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.
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.
My advice? Don't go the "pressure cooker" route. Make sure your child is getting a solid, decent education, let him excel in his environment and he will be just fine. My fear with the pressure cooker route is that he/she could either burn out or feel that they are not good enough to compete and simply do nothing. It's not worth it. If he/she is getting a solid education AND has a happy school life too, that is a good thing. Many kids don't reflect well on their pre-secondary school years either do to academic pressures or bullying.
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'd go with big fish in a little pond. Why? Because I chose little fish in a big pond for dd#2 and realize I shouldn't have. As a big fish, you develop self confidence born of ability and accomplishment. As a little fish, you're constantly struggling and someone always beats you. As the big fish, you get the chance to help others. As the little fish you're the one needing the help.
I'd go with big fish in a little pond. Why? Because I chose little fish in a big pond for dd#2 and realize I shouldn't have. As a big fish, you develop self confidence born of ability and accomplishment. As a little fish, you're constantly struggling and someone always beats you. As the big fish, you get the chance to help others. As the little fish you're the one needing the help.
This one makes sense too.
Then again, the prospect of always having great role models around you and becoming influenced by their habits and preferences (reading more sophisticated books, being able to argue your case clearly, being curious about the world, studying hard, etc) vs. other habits (video games, facile entertainment, addressing academics superficially) - that weighs quite a bit too in my book.
I believe peer pressure during the formative years has is tremendously powerful. As a parent, you can educate/guide/influence your own child against a certain trend - only so much.
At some point the child will need not just you - but also the collective power of many other parents who guide their children in the same direction you want to guide yours. "It takes a village" sort of thing.
In this case, it's hard to tell which option is best because both have pluses and minuses.
Those people who said it depends on the child's personality are probably right.
This child clearly wants to do well and he does very well most of the times; but I wouldn't go so far to say he is Type A competitive. He is also not the type who gets discouraged terribly just because someone else is ahead of him.
He is, however, very impressionable and somewhat easily swayed by the behavior of his peers.
This is why I lean toward the "top pond". If you're gonna be a little monkey at heart, might as well copy the right thing.
As a big fish, you develop self confidence born of ability and accomplishment.
and...
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4
Average fish in a superior pond.
Otherwise you don't grow or stretch.
It is amazing how perceptions shape reality. None of these two are wrong - but they are clearly dependent on how children are raised. Asians typically would not bat an eyelash at the possibility of suffering some intellectual humiliation. They would be expected to toughen up and catch up.
For kids raised in a culture of "confidence, self-esteem and innate ability" a top pond can turn pretty traumatic.
I guess there will be enough time to reflect on these two options. :-)
I was one of them. Went with average fish in big pond. I think it helps when you get to know other high achieving individuals. You may make many friends as you have much in common.
Unfortunately those that don't want to compete are often left the scraps of those who do.
GATECH is an institutional grade deflation machine. I was average (out-of-state student) at one of their undergraduate engineering programs. I was a big fish in a little pond in high school, which I attribute to getting in at Tech. At any rate, by the time I transferred out of GATECH I was right at a 3.0 GPA. That wasn't going to do me any good for military pilot training applications or engineering grad school. As such, I transferred to UoAlabama, a self-admitted party school with a smaller engineering program. I got out of that school *** Laude, which after 3 years of breaking rocks for Cs at Gatech, was rather caveman easy to pull off.
As a result Purdue (a program of equal ranking to GA Tech) gave me a fully paid ride to grad school, and I bombed the GRE mind you. The GPA (plus being an engineering major with the rare social skill of knowing how to bulls--t his way around and relate to people lol) was central to that outcome. I was eventually picked up for pilot training (my ultimate goal) with a 3.4 grad GPA from Purdue and 3.94 from Bama. So it all worked out in the end.
Though none of that maneuvering of majoring in engineering was required to apply to my end goal, there's no way that would have ever happened for me had I stayed in GATECH, where my GPA would have most likely hovered around 2.75 to 3.0, as they advertised to freshmen and parents on day one of orientation. The best thing I ever did for my personal and professional future was to purposely bail for the smaller ponds in life, in order to reach the ultimate vocational/professional goal. That scheme may not work for people on say, law school, but for me, the smaller pond angle worked. Being average at a top school hurts you. Is that fair or objective? Of course not. No one said life was fair. There's a labor surplus out there folks. If you ain't cheating you ain't trying. Which I really write it to mean: work smarter not harder.
It is amazing how perceptions shape reality. None of these two are wrong - but they are clearly dependent on how children are raised. Asians typically would not bat an eyelash at the possibility of suffering some intellectual humiliation. They would be expected to toughen up and catch up.
For kids raised in a culture of "confidence, self-esteem and innate ability" a top pond can turn pretty traumatic.
I guess there will be enough time to reflect on these two options. :-)
Thanks everyone for great points!
This sort of goes along with what we discussed above. Sometime the best thing about something is also the worst thing about it. An environment that fosters achievement is great and often pushes kids to success. But the flip side of that is that that kind of environment can also turn against some kids, putting lots of pressure on them and overwhelming them. I do think this is somewhat personality dependent.
A high achiever in a low achieving environment also has pluses and minuses in his situation. He has confidence to try the things he wants to try without being afraid of failure. He will win awards. However, he will never be pushed outside his comfort zone or inspired by those around him. In some average schools there aren't many academic clubs and contests for a student who is interested. In other average schools those academic clubs exist but are not filled with kids who are really passionate about the activity.
I have always chosen to surround my kids with high achievers and it has been good for them. However, my kids are pretty driven and goal oriented on their own so they do really well when surrounded by other high achievers. My middle son is not naturally as academic as his brothers but he is goal oriented with his music. Being in a highly competitive school prepares kids for the college application process. It also prepares kids for college. My oldest has done really well in college. It is important that they learn what it takes to succeed (academically) before they are out of the house and on their own.
It is amazing how perceptions shape reality. None of these two are wrong - but they are clearly dependent on how children are raised. Asians typically would not bat an eyelash at the possibility of suffering some intellectual humiliation. They would be expected to toughen up and catch up.
For kids raised in a culture of "confidence, self-esteem and innate ability" a top pond can turn pretty traumatic.
I guess there will be enough time to reflect on these two options. :-)
Thanks everyone for great points!
I don't think they are the same at all as the kid raised in the culture of "confidence and innate ability" is being lied to and faked out. His confidence is based on nothing and he is done a disservice as sooner or later, he will be exposed.
I don't think they are the same at all as the kid raised in the culture of "confidence and innate ability" is being lied to and faked out. His confidence is based on nothing and he is done a disservice as sooner or later, he will be exposed.
This is only true if the child never achieves anything of value and that his confidence is fake. A child raised with the true confidence of real achievement is given a gift that will last a lifetime. It is only fake confidence that is a problem.
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.
