<p>I recently read Malcolm Gladwell's analytical book, David and Goliath. For those of you who are unfamiliar, it deals with the idea that at college, being a "Big Fish in a Little Pond" is a desirable advantage. When you are at the top of your class, you tend to be offered more opportunities. I was taken aback by this approach to college, because I had always believed that I should surround myself with smarter individuals. What are your opinions about this? I understand that it is crucial to have the right balance, but I think this is an interesting topic to discuss. Thanks ;D</p>
<p>It really depends on the individual.</p>
<p>Also on what your career goals are.</p>
<p>You can do both… go to a little pond full of brilliant fish (Swarthmore, Cal Tech, Harvey Mudd, etc.). But certainly there is truth to the big fish/small pond benefits schools farther down the rankings, too. One of my kids went to an LAC ranked around #50 USNWR. She graduated Phi Beta Kappa, had fantastic opportunities to meet with important visitors to campus, great relationships with professors, very good internships, and got a wonderful job after graduating (and is now managing 25 people at her company at the age of 24). She got a pretty good merit discount on her education, too.</p>
<p>
Relatively few of us, I’d wager, except for the very new. The book has been discussed repeatedly on these forums, as have his other works. Do a search for past discussions.</p>
<p>Suffice it to say that there is no one size fits all approach to selecting a college. If you’re not sure which approach is best for you, apply to a wide range of colleges – which most applicants should do anyway. </p>
<p>Lol… that is the truth. I personally consider his books to be anecdotal, not analytical. But I do see some merit in this conclusion.</p>
<p>Humans love either/or and turning truisms on their heads. Do both and you will find an audience.</p>