Big fish little pond vs little fish big pond

Harvard has a LOT of data (mind you- they’ve been in this business since the 1600’s) all of which suggests that far from being demoralized, being in the bottom third at Harvard is often the best possible place to be.

Harvard invented the Gentleman’s C (surely a designation of being at the bottom). Harvard tracks career success, donations, awards, professional recognition, etc. and although I’ve only seen a limited amount of data- it sure suggests that nobody gets demoralized being at the bottom of their class at Harvard.

Out of this pool you’ve got Senators, Governors, Heads of State around the world, Heads of Central Banks/running large monetary funds and institutions, Oscar winning Actors/Writers/Directors, lots of entrepreneurs who have become billionaires, Pulitzer prize winning writers, etc.

What you don’t have are Rhodes Scholars- since those are very much tied to GPA. And you don’t have Supreme Court Justices- not that GPA matters for the court, but since it matters for law school admissions and clerkships and roles as Federal Prosecutors, that tends to weed out the bottom tier at Harvard as well as every other college. But still PLENTY of successful lawyers, state and circuit court judges.

It may be nice and comforting to think of those miserable ^&*('s barely hanging on at Harvard- but Harvard’s own data suggests that this is urban legend. The bottom cohort gives to Harvard with larger individual gifts, greater penetration into the class (i.e. higher percentage of givers) and longer unbroken track records of giving. And given how successful many of these folks have become- clearly they can both afford to be generous to whatever causes or institutions they want to, AND have the clout to “punish” any institutions where they were truly unhappy or unfulfilled.

So bad example folks. And Gladwell likes to make money publishing books, but analytical rigor and facts are not his friends.

But hasn’t Harvard’s bottom part of the class historically been scions of the SES elite, who had substantial advantages in terms of family connections and money to move on to “elite” career paths despite a college record full of “gentleman’s C” grades?

Now, admissions standards may be somewhat different now (even legacies and such need to meet high academic standards now), but nearly half of Harvard’s undergraduates are from the top few percent of the income/wealth families, so even if some of those end up with “gentleman’s B” grades, they probably won’t have too much difficulty moving into “elite” career paths, especially with preferential recruiting from consulting and Wall Street.

But the reality is that some folks are happy just being in the big pond whereas others aren’t happy if they aren’t the biggest fish. There isn’t a right answer, only a right answer for each person.

UCB, regardless of SES, the point was made up thread that the bottom of Harvard’s class would have been better off going somewhere else to mitigate their unhappiness at residing at the bottom.

And other than the fevered imaginations of Gladwell and his cronies, there is zero evidence for that point. Whether a kid is first Gen, came over on the Mayflower, or somewhere in-between, the notion that having a 4.0 at High Point is better than. a 2.4 at Harvard is urban legend. And a Harvard grad who ends up becoming a third grade teacher or social worker (and there are many) is not somehow transformed retroactively into a miserable Harvard student who wishes that he or she had gone to Villanova or Lehigh where they might have had better grades (nor do I think that a Harvard C student automatically becomes an A student by switching paths but that’s for a different post).

I am no fan of Gladwell (for example, his claims about Asian languages’ structure for number words helping Asian people do well at math are not true for most Asian languages – this can be checked on a translation web site), but Harvard is not a very relevant counterexample to his point, given the nature of its admissions (not relevant to most students, who do not get admitted; all admitted students are highly academically qualified, though the lower end of the class is probably highly advantaged in inherited non-academic ways like family wealth and connections, and grade inflation means that it is not likely that many are getting less than 3.0 GPAs). A state flagship versus less selective non-flagship state university is probably more relevant to more students when talking about “big fish” and “little fish”.

I believe Gladwell uses Harvard specifically in his example. As I recall the argument was something along the lines of Harvard’s STEM majors tend to have higher math SAT scores compared to the Harvard overall class, just as Hartwick STEM majors tend to have higher math SAT scores compared to the Hartwick overall class. All students wants to be STEM majors, so the Harvard students who are not on the higher end of math SAT scores at Harvard would have been STEM majors had they attended Hartwick or similar where their math SAT scores were high in relation to the class. I got the impression the point was to make a counterintuitive conclusion that increases book sales. I certainly wouldn’t base my college decisions on it.

“All students want to be STEM majors”? Yeah, there’s another huge logical flaw.

As to the premise of the thread, I think how well you do in your particular pond depends on how extroverted you are and how much you need recognition combined with your uniqueness, and work ethic. If you absolutely crave recognition, small pond might be better for you. If you prefer to be out of the spotlight it’s easier in a crowd.

This depends on the student’s personality and what kind of pressure they need to succeed. Here’s an anecdote to illustrate: my daughter is an introvert and really likes to engage with her instructors. She thrived at a tiny high school. When it came time to apply to colleges, she looked only at LACs (and one university, to please her dad). Interestingly enough, she turned down large merit scholarships at four of the LACs, in favor of a school that didn’t give merit money at all. (We were okay with this.)

Her reason for doing so was that she didn’t want the pressure to perform that a merit scholarship would carry. She’s no slacker–eventually graduated summa cum laude–but when she entered college, she wanted the freedom to try new things and to make mistakes.

If your kid would feel intense pressure and not enjoy her experience as much if she were a big fish in a little pond, she should go for the little fish scenario. It’s much more freeing. But if she enjoys and thrives on the recognition from being a top student, then she should aim to be the big fish.

@blossom, everyone who makes it through the admissions gate at Harvard is a top student, though. No one who gets in struggles with the work. Those C students (especially those from the last 20 years or so) probably don’t make studying as high a priority as their peers who get As and Bs.

I think D just likes being part of the school of fish (pardon the pun)—she excels in an academic environment that is challenging but not cut-throat.

Her school seems well-suited to her because it is small enough that she isn’t just a number and can maintain personal relationships with classmates and professors but big enough that there are lots of opportunity for research and advanced classes. Academically, the school is rigorous but tends to focus on cooperation rather than competition and, whie she’s not necessarily number one in every class, she doesn’t feel intimidated by her classmates or out of her league intellectually. I think that’s what “fit” is all about.

Also, I would say that a lot of the anxiety about performance at many top schools is a function of the students’ POV. The book, “What Made Maddie Run” provides an excellent example of how kids who are doing well, even excelling, at top schols sometimes still have difficulty dealing with the stress that they are dealing with. It’s not just the “C” students in those intellectually big fish ponds who are having problems. Sometimes even the biggest fish feel like they’re swimming in circles. Again, it all depends on the individual.

My kid, who does not have above average hard stats compared to other kids who have been accepted to Stanford, told me he rather be surrounded by more smarter kids in various areas from whom he could learn than do very well academically at a smaller college where his hard stats would be relatively higher compared to other kids. It really depends on the kid’s personality and goals. He just thought the opportunities available at Stanford far outweighed a likelihood of greater difficulty he will have to be among the tops academically. Besides, for my kid, his primary goal of going to college is not to get awesome grades. One of the qualities which attracted to him to Stanford is the students are supposedly collaborative than competitive. I myself went to an Ivy and graduated bottom 20% academically but I don’t feel I did any worse. Lol I actually think I would have done just as badly at any other school so going to an Ivy helped me imo. We will never know for sure but that’s what I think.

Someone who graduated with a “C” average at Harvard is still a Harvard graduate. I agree with the “individuality” arguments. Some people thrive when they are presented with the challenge of the big pond and some crumble. And who’s to say that you won’t end up a big fish in the big pond - or even a little fish in a small pond.

There’s an awful lot of misinformation and misunderstanding swirling around here. For one thing, there doesn’t seem to be a consensus on what defines a big pond or a big fish. Does a big pond refer to the sheer size of the school or its academic caliber? And the big fish? Is it necessary to be a student winning awards to be a big fish? Does one need tippy top grades? What if a person is comfortable and challenged but has no idea if s/he falls over the GPA median or below it? Do we select out for different majors? Certain areas of STEM are notorious for lower grades. That does not mean that a student is not faring well!

Now as to Harvard. Harvard is so often depicted as a competitive, cutthroat intense place populated by only uber high achieving students. It is not. There are a lot of smart kids there of course but It’s a lot more academically diverse than people think. There’s grade inflation that makes life easier and there’s a lot of support and collaboration. Students help each other and profs/tutors/mentors are very available for help. And no, not everyone wants to be a STEM major. Harvard has strength in a broad variety of disciplines and most students seem to be doing just fine, top, middle, or bottom of the class included. One comment that echoes through reviews from Harvard grads is that one of the best parts of their experience there was the exceptional people they met during their four years. People appreciate each other.

As to big fish/little fish, I agree 100% that it’s a highly individual decision. Some students don’t even enter college with the goal of “standing out” or proving their superiority; they go to learn and they delight in the academic ability of their peers (see above). I don’t know if this is universal but my daughter tells me that she and her classmates prepare for classes (at least the ones she takes) because it’s disrespectful to her peers and to her professors not to do so. This brings the level of study to a higher level and it is what she wants. If it’s interaction with professors that a student seeks, it doesn’t mean that it’s necessary to sacrifice the academic rigor of the school. It might mean choosing a smaller school but that does not change the nature of the pond from large to small.

If the goal is to stand out, I’d worry that there’s no guarantee that this will follow at a different school, no matter how lax the standards. The demands may be less rigorous but perhaps standing out depends on different criteria: social success, “leadership,” membership in certain organizations. Maybe recommendations and opportunities go to athletes or socially adept “BMOC” students. I’d also suggest that stress will follow a student anywhere he goes if his primary goal is always to be #1 or to spend his energy focused on maintaining that perfect 4.0. I don’t care what school he chooses, there will always be a standout exceptional kid there who will be perceived as a threat.

My kid was a pretty big fish back home…but is a pretty middle of the road littler fish at her very selective college. Going to a school where she wasn’t always “the smartest kid in the room” challenged her and gave her some humility. Learning to fail (do mediocre) and get back up to later knock it out of the park…was an invaluable lesson she would have never had, if she had gone the safe big fish in a little pond route. Those skills are important and needs to be fostered.

Moving to the bigger pond came with bigger opportunities and expanded her world perspective. The bigger pond came with a LOT of amazing mentors and people who could guide her in ways that folks from a smaller pond college simply could not have.

My kiddo isn’t the cream of the crop at her school…but she loves her school fiercely because it provides her something she didn’t have in highschool and probably wouldn’t find in a small pond college… challenge/resources/networking/cutting edge research/etc.

Some people live to learn…my kid is one of them. She thrives on challenge. I think she made exactly the right decision for her.

You can also be a top student at Harvard. And there’s no easy way to predict where you’ll land. I was a top student in my tiny major there, and I ended up with top honors in the department. I was a pretty good student over all, but there were definitely many people who were smarter than me who took what I would consider to be harder courses. But those courses wouldn’t have served me as well for what I wanted to do, nor would my courses have served them.

I knew lots of public school kids at Harvard - and I mean regular public school kids - I also knew ones who had attended exam schools like Bronx Science or Stuveysent - and they had no problems academically. I actually think the biggest predictor for academic problems was having unresolved mental health issues.

You also have to realize that at Harvard at least, there were a lot of people who were majoring in their extra curricular activities. My friends from the Lampoon and the Crimson and the various orchestras have tended to do very well in life even if they were not at the top of the commencement program.

Malcolm Gladwell irritates me. He’s a journalist and author, not a social scientist. While I definitely don’t believe that one needs to have a PhD in psychology or sociology to write popular (and good) articles and books about these fields, Gladwell misinterprets the results of the research he writes about way too often to be reliable. The authors of the research he cites about his 10,000-hour rule [wrote an article saying that Gladwell oversimplified their work](https://www.salon.com/2016/04/10/malcolm_gladwell_got_us_wrong_our_research_was_key_to_the_10000_hour_rule_but_heres_what_got_oversimplified/); here’s another article about how he misinterpreted research on [school shootings](Malcolm Gladwell Is Wrong About School Shooters | The New Republic) and a third from a cognitive scientist about how Gladwell [routinely misrepresents social science in his work](Malcolm Gladwell critique: David and Goliath misrepresents the science.).

First of all, there’s no guarantees that a student who could be in the top third at a “lesser” college would be in the bottom third at Harvard, or vice versa. There are other elements to achievement besides raw ability and intelligence; the differences between Harvard students are so small that likely anyone could be at the top or bottom, and the difference is more likely ascribed to hard work than some kind of inborn ability. Some students thrive best in a competitive atmosphere. Other students won’t care that they are in the bottom half or even bottom third because they have intelligent, driven classmates to interact with and push them.

And there’s the more important part: colleges like Harvard and Swarthmore have many more resources and connections than some less prestigious, lower-ranked colleges. A student who is dead last in Harvard’s freshman class still has access to much better libraries, career counseling, advising, and alumni connections than the top student of Clayton State University’s freshman class.

It’s going to be a highly individual decision that’s based on the student’s preferences, interests, and personality. And even then, if a student is good enough to get into Harvard, it’s hard to predict whether she’ll be a little fish or a big fish.

How does one even determine “top third” et al in college? Unlike HS college has such a diversity of majors, types of classes et al. Is a student a lesser fish because s/he took that extra class for the fun of it even if it lowered the overall gpa? Is the honors courses taker or the toughest major a lesser student because someone else got a higher gpa with fewer, “easier” classes? Too many apples and oranges et al for valid comparisons.

Let’s face it, most college students fall into that huge group of average. There will be some who are marginal and those who excel. For most students it does not matter. There will be exceptional students who attend mediocre/average colleges and will excel at the next level- grad/professional school or in a job. There is overlap between students at the elite schools and the lesser ranked ones. Top students at many public U’s are smarter, and learn/know more than many at Harvard. Especially when one considers that not all elite students want those Ivy (sports) league schools.

Large U’s are composed of many smaller units, just as large cities are composed of many neighborhoods. I don’t see students finding fewer friends at a large school not lacking opportunities to interact with professors in their major their last two years. I do see students who don’t quite fit in with the majority being able to find their group with more like them.

Who pays attention to their college friends’ grades, or even all of the classes they take? I’d be willing to bet that with all of the courses available at large U’s no two students will graduate having taken all of the same ones, even for majors with many grads.

People sort themselves out. Those wanting to be challenged, those wanting to stay in a comfort zone, those wanting prestige… Like in that movie (play) where Professor Higgens wonders why women can’t be like a man, him specifically.

Size of the school and competitive nature of the students will have a lot to do with the “feel” of the school and how that relates to the individual. Some incredibly smart kids will thrive in the competitive environment while other equally brilliant ones would enjoy more collaboration and inclusiveness. Feel is a personal thing and visiting is very important for that reason.

I really thought my kid would love a small campus atmosphere of Pomona or Claremont. After the tour, he said “this campus is smaller than my high school. I would feel trapped going here.” That was that. Some people love Hawaii, but some find the place very restricting. It really depends on your personality and goals. If my kid’s goal was to shine as a big fish, he would have taken full scholarship at one or two public colleges – not saying he would have done well there academically because public colleges have very smart, motivated kids also – and went there for almost free.

I think the best way to do well at any school including HYPSM is to major in something you like and are good in. I first majored in STEM field at an Ivy and got Ds and Cs and nearly flunked our, but when I switched to a Humanities major I got As without even trying too hard. And I had 800 in SAT math and “only” 670 in SAT Reading/writing.

My college experience taught me that I don’t do well and cannot function well in too structured environment, so I switched my goal to starting and operating my own company in a new field.