90-95%. The child is generally doing very well.
We sought the top pond scenario during our several relocations around the country. It helps to have competitive children who tend to thrive under those conditions. But, that applied to only two of ours, the third was a middle-of-the-road type. He still benefited overall I think. The top pond schools frequently have better facilities, and strong teachers.
So it looks like there's pretty strong consensus towards the "top pond" option.
I was simply curious as to which option tends to gather more support. Thanks.
Last edited by toobusytoday; 12-10-2013 at 05:36 AM..
I was a big fish in a small pond and I was bored most of the time. I went to a good private college (top 50, but not top 10) and always wondered it would have been like at Yale or Harvard. I had the intellect to go to those schools, but at 16 or 17 I didn’t know the difference between top 50 vs. a top 10. It didn’t occur to me to apply.
I was a big fish in a small pond and I was bored most of the time. I went to a good private college (top 50, but not top 10) and always wondered it would have been like at Yale or Harvard. I had the intellect to go to those schools, but at 16 or 17 I didn’t know the difference between top 50 vs. a top 10. It didn’t occur to me to apply.
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 completely understand how the crazy competitiveness (and often Narcissism) of our times can create such violent reactions and resentments; but still, you gotta be able to read text before you go bananas like that.
I reported the 90-95 percentiles at which the kid has performed in just about everything he has been measured on so far - simply because it is relevant to the context in question. Obviously, a "pressure cooker" for a struggling kid could be very bad.
He is a child who does very well, in general; but obviously, if I really thought he was "better than anyone else", I wouldn't worry about the "less-than-first-in-top-pond" scenario.
Given he also has "attention deficit" problems, I can see how the boy could be simply average at a "pressure-cooker"; which doesn't mean he couldn't do very well there.
We are just trying to get a better understanding of the two scenarios and which one would most likely serve this type of child better.
Last edited by toobusytoday; 12-10-2013 at 05:37 AM..
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.
I would go with "Average fish in Top Pond". In fact you could make the case that this describes my own two sons. They were often, but not always, on the Honor Roll in school even though they did "always" score in the top xx% on standardized tests. My kids went to our small local Catholic school (elder one graduated last year; younger one is still a sophomore). They take some honors classes and they do pretty well. If they had gone to public school they would have been in all the "brain" classes.
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.
