Is it better to be in the top 1-5% of a good but not stellar HS or lower (maybe top 10-15%) in a stellar, nationally known HS?
It’s all about you, not your ranking.
Someone’s been reading Gladwell, ay?
All things being equal, better to be a big fish in small pond instead of a small fish in a big pond. There is an article that is cited frequently by Espenshade that goes into detail about this.
However the big fish/small pond only is useful if you also have high test scores. Most kids don’t have the opportunity to choose their high school. Why do you ask?
@sgopal2 is correct. Test scores can adjust for grade inflation.
Yes, I read Gladwell and agree with the concept of big fish small pond but now facing the reality of it. My son is in a good but not stellar private HS and easily in the top 5% of the class. I guess I am just second-guessing it, that’s all. He was accepted to several of the top prep schools in the nation but we had to choose where he is because of $$. Not much of a choice, I guess.
It really all depends on many factors, but in general terms being top 10%-15% at at top high school will give you more options than top 5% at an okay school. Top Colleges do want students who they know can do the work and coming from a rigorous school gives a candidate that credibility. Plus top 10-15% at a top rated hs is a big acheivement
Small fish in a big pond
Depends on the pond.
Small fish at Phillips Exeter? Good. Small fish at school #173 in whatever absurd rankings US News and their competitors are pioneering for high schools? Probably won’t help or hurt a student in the top 20%.