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.
It's very funny, it seems to be a theme on American TV shows or in American culture that the least popular and bullied kid ends up the most successful.
I know the culture is a bit different here in Ireland/Europe but I don't think kids are all that different. What is really interesting is that in my experience, this is the exact opposite. Most people in my school are still in touch and The high schoolers who were bullied and were socially awkward have either killed themselves, using drugs daily or haven't moved much from community colleges.
Conversely the students who were strong academic students (by their teachers words and their results on results day) were "popular". This is what is interesting. Either introverted or extroverted but they by no means were looked at in a negative manner.
This brings me to a different question, is there something about being well balanced academically and socially that enables people to succeed?
People will chalk this up to a cognitive bias (selection bias) and that I don't know about the socially awkward but smart kids because they never communicated but I've hang around with enough people from repeating a year in school and again, the most popular kids were usually the ones who achieved academic success.
I graduated in 1995 from a high school in Connecticut and the popular kids were definitely the honors students. I was an honors student but wasn't really popular (nor was I bullied or unpopular). The other factors that most of them had in common had to do with socioeconomic status (their parents tended to be more well-to-do, they lived in bigger houses, went on nice vacations and wore only name-brand clothing) and general gregariousness. I would say that all of these factors (a bright mind, a good start with lots of opportunities, and friendly, open behavior) do work together to enhance one's chances of overall success.
I think it's very much an individual school culture thing. In a school where academic success is valued, the successful kids will be popular. But in a school where academic success is not valued, then you do have the inverse relationship seen on TV. And in general I think there are more schools of the latter type than the former.
It's very funny, it seems to be a theme on American TV shows or in American culture that the least popular and bullied kid ends up the most successful.
I know the culture is a bit different here in Ireland/Europe but I don't think kids are all that different. What is really interesting is that in my experience, this is the exact opposite. Most people in my school are still in touch and The high schoolers who were bullied and were socially awkward have either killed themselves, using drugs daily or haven't moved much from community colleges.
Conversely the students who were strong academic students (by their teachers words and their results on results day) were "popular". This is what is interesting. Either introverted or extroverted but they by no means were looked at in a negative manner.
This brings me to a different question, is there something about being well balanced academically and socially that enables people to succeed?
People will chalk this up to a cognitive bias (selection bias) and that I don't know about the socially awkward but smart kids because they never communicated but I've hang around with enough people from repeating a year in school and again, the most popular kids were usually the ones who achieved academic success.
My experience was that the few kids who did really well academically were the outsiders, i.e. not popular. Possibly in part because they were more cerebral, and so out of synch with the kids who were into the latest trends, pop-culture, and all that. Some of them did well, career-wise, but that also depends on many factors. One didn't get a chance to go to college, because her parents divorced, and her dad refused to pay for college. Of the popular ones, some became drug users, and didn't develop careers. In a couple of cases, this appeared to be due to wealthy parents without high expectations, who coddled the kids, conveying the idea that it wasn't important to have a career. Or they may have been born into a career option, such as being guaranteed a spot in the family business.
There are so many factors involved in who succeeds and who doesn't, and why, I think it's hard to generalize. As we discussed on another concurrent thread, parental support and values for education play a significant role. There can be absence of parental support and involvement at any socio-economic level. Popularity in school doesn't relate positively or negatively with success, in my observation.
I think it's very much an individual school culture thing. In a school where academic success is valued, the successful kids will be popular. But in a school where academic success is not valued, then you do have the inverse relationship seen on TV. And in general I think there are more schools of the latter type than the former.
This isn't necessarily true. Even in college-prep schools with high standards, the studious or brainy kids can be marginalized. So much depends on personality, not on academic success or the lack of it. For example, introverted high achievers aren't going to be popular; they may form their own geek niche, but that's rarely the popular kids' niche. Nerdy kids aren't going to be popular, no matter their level of achievement. Some kids may not fit in with the school's general culture; they may be think-outside-the-box types in a very conventional school, another example. They'd be better off in an alternative school.
The people in H.S. who cheated more often (in college, too) were not the mediocre students, but the straight A students. I know that's not the subject of the OP but I just wanted to mention it.
We had a lot of remarkable late bloomers in my high school, and we invited several of them to speak about their lives at a many-years-later class reunion. Some adult paths were predictable - others not at all to outsiders, though the individuals claimed the clues were there early on.
We also saw a previously gawky, overgrown kid who was extremely bright but tended toward geeky become a prominent authority and influential expert in the moral aspects of international relations, kids who verged on delinquency make millions in silicon valley only to switch careers for true passion for an unrelated subject in mid-life, and sadly, popular golden girls and boys take their lives at early ages. We also had a minister who was a scammer and wound up in federal prison for fleecing his elderly flock. He had starred in dramatics in high school and his convincing manner no doubt helped him.
So - yes, sometimes clues are there, but they go unrecognized and much depends on opportunity and inclination, at any age.
This isn't necessarily true. Even in college-prep schools with high standards, the studious or brainy kids can be marginalized. So much depends on personality, not on academic success or the lack of it. For example, introverted high achievers aren't going to be popular; they may form their own geek niche, but that's rarely the popular kids' niche. Nerdy kids aren't going to be popular, no matter their level of achievement. Some kids may not fit in with the school's general culture; they may be think-outside-the-box types in a very conventional school, another example. They'd be better off in an alternative school.
I was in a academic magnet program. It was brutally competitive. It was still when magnets were new and when we started we were a year younger than the rest of the kids at the school. It was a different sort of kid who wanted to apply to this program. Most people were pretty non-conformist and did not care much about what other people thought. Most of the top students were fairly popular and people didn’t think highly of those who were not good students or the people who couldn’t cut it and dropped out of the program. There was one top student who was not popular, but that was primarily because he got his spot by cheating. I think most of the people in that program who finished have been pretty successful, but I am not sure since I have not gone to any reunions.
I think it is possibly the meaning of "popularity" in the U.S. In the U.S. to be popular is to be TOP TIER in terms of taking part in activities that you may have to try out for - sports, dance, theater, cheerleading. It's not just having "friends" - it is being in the "elite" set.
Kids who have a dozen friends aren't known as being popular, they are just normal or typical. So sure, being able to have friends overlaps with having the ability to do fairly well in school. Popular kids are the pushed kids who have a million activities plus school. Nerds are usually considered nerdy because they are good academically but aren't especially social or popular or are so only within a narrow group. It's really all just in the definitions. There is a moderate correlation but that's it.
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.
