Being a small fish in a big pond or a big fish in a small one?

[DrunkenUnicorn]

Sorry about the title, not sure on the best way to phrase it.

What I was hoping to ask was other people’s experiences of aiming high, at places where they have worked very hard and just scraped in and are therefore lower than many of the other students, vs somewhere where your grades were comfortably above the entry requirements? How have your DC fared if they have gone to a uni at either end of that scale?

I think I read on here there was a theory (which I now stupidly have forgotten the name of) which basically said do not attend a university where you have got in by the skin of your teeth/have the minimum entry requirements on the basis that data showed people didn’t achieve well if they felt unintelligent compared to the majority, that it really knocked their confidence.

This is something that I understand quite well. DS found it quite a knock and took a while going from his primary to grammar. He did get over it and found his feet after the first year or two. But he definitely found it dented his confidence to be in the bottom 1/3 for everything. This then became a self fulfilling prophecy- he thought he wasn’t clever enough so he didn’t try as hard because he felt it hopeless. It made him quite unhappy at the time.

Obviously at 18 he’s more mature and hopefully resilient than at 11/12. However in discussions recently he’s said that he doesn’t want to go back to feeling that he’s below the majority and will struggle to keep up.

So I was wondering if anyone could share their experiences of DC who’ve either gone somewhere where perhaps they’ve scraped in/missed a grade but still accepted etc compared to others who chose a uni/course because they really liked the vibe/it felt like ‘the one’, even tho the average grade is a little lower than DC predicted/achieved. Are they happy? Would they do the same again?

They may know the grades required are higher, but they won't necessarily know the grades obtained are, in any specific instance.

Why any given student didn't want anything more challenging at that time could depend on any number of reasons – caring responsibilities, wanting/needing to live at home rather than at university, a specific course, the opportunity of a work placement, membership of a professional body, mental health issues etc etc. An employer might ask that question, but the student might have a very good answer…

Some answers might be good. Others might be a red flag. But the big fish in the small pond won’t be a great answer. That’s what the op was getting at.

This is a great question. I was having this conversation with ds. He's just doing GCSEs and looking for sixth form. He's top of his year at a very small school so I've been preparing him that this won't be the case at sixth form as there will be a much wider spread of abilities.
DD is still waiting on Durham but has pretty much ruled it out on this theory. She doesn't want to be stressing candidly on top of the whole 'moving away from home' emotional changes. She'd prefer to know she can cope well with the workload and not be forever trying to catch her tail.

Small fish, big pond for me.

The thing is, if you are ‘protected’ by being the big fish in a small pond through school and uni, where does it end? Will you only take jobs below your ability, with people you deem less able than you? Sounds like a cop out attitude and quite depressing tbh.

Part of life is realising that no matter how good you are, there will always be others who are better. The sooner you get used to that the better really, otherwise how will you cope with life?

I would actually argue that, in another way, being a big fish in the small pond can be damaging too. I have seen too many schools that hail their top students as ‘exceptional’ and make a big fandango out of them when probably, they are just ‘good.’

My friend’s son was in a (supposedly very good) London academy. They made a big hoo haa out of him and his parents were convinced he was ‘gifted’ because they put him in the ‘gifted and talented class.’ . I remember them telling me in full confidence that he was bound to get all 9s in his GCSE because this is what he was predicted by his teachers. I mean, what kind of school with any sense predicts 9s in Year 11? Hardly an incentive to work hard and stay focused after the mocks is it? Apparently the school had marked all his Feb mocks and told him he was a “High Grade 9 across the board.” So he did absolutely sod all between the mocks and GCSEs in May because of this mumbo jumbo he’d been fed about being gifted and talented and working at a 9. In the real GCSEs, he got 8 Grade 6s and two 7s. The school set this child up basically with a false sense of security. But nevertheless, he stayed in the ‘gifted and talented’ stream and the school did the same to him again at A-level. Predicted him two A* s and an A. He ended up with BBB and had to go through clearing. This is very hard when you’ve been led to believe you are ‘gifted.’

A relatives daughter in a comprehensive has similarly been classed as ‘exceptional’ and yes, ‘gifted’ since Year 7. This is a heavy label to bear and she has ended up with anorexia in an ED unit. It’s hard when everyone (peers, teachers, family) have you labelled as ‘the top student’ because you have to constantly live up to that and it can feel like the only way is down. Sometimes the anonymity of being ‘average’ in the cohort of a more selective school or university (which is what most of them will be) can be far less stress and pressure. Also, surely it’s good to be around other hard working and able students who can inspire you, as opposed to the norm being a ‘meh’ attitude and results among your peers group.

I think a lot of people worked out that some schools don’t see many gifted and talented DC and I thought this label had been jettisoned. For good reason. Some schools will have close to 100% high achievers and some schools will have 1 child who is a high achiever. Wholly depends upon school and catchment area.

However be the best you can be and don’t sell yourself short. Most young people will accept a challenge and leaving home and studying is part of that. That’s why Oxbridge get so many applicants. Young people trying to be the best they can be and accepting the challenge.

However be the best you can be and don’t sell yourself short. Most young people will accept a challenge and leaving home and studying is part of that. That’s why Oxbridge get so many applicants. Young people trying to be the best they can be and accepting the challenge.

It's perhaps worth noting in the context of this thread that Oxford and Cambridge actively select from their excess applicants, and don't just the ones with the highest predicted grades. Obviously they won't get it right 100% of the time but they'll be trying to get students who can cope with the work.

The same may apply to some extent in other unis with high applicant rates.

A really interesting thread, thank you for posting OP.

My 17yo DS1 has ASD/ADHD and is one who is definitely going for the bigger fish in smaller pond approach. We all - DH, DS1 and I - feel he would struggle in a large, uber-competitive, lots-of-highly-confident-and-highly-able-DC-flying-high RG environment. Yes, in theory, he could get the grades to get into a RG for the course he wants but none of us feel that this would be right for him.

I wonder if perhaps some parents and DC focus so much on the reputation of a university that they don't always think clearly about what might suit the student best. DH and I are both technically 'high fliers' (DH has an Oxbridge degree, I went to one of the current top-10 RGs) but we are very aware that DS1 faces challenges we did not face, and has needs that we did not have.

Better go to a lower-ranked university where they thrive than a top-ranked one where they drop out within the year because they can't cope, is my opinion. BUT bear in mind I am coming at this as a parent of a child with fairly complex needs. May well have a different view for DC2 and 3, who are both NT.

However, all that said, it's worth thinking about the subject DC want to study, and how the unis are ranked according to that subject. Some of the 'lower ranked' unis might actually be more highly regarded than a RG one for certain subjects. DS's choice is lower-ranked overall, sure - but for his actual subject it's ranked within the top 20 and higher than many of the RGs.

Better go to a lower-ranked university where they thrive than a top-ranked one where they drop out within the year because they can't cope, is my opinion. BUT bear in mind I am coming at this as a parent of a child with fairly complex needs. May well have a different view for DC2 and 3, who are both NT.

Definitely- one size doesn't fit all.

Some of the 'lower ranked' unis might actually be more highly regarded than a RG one for certain subjects. DS's choice is lower-ranked overall, sure - but for his actual subject it's ranked within the top 20 and higher than many of the RGs.

Yes, that's right. The overall university league tables don't really tell you much about individual courses, you need to look at subject-specific rankings.

And even then you need to decide what metrics are important to you, personally – for example entry standards simply tell you what A level grades applicants generally obtained, they don't really tell you anything about the teaching, or the resources, or the standards of people leaving university 3 years later. Similarly, research quality is hugely important when undertaking post-graduate study but whether it's important to a teenage undergraduate is much less obvious. Student satisfaction might mean how much they enjoyed their time there with no reference to the quality of the course. And so on and so on.