<p>I find this really interesting- Gladwell is advocating for your child to NOT attend their top 1st or 2nd choice but rather go with the choice where they can end up being at the top of their class because they will have a more of a competitive academic advantage. Only problem is, what if your child’s goal is not to graduate at the top of their class but just to attend the school they really like? Ultimately it might be a disadvantage but it just feels strange to me. Should I be thinking of this? My child, while smart and a great tester, is not destined to be the top 10% of where ever she ends up unless we specifically encourage her to go to a school where she is with students who typically don’t score as well or are not as academically motivated. Gladwell is dismissive of people being so impressed/ attracted to these top schools, he thinks they miss the advantages of going to the 2nd tier/ less brand name schools. He might be right, but isn’t that trading in brand-conscious for clear manipulation of the system? It’s perfectly fine to do either but isn’t it OK to simply not be the best but go to a great school? My children go to a school where they don’t receive grades. I assume they sort of know who is plugged in and who isn’t but I would venture to guess that my daughter does not particularly know where she lands in her class. If she were to get in to a top tier school and get B’s, is that not Ok anymore? Am I naive to think that she will be emotionally ok landing somewhere in the middle? This is not a rhetorical question. Perhaps I am naive. I have 4 children but my oldest is only 13 so we haven’t ventured into a particularly competitive world. Although she likes to compete in sports, she is not particularly competitive. She runs cross country and almost always places 2nd in the meet, right behind her classmate and good friend. She runs hard and always does well but clearly she never tries to beat her friend. I asked her why the other day and she simply said- it doesn’t matter- what is important is that the team have 1st and 2nd place runners and that her friend likes to beat her way more than she wants to beat her friend. She doesn’t want it to get “weird” and she is perfectly happy to get 2nd. This attitude makes me think she might just be OK with where ever she ends up ‘rank’ wise. Again- is this a big thing in BS? Forgive me if I am being ridiculously naive- go easy on me!</p>
<p>May be you send your kids to the most rigorous schools they get into and in a year or two from now we can find out if Gladwell is right or not.</p>
<p>I think the point is that maybe the school she likes the best might just the one where she is the most challenged. And preforms somewhere in the middle. I have been thinking- who cares how she does if she loves her school and gets a lot out of it- sure she might not go to a top college but there are plenty of amazing lesser known schools. But do kids stress about being in the middle of the pack in these Thacher/Hotchkiss/Exeter schools? I am sure the answer is different for every child.</p>
<p>I dont think Gladwell is talking about 2nd tier (whatever that means). Hes talking about trading in some prestige for a better academic and perhaps life outcome. In the rarefied circles here, less prestige means sliding down to number 6 or (horrors) number 11. I laughed when he referred to non-top-30 schools as the ones that make parents weep, but hes not far off in some audiences. Hes warning those who chase prestige that they may be making a kind of Faustian bargain with their education. </p>
<p>Your daughter sounds wonderfully grounded to me. Don’t get sidetracked by some of the discussions here.</p>
<p>(Only on CC is a B a bad grade.)</p>
<p>I think there are many of us, perhaps not as vocal on cc, who just want the best environment for our child, where they can thrive, be around others who are excited by learning, find what is meaningful for them, and hopefully find a niche where they find fulfillment and contribute to society.</p>
<p>Analyzing where my child would fall in the ranking of the graduating class never entered my mind when we explored BS, and it still wouldn’t if I had it to do over again. </p>
<p>Rather than attending “a top BS” with “hyper competitive and outrageously talented environment,” my children attended and attend schools more in the middle of the pack but still with offerings far above what was available to them local in public school (our only other option). </p>
<p>My first child did not live up to his full academic potential (that means his grades were not so hot) yet he was still accepted at a fine university and he values his time at BS as a life-changing occurrence. He even ended up on academic probation at college and had to withdraw. Never finished his college degree, yet he makes more than any of his siblings or me, is as happy as any of us in his job, has a great house in a great area, travels the world at the drop of a hat, and helps me financially (even before I had another child in BS).</p>
<p>I consider him a success. Just depends how you define it. I do not consider the sacrifices I made to send him to BS a waste in any way shape or form. He would not be the person he is today if he had stayed home and gone to the local public school, even though if you measure him by college acceptance and completion he would seem to fall short.</p>
<p>Many years later I have another child in BS. I am sure the local school was sorry to see her go, as she, like all my kids, is a champion standardized test taker, and helped make them look good. However, every day at school was a struggle. She is a creative thinker but every day she had to do it their way, never able to think outside the box, not to mention being in class with kids with behavior problems and/or a 50 or more point spread in IQ.</p>
<p>She is now in a BS that really values creativity. For the first time in her life she is taking art classes at school for academic credit. I don’t know where she’ll end up for college. She’s not much interested in the Ivies unless there ends up being some program she particularly wants.</p>
<p>We are both very happy with the PRESENT. It doesn’t all have to be focused on the next goal. This is a time for true learning, establishing meaningful relationships, and exploring possibilities. Be here now.</p>
<p>YES, it is OK to go to a “top tier” school and be a B student. The world will not end and you will still have a great life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Amen, amen, amen. Thanks for that @alooknac. Reminds me of the time I was ranting about something and my son wrapped his arms around me from behind and said, “Mom, stop, it’s all about the journey.” I will never forget that precious moment. Sometimes our kids see more clearly than we do.</p>
<p>ChoatieKid’s in a competitive environment. He gets some "B"s. They all do. They also all do just fine come college time. I’ve said it here many times, look at the matriculation lists for the schools your child attends or you’re considering-- there won’t be a clinker in the bunch. If you think you spot one, the error is probably on your side.</p>
<p>So much of it depends on your kid’s personality too. I think it’s a fallacy to assume that a bright kid would necessarily get top grades at a lower tier school. Sure, some of them might. But there are lots of kids who do better when pushed to excel (I mean pushed in a positive way, by being in a learning environment that challenges them to stretch and grow). For me, I know one of my kids would get very good grades if he went to an “easy” school, and one of my kids would just coast and get Bs anyway. I’d much rather see that kid working to get Bs at a top school and finding out what she’s capable of, than just coasting along.</p>
<p>“So much of it depends on your kid’s personality too.”</p>
<p>Yes. Gladwell presented statistics. He found that most people are more successful in terms of a single objective measure if they finish grad school at the top of their class. But kids are not statistics. Yours might be one of the few who will be just as successful graduating in the middle of the pack, or one of the many, perhaps, who doesn’t aspire to be #1 but has a fulfilling life allocating more time to family and social life than the #1’s do.</p>
<p>That said, I believe graduating “merely” in the upper quarter, or so, from my top 10 undergrad university, affected me profoundly in a negative way. Not to mention the debt incurred. I do think I would have made some radically different, and better, career decisions, had I accepted the full scholarship to a “lesser” school, and graduated near the top of my class, with the self confidence and financial freedom to consider a wider variety of career paths.</p>
<p>I have two teenagers, two very different people, one who seems more vulnerable than the other. I will advise them accordingly.</p>
<p>I probably graduated at bottom 30 percent of my elite university. Didn’t do great at a HYP graduate school. My final degree is from a non-top 30 university.</p>
<p>Career-wise I’m doing as well as top 30 percent of my undergraduate major peers. 90% of my undergraduate peers suffered terribly loss of confidence and broke down. Over the years they/we “recovered” from the burn succeeding in many areas in and outside of STEM. Recovery rate is about 60%. I believe and most would agree that many in my class would have been more successful had they gone to less prestigious schools with full scholarships. But individually, few would want to trade the experience. College is not the only thing that breaks down people. Being young gives more time to heal the wounds.
Listening to Gladwell’s talk, attending a tough BS, breaking down, and then failing to make it to top-10 college, thus thriving at a great non-top 30 college sounds much better path than being a valedictorian at LPS and breaking down at an Ivy.</p>
<p>If concerns over class ranking become a dominant factor in the decision of which school to attend, then potentially we are looking at the prospect of a “systematic dumbing down” where everyone is trying to find a surer way to stand out from their peers by attending a “weaker” school. The reality is that no matter how “bad” a school is, there will be a bottom half of the class unless the grading inflation is outrageously rampant, in which case I suspect your standing out in it wouldn’t mean much any more either. </p>
<p>That being said, I think class ranking is a legitimate concern, which may not only affect where one ends up in the next stage of education but also the learning experience while there. The question is how much weight you put on it in your decision. Often times, there’s significant uncertainty around this metric. It’s very hard to predict how well your kid will do in a certain school. Do you then want to enroll him/her in an obviously less competitive school to “make sure”? What are the implications of that choice? In other words, what are you giving up and is what you give up of importance to you? More fundamentally, what viable options are really out there for you to choose from? Is the alternative acceptable?..</p>
<p>Posters up thread talked about different kids’ different needs, and I think that’s a great point. Do your kid thrive in a competitive environment? Is your kid almost always in the middle of the pack wherever he/she is? Is your kid relatively easily frustrated by setbacks and need encouragement to do better? … At the end of the day, like any other decisions in life, you evaluate options available to you, analyze pros and cons of each options, match with your priorities and make the best decision that makes sense to you at that point.</p>
<p>I don’t think Gladwell’s example proved his point. I had the impression that the economics Ph.D. students who did not become professors tended to end up at the Fed or Wall Street. They’re not publishing because they’re working in industries which don’t live by “publish or perish.”</p>
<p>See Paul Krugman on the same phenomenon:
<a href=“http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/smart-guys-and-wall-street/[/url]”>http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/smart-guys-and-wall-street/</a></p>
<p>During the boom years, even more “smart guys” were heading to Wall Street, which would give rise to the pattern observed.</p>
<p>Gladwell’s theory does align with the advice of the Greenes, (of Howard Greene & Associates) to look for a school at which a student can be an “upper one-thirder.”</p>
<p>
–from The Greenes’ Guide to Boarding Schools.</p>
<p>Who will take care of the bottom two-thirders? Do they have to live in their parents basements to pay off their boarding school debts?</p>
<p>
As Choatiemom pointed out, the overwhelming majority of top BS graduates went on to “a quality college”. As a matter of fact, the less competitive a school is, the more of their graduates end up in a college further away from the perceived “quality colleges”. I know Gladwell was being funny when he mentioned the ‘weepable’ non-top 30 colleges, so dare I guess that we should think the top 50 colleges would all be acceptable quality colleges? If so, then up to 85% of the top BS graduates end up in one of those colleges or an equivalent LAC or foreign school. So, if <em>all</em> you need is “a quality college”, class ranking is not that important in competitive BS after all.</p>
<p>The bottom line is why spend 200 grand to go to a “quality college” while you can do the same from your neighborhood school for free and have 200 grand left in the bank which can used to pay for college. So many of my friends from BS are in colleges that are also attended by my public school friends. Guess who is ahead…</p>
<p>@pwalsh: You seem obsessed with the cost of BS. Let your parents worry about that. When it’s your turn to decide how to educate your children, you can make whatever decision seems best for them. As you mature, you may be able to consider more than monetary issues.</p>
<p>“I don’t think Gladwell’s example proved his point. I had the impression that the economics Ph.D. students who did not become professors tended to end up at the Fed or Wall Street. They’re not publishing because they’re working in industries which don’t live by “publish or perish.””</p>
<p>Good point, but if they entered the PhD program intending to become publishing economists and changed direction because they felt they didn’t measure up, then Gladwell did prove his point. </p>
<p>Likewise, undergrads in the bottom half of their science/math programs tended to switch to a non science/math major. The fact that this happens at a wide range of colleges makes you wonder if bottom half undergrads who drop out of Harvard’s math program, would have persisted with their passion had they attended UMass, where they might well have been top students. </p>
<p>That’s what I think is important, if it is true: That students evaluate themselves based on how they compare to peers within their immediate social environment. And if students feel they do not measure up, they might forgo their passion for a career where they feel certain of success. (This is, in fact, what I did)</p>
<p>
I think it is true, to a certain extent. Teenagers’ parceptions of themselves are more likely to be shaped or influcenced by peers. They should be often reminded to “think outside bubbles”. The competitive BS or college the kid is in is like a “camp”, where a significantly higher concentration of certain type of students is present. To be in the middle or even the bottom half of this group of people is NOT a reliable indicator of your position in the general population, or your relative strengths among all the engineers who will be competing for a job or work with you on a project. On the other hand, it is an opportunity to know “how deep the pool can get”, expel the unfounded confidence from early on, and find a path of your own. In the end, the kid should know the school is a means, not the end. You learn as much as you can - knowledge, skills as well as about yourself, and you move on. There is a big world out there. You will be surprised, coming out of that “camp”, how much more capable you are than you thought you’d be!</p>
<p>Exactly, Benley. And because of that, kids in highly competitive, elite schools, whether high school or college, really stand to benefit from the support of adults with more experience and broader perspective. I think kids get that in the private high schools where small classes and adviser programs allow for more frequent and meaningful student-teacher contact, but they don’t get much support in college.</p>
<p>I wonder if anyone has studied resilience of students from public vs. private high school, once they get to college. Are bottom half Harvard students who attended private high school more likely to persist with their passions and realize their dreams, than bottom half Harvard students who attended public high school? If so, that would be a compelling reason to foot the bill for private high school.</p>
<p>honorarymom, that’s a hard question to answer. From my observation, kids from a <em>hard</em> HS, private or public, and go on to elite colleges tend to be more prepared academically, and serious and focused from early on. Theoretically they should be more resilient because many of them have gone through the challenges in their HS and rode out of them successfully,which kids from other background are going through in college. On the other hand, however, I imgine it would be hard for these kids who graduated at the top of their competitive HS class to take failures too… This kind of support may or may not be available in the school, but at least we parents can try and provide our kids some perspectives.</p>
<p>If I had a chance to do this over, I might have worked harder to put ds in a school that had a wider array of courses in his favorite subject area. He is happy where he is, but no longer finds his former favorite (math) at all exciting or challenging. I am now looking hard at courses and when they are available for my dd. If she has to wait until senior year to take an interesting or challenging English class, she will also turn away from a passion.</p>