Toxicity of high-achieving schools

[marytuda]

Just picked this up on social media today. Think it’s pretty relevant to countless mumsnetters desperate to get kids into the ‘right’ schools, terrified of ‘failure’. Confirms all my own instincts . . . Highly competitive secondary schools are actually the last thing your developing teen needs whatever their ability level. They need somewhere friendly to grow and explore in peace at own pace without feeling constantly judged. They are getting plenty of that anyway.

www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/202106/the-toxic-consequences-attending-high-achieving-school?fbclid=IwAR1MfFkIoWP-E722ENwiW58zDVgFYs9iR1XXEwTO6xPWsgJiNfbdb8LBCnc

I'm curious, the article says the following:

"Students at high-achieving schools exhibit much higher rates of anxiety, depression, and substance abuse"

Are there any studies that look at anxiety, depression and substance abuse at the highest level of corporate jobs or the highest levels of professional athletes or military personnel?

I just wonder if you want to be the best at something...best student, best CEO, best athlete or best military person, does that also entail lots of anxiety, depression, etc? Are very high achievers in any part of society often suffering higher levels of these things?

Thanks for posting.

I’m sure driven people are more prone to stress-symptoms of all kinds. In families it’s generally the parents who are driven though - and induce the same (multiplied) in their kids.
Not saying of course we shouldn’t be ambitious for them but it’s a question of definition - what’s more important in life, a string of ‘accomplishments’ or sound mental health? I can think of some families clearly prepared to risk their child’s health for ‘high-achievement’. . Actually a theme in recent Kazuo Ishiguro novel Klara and the Sun (recommended).

Hmm - I think there’s pros and cons, to be honest, and it depends in the personality of the individual child.

The fact is, most very able students will end up at very competitive universities. This is the reality of it. They will then be up against students from all over the world inc. China and Korea where academic competitiveness seems to be on another level. You could argue that students from competitive schools will be less phased by this. They know competition is a fact of life and there will always be someone doing better than you. It is what it is. Whereas, if you’ve been one of the “top” students in a low performing school, you may have the impression you are “outstanding” (because this is what teachers, peers and pretty much anyone has told you every day if your life). You may be used to all the hoo-haa for relatively little effort. So it can be a massive shock when you arrive at Oxford or Imperial or LSE or whatever, to find you are suddenly just average on a good day. This can equally cause mental health problems, I suspect.

I teach in a high-performing, selective independent school and I agree with this article on every level, although, I will say that some kids thrive on the stress but many fall apart. The exam pressure and scheduling is relentless.

mangomania I think ‘top’ students at low-performing schools mostly know very well where they stand in the wider social food chain, to put it crassly. They know there are ‘posh’ schools with pupils who ‘outclass’ them on every social and academic front, and they know very well these are the students who will dominate the scene at Oxbridge etc. Should they make it there; which is the main reason many decide not to apply.
I think statistics show, though, that those who do get there from ‘low achieving’ schools end up doing better academically on average than ‘posh school’ students with the same (top) grades.. Makes sense really - they’ve beaten the odds already, so to speak.
I also think it possible the reverse could happen - kids from high-performing selective schools who are accustomed to think of themselves as belonging to a super-elite, are surprised and wrong-footed when prejudices are challenged by some ex-comp street-accented dreadlocked student who looks (to them) like a braindead hood, but turns out pretty ace at whatever.

Glad to see there apparently is no toxicity in stereotyping

Highly achieving academically does not automatically mean high achieving socially or being capable of negotiating the challenges of life.

Wow
Plenty of prejudice going round!!

I’m wondering @marytuda have you met many people from those ‘top elite high achieving schools’?
I’m wondering if all the stuff you are saying about those students is coming from experience…..

My DS got eight A* and 3 As at GCSE ... felt like pond life with those As at a very selective state school. It all rings tragically true with me ...

DD is very high achieving but it makes her anxious . Her brother is above average but a bit lazy and generally pretty laid back
I think that sometimes high academic achievement does come with a price - I would have preferred DD to get lower grades but be happy

The idea of leading a stress-free life sounds lovely. Don't get overly anxious about your exam results, and as the article explains, "the idea that attending a prestigious college gives one a boost in careers or any other aspect of life has been proven false in careful longitudinal research." So, going to SPGS or Westminster is a poor choice and then going to Oxbridge is irrelevant to "careers or any other aspect of life." So it would seem the best thing for your child is to focus on the "intrinsic values", send them to a middle-of-the-road state school, and by all means do not even waste your time applying to Oxbridge. What if at the age of 24 the kid decides that actually he/she wants to be the CEO of a big Plc? I firmly believe confidence is the most important thing an education can provide to a young person. But unfortunately we live in a world were just to make it thru the door to get a job interview, it helps if you went to Oxbridge or an Ivy. Then again, work is stressful so why would a young person want to do that?

But it’s not about high academic achievement per se, it’s about being pushed too much, about too much emphasis on academic achievement, about 9A*s being no good if you get one B.
I did very well academically, but I was never pushed. I loved learning and I still do. There was no pressure. My school was a good one but was a normal comp - it valued all children, not just the ones who were academic. I felt valued as a person. I didn’t feel anxious about school work. I didn’t have a breakdown. I had true friends.

I think applying to Oxbridge is fine for a kid from any background so long as the desire is genuinely their own and they are in with a good chance, both of getting in and getting a lot out of the experience. What it isn’t is any kind of essential for or guarantee of success in life, wherever you come from. Being a well balanced young person who makes an effort, enjoys life and gets along with a range of people, is much more so, but the two things are not mutually exclusive obvs.
I don’t think my personal experience is relevant here but fwiw I went to Oxbridge from v average state school many years ago. I did push myself excessively I now believe in sixth form to keep up with the local privately educated and do wonder if I wouldn’t have been better off ‘having more fun’ and going somewhere with more other kids from backgrounds like mine. Socially intimidated and not well supported, I don’t think I made the most of uni when I got there.
But it’s a long time ago as I say, a lot must have changed since, including at Oxbridge.

@marytuda

mangomania I think ‘top’ students at low-performing schools mostly know very well where they stand in the wider social food chain, to put it crassly. They know there are ‘posh’ schools with pupils who ‘outclass’ them on every social and academic front, and they know very well these are the students who will dominate the scene at Oxbridge etc. Should they make it there; which is the main reason many decide not to apply. I think statistics show, though, that those who do get there from ‘low achieving’ schools end up doing better academically on average than ‘posh school’ students with the same (top) grades.. Makes sense really - they’ve beaten the odds already, so to speak. I also think it possible the reverse could happen - kids from high-performing selective schools who are accustomed to think of themselves as belonging to a super-elite, are surprised and wrong-footed when prejudices are challenged by some ex-comp street-accented dreadlocked student who looks (to them) like a braindead hood, but turns out pretty ace at whatever.

That's not my experience. You seem very wedded to your view of high achieving schools and that parents are pushy. There's obviously a reason why you're so emotionally invested in this (to the exclusion of considering any alternative experiences). Is it just for the bunfight? Or is there a personal experience that's influencing you here?

@marytuda that's a very good point. I never ever hired anybody who attended Oxbridge. In fact, a few years ago a Cambridge grad was interviewing me for over two hours. In that two hours, the person only looked me in the eye for less than five minutes. The person had ZERO people skills.

It's all down to the individual. I read more of Dr. Gray's stuff. He attended an Ivy.

www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/200810/reasons-consider-less-selective-less-expensive-college

So what you are saying is that going to a standard 6th form didn’t protect you from pushing yourself to go to Oxbridge?

And then when you did arrive at Oxbridge, which was your aim, you felt that you didn’t fit in and should have stick to Unis for people ‘like you who went to a standard secondary school’…

What’s the relationship with schools that pushed children too much (you said yourself you did that all on your own)?

My own experience both with myself and my dcs is that children who are competitive and want to do well/go to Oxbridge will push themselves regardless. They don’t need someone to do it for them tbh. As you’ve experienced.
A school that is pushing children too hard is never good. But a school that is actually expecting the best of (NOT being the best….) the children is allowing those children to achieve their potential. It’s not a bad thing tbh.

Bunfight? Wot bunfight? Look, elizadarcy I shared an interesting article and followed it up with some more musings, given that some nice sounding people responded . . something different to do on a quiet Sunday, I thought. Engagement entirely optional, obvs.
You are the one getting your hackles up, can’t you see that? Obviously my reflections have triggered your defences. I think that’s called DARVO - can’t remember what it stands for but basically means you accuse everyone else of precisely what you’re doing yourself.

So many generalisations here.

Cambridge graduate can't look someone in the eye and has no people skills . It's all because they're a Cambridge graduate right???

One of my colleagues doesn't know where to look when talking to most people. He is a nervous / anxious and shy person.

High achievers have poor mental health. Where are all these studies about the low achievers, with little to no qualifications, poor paid work and struggling for money: their mental health is stellar?!

Such sweeping generalisations made all around.

They know there are ‘posh’ schools with pupils who ‘outclass’ them on every social and academic front, and they know very well these are the students who will dominate the scene at Oxbridge etc

I wondered how long it would be before you started bringing ‘posh’ into it.

@ActonSquirrel you are right. I apologize. I should not make generalizations like that. Again, very sorry.

Isitworth it’s more complicated than that, so I can’t go into much autobiographical detail . . I was under pressure, indirectly, from my background . . I had I think an unhealthy and excessive need to prove myself. School was barely relevant, but I was not happy there either. It is a very long time ago.
None of that, I don’t think, is why the above article resonated with me this morning. That’s more a reaction to the craziness of secondary school transition around here nowadays - state and private sector both is my impression, though - absolutely right! - as a parent I have no direct experience of the private sector. I think as parents we often get our priorities terribly wrong. That’s all.

I purposely sent my DC to different schools for this reason. Very high achieving DD goes to the school that prides itself on getting the best grades in the city. DD thrives.
This attitude would have sent DS into a spiral of anxiety and depression, despite being a high achiever himself, the expectations would stress him out. He chose the school whose mantra was "helping you to become who you want to be" "helping you to be the best you" type things.
I think a lot of it is personality and being predisposed to such illnesses.

Gosh I had forgotten how unpleasant people can be on here - as well as of course brilliant. It’s been a while!
‘Posh’ Andante is just how some local kids refer to the private schools - there are many worse terms they could use, and for all I know they do. What would you like them to say?
Actually don’t bother - I’ve had enough for today.

This article is interesting and sad. It doesn't resonate with me personally. I went to a HAS and loved it, having been bullied at primary school for being a nerd. I was towards the top there though and so didn't feel massive pressure.

It's odd you can't see you were generalising about parents at high achieving schools; pupils at high achieving schools; parents at state schools; pupils at state schools; how these groups interact with each other.

Ime MN doesn't like broad brush strokes. The demographic is mixed enough to have posters from all those sectors who won't recognise themselves in your stereotypes.
If you had wanted to seriously discuss the issues with parents pushing high achievers, that wouldn't have needed the obnoxiousness.