<p>Lukester, my kid is like the kid ag54 describes. She's just wired to excel.</p>
<p>Independently. To be the best she can be even if no one is watching, and , so far at least, to be the best in the room, school, state when someone is watching . (As her stage gets larger , maybe even the nation but I don't know what she will do. There is still time for her to fall in love and live in the low rent trailer park with a guy named Buford, and I recognize that.) </p>
<p>She "doesn't change her stripes" when she changes activities (although she is learning to scale it back a notch in powder puff football :eek: ). But, she would be that way at #10 or 2 (and she came very close to being #2).</p>
<p>Rank didn't make her this way, the way she is resulted in the rank. </p>
<p>I would never suggest that being 2 or 19 or 190 means that a student can't become a college or career mover and shaker , but somehow it seems O.K. to suggest that of vals. </p>
<p>All super high achiever kids w/ the lowest rank, the big grades test scores and EC's make some "compromise" however slight it may be. If they haven't learned triage by now things might not be pretty at college. Mine gave up some part of her social life. To those of you following along, this was also not my idea. </p>
<p>Just don't paint the vals with the same broad (schemer, dullard, grade grubber, studyworm, less than brilliant, never wuzzer) brush and I'll be O.K. with that.</p>