<p>From the last couple of reunions I went to (been a while), I didn’t see any real shockers in what happened to people. Some of the kids we used to consider “derelicts” (the kids who smoked, did drugs, etc) ended up in real trouble, most of them ended up doing okay, while few of them went on to white collar jobs most of them ended up with their own businesses or doing skilled trades. Among the ‘geek set’, many did well, engineers, doctors, lawyers, and so forth. Interestingly, the jocks didn’t do particularly well, they did okay, but in my class a lot of them seemed to burn out in life, one kid who was very much the athlete was always very driven, and he ended up working for IBM and from what I know, ended up having a nervous breakdown. And yeah, there were the girls who matured fast, who thought they were all that, some of them turned their lives around and last I saw them, were nice people, others never got out of that “I am so gorgeous mode” and quite honestly, seem to have gone nowhere, some of them have been married multiple times, others had families but didn’t seem all that happy, either. </p>
<p>I think you have to be careful about studies like this, in part because every school is different. A high school in a rural area is going to be different than a school in an inner city; my high school, from a town that was mostly middle to upper middle class (today more upper middle) is going to be different than the high school in “Friday Night Lights” (in my school, sports were not revered particularly, and jocks had their own circle of admirers but it wasn’t that large, either), so studies like this aren’t going to give an effective picture, because what happens to the ‘cool kids’ really depends on who they are, and where they are…</p>
<p>For one poster, who was surprised the number of kids who became MD’s who weren’t necessarily the ‘top of the class’…I can answer that one I think, based on personal experience. A lot of the kids who were the top students back in our day, were often really bright, and probably didn’t have to work as hard to get those grades. The problem is that if you want to go into medicine, part of the prerequisite is to have the fortitude to tough it out, and to have the kind of background where working at stuff is the only way to get through. The kids who weren’t necessarily the ‘top students’ probably had to work hard to achieve grades, it didn’t come as easy, so they were used to doing the work, grinding through things, and that is what getting into Med school is like (I am not saying you don’t need to be intelligent, and I am certainly not demeaning what it takes to become a doctor, far from it). Course like Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry are not all that intuitive to most people, and you need to do the work, same is true with other areas, and the kids who had to work at it through high school had what it took to do it. I ran into a friend, years ago, when my dad was in the local hospital with heart problems. He was in med school then, I think 3rd or 4th year, and we talked about when we were in school, and he said when we did homework together and such he was always envious that in some ways it came easily to me…and I told him that in many ways he was lucky he had to work it through, because it led him to doing what he was doing, that the ‘come easy’ later screwed me up…there actually are studies about this, and I have heard it referred to as the “Avis” syndrome, that it often is better to be ‘#2’ and trying harder than to be #1, and organizational behavior studies have shown that in many cases, the kids who weren’t the 4.0 hyperachievers do better than the kids who were, in part because they never assume they are ‘the best’ as kids with the 4.0’s often are told, it is also why sometimes kids from a top college, like the Ivy League, may run into trouble in the real world, because they have been told they are the best and don’t quite understand they need to show that every day, which the kid from the state school might feel he/she has to show:)</p>