<p>Is it better to be the big fish in a little pond or one of many big fish at the bigger pond? I am trying to decide whether I want to go to a small private LAC where I will be one of the top students entering or would it be better to go to a school of about 8000 students where I might be in the top 15%? Do smaller schools make up in networking/nurturing abilities to make up for opportunities that larger schools can offer? Thanks, Onward</p>
<p>What is your field of study? At the moment that is.....while you are making this comparison.</p>
<p>Better be careful ... at the most competitive private LACs (Swat, Williams, Amherst, etc) you might be a smallish fish in a small pond. Whereas in an "honors college" at a larger, less-competitive university, you'd be a big fish in a big pond. You haven't mentioned schools to do the comparison, but I'll assume you've done your homework.</p>
<p>The answer to the fish-pond question very much depends on your personality--small LACS do tend to be nurturing and have good networking. You will get a lot of professorial attention as one of the biggest fish but will you find enough peers to make class discussions interesting and dynamic, will there be enough variety among potential friends to suit you? Will you feel better or worse if most faces on campus are familiar? Or do you like the thought that there might always be someone new to have an interesting conversation with? Bigger schools also have a wider range of courses. Best of both worlds? Maybe a school like Haverford--with ties to Bryn Mawr, Swarthmore and U Penn? Dartmouth and Brandeis are also liberal-artsy and fairly cozy with university resources.</p>
<p>Big fish in a big pond is best.</p>
<p>For most students, I think it is best to be in the third quartile. That is, I think it is best to go where 50% to 75% of the students have higher SAT scores than you. It will challenge you to do your best, maybe to achieve more than you thought you could, but you won't drown.</p>
<p>A small fish in a big pond might drown, or get eaten.</p>
<p>Big fish in a small pond...you won't grow.</p>
<p>interesting point of view.</p>
<p>I agree with collegehelp. I imagine most of the posters on these forums were the "big fishes" in high school, and so most of you guys know the frustrations that come with going somewhere where you are the best and have little opportunity to learn from your fellow students and have teachers that teach to a demographic that is below you academically. It's far better to be "average" where you have plenty to learn from those around you and where the material is taught at your level.</p>
<p>collegehelp, I see your point... </p>
<p>To add to it: many kids who have been "top top top" in HS will love the new experience of being just average in college. It can be nice to float anonymously and be surrounded with kids who are just as bright or brighter after being the Val/Sal for one's HS years. I mean this from the social angle, not the academic angle. It is nice to be seen as a dimensional person rather than a "brain."</p>
<p>OTOH, some kids whole sense of self relies on being #1, and they may not feel the same about being in the middle...</p>
<p>I also agree that at some small schools, like Swat or Williams, there are so many bright kids that it would be hard to be heads and shoulders above the rest.</p>