Real World Experiences.....Big Fish in a Little Pond or Little Fish in a Big Pond?

Parents Forum
21

I’m not an expert on the academic question- but there has been considerable research done in corporate environments on this issue. There appears to be substantial evidence that the big fish/little fish issue is more or less irrelevant-- and what counts is mentoring and the quality/depth of teaching/learning/onboarding.

This jives with what I’ve observed in the academic sphere although I don’t have the metrics to prove it. Kids thrive in all sorts of environments, but someone who is going to “punch above their weight” (which I think is the OP’s concern) is going to do so because a professor is interested in that student and makes sure that appropriate opportunities are there. And this is not big pond/little pond dependent- it happens everywhere. My nephew from a Big 10 ginormous university had incredible faculty mentors; a recent hire of mine at my company had them from a tiny LAC; my own kids had them at mid sized R1 universities.

I think the Malcolm Gladwell version of looking at the universe is extremely shallow and does not dig deep enough to understand multiple inputs and metrics. And of course- correlation is not causation.

On the corporate front, the research has been useful in figuring out why a company might have 50/50 parity in gender for new hires in a management development program, but by year 8 the ratio might be 20/80. It isn’t that women make terrible employees so they get fired; the research indicates that a significant majority of exiting employees (including some who were rated at as top performers) cite “nobody in management was willing to give me honest feedback to help me get better at my job” or things like that.

I had professors in college who I loved. But none more than the professor who gave me an F (not on a paper, a test, a midterm- but an F for the semester) and with tears in his eyes said “I’m going to help you fix this”.

10 Likes
22

It is not as if all students fall into Category A or B. Only a minority do. My post poses a question that is directed at parents / students who fall into these categories.

There has always been the kid who scores a 36 on the ACT, has perfect grades, and great ECs. Then, because of financial reasons, the kid chooses a school that offered them a huge merit (perhaps a LAC ranked 50 to 70) package resulting in a free ride. They are an example the big fish that I am referring to. I am interested in hearing of their experiences. Others are too.

The reverse can also happen.

If your child doesn’t fall into either category or you can’t relate…no problem! Don’t respond to the OP. CC is full of threads where people post their “concerns” and then people reply to the “concerns” and the discussion goes way off track. It would be awesome if we could avoid this. Just once.

1 Like
23

I have military experience. I love what you had to say about your son. He just keeps rising to the challenge.

Military experience and the level of challenge is totally unlike anything that can be found in the civilian world. Very young people can be put in command of hundreds of people and control millions of dollars of equipment while literally making life and death decisions. Your son also gets to work with ALL sorts of people. Rich, poor, motivated, not-motivated, etc…

My former employers all loved ex-military people. They have a “mission mindset” and have experience working with all sorts of people.

4 Likes
24

Agree with much of the above, and Blossom’s points ring true. It may be easier for the go-getter kid to get noticed at a small school, but there are a lot more professors to work with at a larger school.

The issue isn’t just size of the school or department, but depth of major and course offerings. My youngest went to an OOS publc with about 14K undergrads. He chose a major that was not that popular, and knew the area he wanted to work in. He got a research position starting freshman year. OTOH, if he had been regular bio or premed kid, it would have been much more difficult to land a spot due to demand being so high. We looked at a number of smaller schools that touted opportunities for undergrad research, but the research areas were not of interest to him.

My oldest went to a mid-sized U which was a great fit. Not very proactive in pursuing research or other opportunities. Still learned alot.

2 Likes
25

My question to OP is: How do you define “Top 25%” and “Bottom 25%” ?

Are you focusing just on GPA and standardized test scores ?

26

Perhaps a better characterization would be whether the student attends a college that was a reach or a likely / safety (for admission, not cost / scholarship).

Also, the size of the pond is less relevant than the size of the other fish. Caltech is a very small pond with very large fish, and there are lots of schools that are large ponds with mostly small fish.

4 Likes
27

Using my kids as an example, I think a “go-getter” will be noticed in any school. It’s in their DNA to seek out the opportunities. S23 would never have been happy just doing what was assigned. On the other hand, D22 my “not a performing monkey at any cost” (we’ve described her that way since she was a toddler) would never have fought for “airtime” at any school, no matter the size. However, being in a very small school where teachers are trying to make connections got her noticed.

5 Likes
28

This is exactly when I am talking about. I could give you a precise definition and then you or others would quibble with it. Derailing the entire thread.

CC is full of this. People ignoring the question at hand, asking for clarification, debating the clarification, injecting tangents, etc…

Somehow, other people understood what I was talking about and responded. I appreciate their good insights.

3 Likes
29

What may matter is if the student has goals with a significant dependence on college GPA (e.g. competitive secondary admission to major, medical school, law school), especially if many of the courses are competitively graded (“on a curve”).

A student attending a reach college may be competing for grades against other students with better preparation, while a student attending a likely or safety (for admission only) college may be competing for grades against other students with worse preparation. Although the correlation between college admission credentials (like high school grades and SAT/ACT scores) and college grades is nowhere close to 1, it is significantly higher than 0.

The partially mitigating factor is that more selective colleges do tend to have more grade inflation.

1 Like
30

You wanted examples. Here’s two:

My HS best friend got into Notre Dame. A stretch financially but she didn’t qualify for FA. She took a full ride 6 year program at St Louis University to become a PT. She will say that she regrets it because she felt like she couldn’t turn down the money and security, she felt trapped by her decision at 18 to become a PT. ND would have given her more flexibility to change her mind.

More recent, my niece turned down arguably a better school (Miami of Ohio) for full ride Honors program at A Big Southern State School. She is a recent graduate and not employed. Jury still out whether she made the right call, but you have to look at job placement in desired field as part of the decision, of course. Easy to get blinded by the tuition part, which is understandable.

5 Likes
31

Since you’ve asked for real-world experiences:

I attended a midwestern state flagship that was a safety and was admitted to the honors college with enough merit aid to reduce the price by about 45% (in the days before ubiquitous merit “discounts”). By this calculus, I might have been considered a bigger fish. My core social group, however, was made up of six people. Four of those individuals had won the full ride to the college and the fifth had been a finalist (it remains a competitive full ride scholarship…think Forty Acres or Robertson type scholarships). In comparison with that group, I was not an apex predator in the pond.

But I had no issues with self-confidence (at least with respect to my academic/intellectual abilities), and college was a blast. I was surrounded by intellectually curious people, and not just about their own areas of interest, but about improv comedy or musical history or avant-garde art or international folk dancing. So being in an environment where everyone is open and curious about a variety of things was really just intoxicatingly wonderful.

But, although the quality of the college experience is what I was discussing, I suspect you were more interested in the “outcomes” portion of the question, and @Twoin18’s comments here really ring true:

After graduation, one person went to the state med school (and remained a top student through med school and residency)). One person went to one of the top medical schools (usually will come up as one of the top two that people think of). One person went to a T14 law school. One person went to an elite music conservatory. One person went to an Ivy+ seminary and another went to an Ivy+ PhD program. After divinity school, the one person went back to their state where they are known in the state’s religious circles, but did not pursue anything full-time with a bigger zone of influence. The T14 law grad has spent their career in a public defender’s office in a big coastal city. The person who stayed in-state for med school has remained in-state. The one who went to an Ivy+ doctoral program left after a couple of years to teach at high-poverty public schools. Only two of the six would go on to what might be the outcomes most desired by highly competitive CC-students…the one at a top med school has been practicing in a popular coastal city and the one who went to conservatory is now a conductor in a big coastal city.

Nearly everyone in this group could have gone on to have more “impressive” outcomes, but for nearly everyone in the group, the goal was to come out with happy outcomes. Doing work that we found fulfilling and that would provide a livable wage and live where we wanted to live was what mattered.

So, how does this contrast with someone in a big pool? I have a sibling who attended a SHYMP school followed by a non-Top-X med school and has been practicing medicine in a popular metro. I think my sibling might have been more of a big fish in extracurriculars at the school, but not necessarily an academic big fish there.

In what I’ve observed of my sibling and some of my sibling’s friends from the SHYMP school, there is a much greater emphasis on the appearance of outcomes. There’s much more talk about enviable experiences they’ve had, or the brand of their car, or where they went on vacation, or the names of the schools their kids attend. (One of the sibling’s kids went to a SHYMP and the other went to a SAW school, but my sibling felt the need to make sure the family understood how great a SAW liberal arts college was since it didn’t have the same name recognition as the SHYMP.) I doubt that all people who went to a Top X school are like this (I’m sure they aren’t), but I think this type of attitude is much more prevalent coming out of these institutions than from most “small ponds.”

I have found that people from flyover country tend to be more modest about things that might be “impressive” to others. They mention having gone to school in a certain state rather than naming the school, or having experience in the health field, rather than naming their MD specialty.

There’s nothing inherently right or wrong with one style over the other, but it is something I have noticed.

11 Likes
32

My 2 sisters and I were all “big fish in small ponds” to a greater or lesser extent. All 3 of us graduated in the top ~1% of our large suburban high school and tested well. Due to financial and family constraints, all 3 of us stayed in state for college. One of us went to a completely non-selective Catholic LAC, another to our state flagship, and one of us to a T10 LAC (with stats above the 75th %ile.) All 3 of us graduated at the top of our respective college classes and have gone on to reasonably successful careers (2 doctors, 1 business) but nothing memorable or impressive. None of the 3 of us are particularly ambitious or motivated by status or money (you would not guess we had successful careers by our clothes, homes or cars etc.)

It’s hard to imagine the counterfactual scenario, truthfully. I would have enjoyed the educational resources of a coastal “big pond” elite school, but I can’t imagine it would ever have been a social fit. But one of my sisters is quite extroverted and so might have done great at some of the elite schools she applied to (but had to turn down for financial reasons.) She is the one who says she has occasional “what ifs”, but also is content with her life.

4 Likes
33

D22 chose her safety over reach schools because it truly was the school she liked best. She’s my kid who couldn’t care less about prestige. She is having a fabulous experience socially and academically. She’s not one to stress about academics nor does she spend a lot of time studying (I marvel at her efficiency) but has managed to stay at the top of her class. I think at her reaches this may not have been the case. I don’t think this would have bothered her much but nice to still be a top student.

9 Likes
34

D20 attended a rigorous private HS and emerged with strong—but not sky high—grades and SAT scores. Most of the colleges she seriously considered were of a similar profile (geographically, size, school profile, etc.). For context, she mostly targeted schools around the 50-100 USNWR range and was very clear that she wanted a full and balanced college experience academically, socially and otherwise.

I think what made her a big fish at the school she ultimately attended was that she came out of HS so well prepared. What I observed as a parent was that her preparation resulted in more confidence, which led to an upward spiral. Her professors took notice of her work, which led to various opportunities (including introductions and internships). Those experiences showed her that she was capable in the workplace (not just the classroom) and positioned her for the next opportunity.

Could this have happened at a larger and/or more selective school? Possibly, but we’ll never know. When she was deciding where to go, she chose the college that she thought was the best fit even though as a private school, it was more expensive than many of the other options including our state flagship and other privates where she had been given more merit money. She took full advantage of the opportunities and that made it well worth it to us (I recognize that we’re fortunate that finances weren’t a big factor in our decision).

Some parents talk about more prestigious colleges being “worth it” and others “not worth it”. But I think a college where your child really thrives is a great investment because they embrace new experiences and emerge feeling confident, competent and prepared for their post-grad adult life.

In short, success begets success. I suspect she could have done well at any number of schools but coming into college with confidence made a difference. She felt like a big fish and therefore she acted like one—which made it so. Ultimately she graduated at the top of her class, won a departmental award, had excellent work experience and contacts through her on-campus job and internships, obtained leadership experience in clubs, and had a great job in her field after graduation. We couldn’t have hoped for more.

12 Likes
35

This was our son’s experience as well. We always felt that HS was the more important investment because when the HS prep is strong, college takes care of itself.

7 Likes
36

It depends a lot on the kid. DS isn’t the kid who needs to be at the top or to be noticed, but he’ll swim with the crowd. So for him, being in a pool of high-achieving and hard-working kids who were engaged made him high-achieving, hard-working, and engaged. The bigger pond (in terms of competitiveness, not size) was ideal, both in high school and college because he just needed the pond, not to be a big fish. This doesn’t mean that he didn’t benefit from personal attention, but he performed better where the standard was set higher.

Otoh, we have close friends whose D, who was a bit mousy, chose a local school not known for its rigor. She was a stellar student, got a lot of great opportunities as a result, developed a lot of confidence, took on some leadership roles, and is now completing a PhD in a highly selective program. In her case, being a big fish in a small pond was a game changer. As in transformative!

This depends, I think, so much on what feeds your sense of self. There are runners, for example, that perform best in a fast field and others who feel crushed if they get behind and can’t catch up. In considering schools, in addition to what a student can (and needs to) access in terms of resources to succeed, it’s also important to think about what environment is most motivating. There are as many answers to what’s right as there are people!

13 Likes
37

I sometimes feel old fashioned when talking this way, but this has always been a given for me. The first school questions in my mind are basics like health, safety, and of course affordability. But then the first academic question is whether your school is going to do a good job preparing you for whatever comes next. We’ve been thinking this way since the infant room in day care, and expect to continue right through to whatever is the last degree.

And I agree with the sentiment that in practice what this means depends on your kid.

6 Likes
38

I like the idea of prioritizing the choices as ‘what environment does someone need to feel motivated?’ I was raised in public schools, my kids are also in public schools, and that limits the amount one can preference such a perspective. That said, both my parents and we moved to seek out the best public schools our real estate budget could afford.

For me, I had average grades and was accepted to an average in-state public university with 30k kids. It wasn’t a terribly intellectual environment, though it was a solid education. While I’ve always been romanced by the small liberal arts college experience, I thrived in the more anonymous machine of my huge university. None of my friends had my major, so I didn’t feel insecure or competitive with anyone, and it allowed me to find my own thing and build a lot of confidence in that thing. I got good feedback from teachers, I had great internships that I found independently, and learned to swim in that big pond. Turns out I needed that anonymity to stop comparing myself to others and coming up feeling short.

My D22 is having a great experience in her huge public university, too. She’s definitely not a big fish there—it is a top school filled with ambitious high achievers. But it’s taught her resilience and independence and it’s motivated her (and taught her valuable skills) to be surrounded by people who are clearly going somewhere.

All this said, I also believe that people can bloom where planted :slight_smile:

5 Likes
39

I totally agree with this, however, I feel that “preparing for what comes next” means completing one stage of development before entering the next. So, rather than worry about 14 AP/DEs in HS, I wanted my kids’ focus to be on figuring out what they enjoyed, learning how to learn, how to use resources, work/life balance, etc. I feel that was the more valuable preparation for college than what CC often tells you you need on your college applications. As a behaviorist, I compare it to people that want to start toilet training just to say their kids started early. You can do it before they have all the preskills (dressing, hygiene, attention, communication) and spend 9 months teaching and dealing with frustrations and accidents, or you can wait until they are developmentally ready and do it relatively stress-free in a week. Either way, they will be completely toilet trained at about the same age despite when you start.

With this method, while kids may not see themselves as big fish or they might be recognized as big fish because they are still in the fish growing process, not only are kids more likely to pick a pond that they will enjoy for the next four year, they know how to navigate it and reap its benefits.

Exactly, and the stronger the roots, the more chance they have to bloom.

7 Likes
40

Most people.

I have also seen friends who ended up suffering mental health crises because their sense of self and/or their confidence was so rattled by going from always having been at the top of the heap to being at the bottom. Even if it was a mighty fine heap!

Personally, I really loved the observation above about environments where one has enough anonymity to not be worried about what size fish they might be.

5 Likes