Big Fish Small Pond or vice versa

[ChristmasLightsAndSparkles]

I saw a message on another thread (related to schools) that

There is academic research that it is better to be a big fish in a small pond, than a small fish in a big pond.

Anyone know what this research might be?

I see being middle of a strong cohort as ideal - allowing for the child to be stretched, and to develop a strong work ethic.

People I know who grew up being 'the clever one' often show maladaptive 'fixed mindset' attitudes as adults. Ie. not expecting to have to study, since it usually just makes sense; feeling threatened by people who are more clever rather you and seeking 'safe' work/social life rather than the pleasure and challenge of peers who are at and above your level.

I was top of a mixed ability cohort at school myself, and have had to learn not to allow myself those attitudes - and also believe they actually create stress (I still have to remind myself that it's ok not to already know stuff). But I guess I don't know what it feels like to work really hard and still struggle academically. I've always got the confidence that when I 'up the gears' I can succeed. I am very hard-working, and always have been.

DD is middle of the year academically in a strong academic school, which I've always been happy with. But other parents (kids also roughly middle of the year academically) have said they worry that never being the one who 'shines' isn't good for the kids self esteem, and have considered changing school to be more of a big fish in a small pond.

What is your opinion/experience?

(This is just curiosity. DD loves her school, and I'm really happy with it. Not planning to move her)

Being an apparently big fish in too small a pond probably isn't helpful, and neither is being an apparently small fish in too large a pond.

For my DD, a 'normally selective' rather than superselective GS was probably about the right-sized pond for her.

@fklps - I think it is personality dependent too. I have 4 DC and they are all very different. 2 are naturally so confident that superselective is what suits them - they learn from peers too and strive forward and if they were too celebrated they would be too arrogant.
Like this they will openly admit nobody really is at the top and many of their school friends are very talented, just all in different ways. Nobody is going to be top at maths, science, languages, history, DT, arts, sports, music, drama etc at their schools. Some are top in this and some top in that etc. Eventually everyone encounters that they aren’t going to be best at everything and where the natural confidence of the child can cope the earlier the better, in my opinion.
I also have one child who isn’t high octane and more shy, hard on himself with perfectionist tendencies visible from an early age- for him that environment wouldn’t be great. He is fairly self motivated anyway - he doesn’t need the competition of peers like the other 2 do.

So I think personality is as much a factor as ability.

Would agree it is child dependent.
I think for more able kids a small pond is not enough and quite suffocating. We have a small village school and some of the brighter kids who are already full of themselves can become insufferable. They are not super smart they are just in a very small year group of e.g. 5-15 children.
For less able and less confident children a small pond could well be cosy and reassuring. So I suspect it is child dependent.
For our children we would like a selective senior school to push them on. This is especially important for DS who goes at the speed to ensure he is top of the class rather than performing as well as he can..