Is it better to be a "Big Fish in a Small Pond" - Gladwell's Elite Cognitive Disorder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the branding power of Harvard or MIT? Even if you were at the bottom of your class. Wouldn’t you still typically get a job easily with higher salary compared to a top engineering student at UMD?
Also, isn’t everyone at Harvard or MIT really smart to begin with?

No, it's not true. Yes, the top students at MIT/Harvard have an easier time getting jobs. But the lower 25% do not. That's the point. Go where you can excel and you will do just as well, if not better than many at the top schools. It's about your opportunities and what you do with them that matters.

Your conclusion contradicted your short, unsupported, false paragraph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thing to keep in mind is that if you are able to into a top school from the DMV and don’t have a big hook, you are likely smart enough to be in the top half of your class.

wait until your kid meets the tippy top smarties from nyc, boston and sf bay area, ... or india and china ...

Yeah but there’s also the uber rich kids, the third generation legacies, the one kid from Mississippi so they could say they have all fifty states, the children of prominent people, the athletes. If you look at the data from discovery in the Harvard affirmative action case, there are a lot of those kids. That said, I went to an Ivy and it’s true the kids from Sty and Newton MA were brilliant.

Those kids were always supposed to be the bottom of the class, partying instead of studying, and happily coasting into jobs handed out by Father.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course the lower half of the econ Ph.D. class from Harvard/MIT have practically zero publications, as they don’t stay in academia but make big bucks in industry!

Not true. Most of the top students in any field go make big bucks in industry. No one in the cohort thinks that the academic were near exclusively the best students. They lament that the best minds sell out.

Again, this is not true in top graduate econ programs. Staying in academia is the only thing that is encouraged and is the only thing many of these students consider. Even indicating you want to do something else can leave you isolated within the department as they no longer think you are serious about scholarship. If you have good publishing prospects you are highly, highly likely to stay in academia and to land a top academic job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the branding power of Harvard or MIT? Even if you were at the bottom of your class. Wouldn’t you still typically get a job easily with higher salary compared to a top engineering student at UMD?
Also, isn’t everyone at Harvard or MIT really smart to begin with?

Branding power certainly exists. (Source:my DC)

No, those at the bottom of the class are passed over for the great jobs. (Source: someone from DC’s school went MIT due to lies on application. Only got internships through connections and did nothing the summer before senior year. I can see why no one would take her. )

No, not everyone is smart at Harvard and MIT. AO’s make mistakes. Hooked kids may or may not be smart.

You are describing an extreme fraud case, not the bottom quarter of the class.

[Anonymous]

The people who crave external validation for their self worth,.but hold themselves to a high standard, are the ones who get psychological crushed by being at the bottom of the class, even if they are brilliant. The people who don't care and coast and cheat through school do fine in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Might have to actually confront this choice for a high-stats kid who, within the last 48 hours, was admitted EA to Michigan and invited to a preliminary interview for the Chancellor’s scholarship at Pitt. Of course there’s also a massive difference in price, which Gladwell didn’t get into.

My kid took a merit scholarship at a T25 over offers from T10s (including Ivies), even though we could (relatively easily) afford full pay. We didn't push that decision -- told kid to pick based on preference, not cost.

So far, it's been a great outcome. Lots of super-motivated & talented peers at the T25, but our kid has been celebrated since before arriving. I think it's a huge shot in the arm (esp. after DC was rejected from T5). Great to have a named scholarship on the resume. Profs have been massively supportive, much more so that profs at my other kid's lower Ivy.

My biggest worry was about the peer cohort: would DC find friends and classmates with similar interests and drive? That has not been a problem at all in this case. Kid is happy. And we're happy to save all that $$$!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a very real phenomenon. The hit that you take to your confidence and sense of your own abilities can be very hard at a top school. It’s best to be where you are challenged but also fit in. This happened to me in college and I often wonder what my path would have been like at a different school.

This absolutely happened to me. Was in the gifted program/honors and AP classes throughout high school. Went to a top college and had a very difficult time. It hit my self esteem in the worst way. I wonder how I would have done if I had chosen to go to one of the middle colleges I had gotten into (still great colleges) and felt successful there instead of struggling.

[Anonymous]

I know some current and alumni MIT students. Most have done extremely well but other have struggled finding jobs or finding ones they like. Being good at school is different than successful career outcomes. It's true that those A students have a difficult time working for B and C students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know some current and alumni MIT students. Most have done extremely well but other have struggled finding jobs or finding ones they like. Being good at school is different than successful career outcomes. It's true that those A students have a difficult time working for B and C students.

This reminds me of an article the economist just had recently about research showing how early elite success rarely continued later into adulthood.

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2026/01/14/why-child-prodigies-rarely-become-elite-performers

[Anonymous]

This thread is a fascinating read. I actually got my PhD in economics at MIT and was in the top third of my class. Unlike most of my classmates, I didn’t go into academia.

So here is my perspective. Everyone in my graduating class (of about 20) has been very successful in their own way. Some are tenured professors with numerous publications at UChicago, Brown, Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, LSE. Some are partners in consulting firms and doing very well financially. Some are central bank governors and finance ministers in foreign countries. Some are working at hedge funds and making big bucks there.

But the biggest benefit from being at MIT was that we all pushed each other and got better because of it. It was a competitive but collaborative environment that we truly enjoyed. I am also grateful for the amazing network of MIT PhD economists across the world over the decades.

[Anonymous]

I like MG's talk and heard it years ago. It has been discussed ad nauseum on here and CC and reddit. It has truth to it. However as always the real world data are not as black and white.

There is data on law, med, and phD acceptance at kid's ivy (a T10)and there is also data that our professor relative has shared with us from his non-ivy T10 elite.
We have data from our other kid at one of the top two public unis.
The ivy does not grade inflate as much as the non-ivy (median graduating 3.75 vs 3.83); the public has a median GPA of 3.72.
The above-average but not phi beta kappa/top 10% from the ivy and from the T10, in other words GPA 3.75-3.90, get in to top phd, med, law. The LSATs are 170, MCATs 518. Sure you can say LSAT for law and MCAT but for PhD the GRE is rarely accepted anymore. These kids go to ivies/T25 for phD and MD, and they get in to T14 law. Very few kids from the state school get into these places and they are all 3.98-4.0 types with HIGHER MCAT and LSAT at the very top than the above average ivy-type kids.
It is in fact better to be an above-average but not top 10% kid at an ivy versus a top10% kid at the public.
The top10% kids at the ivy get in to multiple top places: already DC's senior friends who are the known starts have admission to T5 MD and phd, and some full rides to the T15 MD programs. The cycle is not even complete yet and they are sitting on many top acceptances.
Their 3.90 and 3.88 friends have T10 and ivy acceptances already.

The below average 25%ile range 3.5-3.6 students from the two elite schools get into MD programs and tier 2 law, over 50% of the time.

The below average from the state school do not get in to MD programs or law school much at all and it likely needs hooks. The charts show less than 10% acceptance below 3.6 at the state school. Of course the MCAT and LSAT ranges are higher from the students at the elites, and that likely accounts for much of the difference for the below average students.

Does it mean all elite students are successful over non-elite, of course not! For some, they likely do not function well emotionally being average and would be better off being close to the top at a lesser school.
However if they want law, MD, or Phd and they can emotionally handle not being top 5-10%, it is much better for them to go to the best school they can get into provided they will be average or better, and if they want T14/T25 law/md/phd, they need to merely pick a school where they are likely to be around top quarter and they will have more success than they would being the top 5-10% at a state school.

The best option is of course have the kid who can be 3.95+ at the ivy/T10. All doors open for that type of student in an elite setting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It really depends on the person, I guess. I was a whale in a small pond, and it did not feel good at all, and I also don’t think it helped professionally. Sorry, if I were to do it again, I’d aim for a better school.

I was too and got a full assistantship at a top school in the US/ good program in my field. So grad school cost nothing and I landed one of the best post docs in my field in the world. Now, I'm just a mom on a computer. Kidding. I'm one of those rich people nobody believes on the money forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a fascinating read. I actually got my PhD in economics at MIT and was in the top third of my class. Unlike most of my classmates, I didn’t go into academia.

So here is my perspective. Everyone in my graduating class (of about 20) has been very successful in their own way. Some are tenured professors with numerous publications at UChicago, Brown, Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, LSE. Some are partners in consulting firms and doing very well financially. Some are central bank governors and finance ministers in foreign countries. Some are working at hedge funds and making big bucks there.

But the biggest benefit from being at MIT was that we all pushed each other and got better because of it. It was a competitive but collaborative environment that we truly enjoyed. I am also grateful for the amazing network of MIT PhD economists across the world over the decades.

This. Same story from my T5 medical school, and was true at ivy undergrad as well. The significant majority of my classmates thrived in the environment and grew because of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like MG's talk and heard it years ago. It has been discussed ad nauseum on here and CC and reddit. It has truth to it. However as always the real world data are not as black and white.

There is data on law, med, and phD acceptance at kid's ivy (a T10)and there is also data that our professor relative has shared with us from his non-ivy T10 elite.
We have data from our other kid at one of the top two public unis.
The ivy does not grade inflate as much as the non-ivy (median graduating 3.75 vs 3.83); the public has a median GPA of 3.72.
The above-average but not phi beta kappa/top 10% from the ivy and from the T10, in other words GPA 3.75-3.90, get in to top phd, med, law. The LSATs are 170, MCATs 518. Sure you can say LSAT for law and MCAT but for PhD the GRE is rarely accepted anymore. These kids go to ivies/T25 for phD and MD, and they get in to T14 law. Very few kids from the state school get into these places and they are all 3.98-4.0 types with HIGHER MCAT and LSAT at the very top than the above average ivy-type kids.
It is in fact better to be an above-average but not top 10% kid at an ivy versus a top10% kid at the public.
The top10% kids at the ivy get in to multiple top places: already DC's senior friends who are the known starts have admission to T5 MD and phd, and some full rides to the T15 MD programs. The cycle is not even complete yet and they are sitting on many top acceptances.
Their 3.90 and 3.88 friends have T10 and ivy acceptances already.

The below average 25%ile range 3.5-3.6 students from the two elite schools get into MD programs and tier 2 law, over 50% of the time.

The below average from the state school do not get in to MD programs or law school much at all and it likely needs hooks. The charts show less than 10% acceptance below 3.6 at the state school. Of course the MCAT and LSAT ranges are higher from the students at the elites, and that likely accounts for much of the difference for the below average students.

Does it mean all elite students are successful over non-elite, of course not! For some, they likely do not function well emotionally being average and would be better off being close to the top at a lesser school.
However if they want law, MD, or Phd and they can emotionally handle not being top 5-10%, it is much better for them to go to the best school they can get into provided they will be average or better, and if they want T14/T25 law/md/phd, they need to merely pick a school where they are likely to be around top quarter and they will have more success than they would being the top 5-10% at a state school.

The best option is of course have the kid who can be 3.95+ at the ivy/T10. All doors open for that type of student in an elite setting.

Observation bias. Confirmation bias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really depends on the person, I guess. I was a whale in a small pond, and it did not feel good at all, and I also don’t think it helped professionally. Sorry, if I were to do it again, I’d aim for a better school.

I was too and got a full assistantship at a top school in the US/ good program in my field. So grad school cost nothing and I landed one of the best post docs in my field in the world. Now, I'm just a mom on a computer. Kidding. I'm one of those rich people nobody believes on the money forum.

And I was a great (but not summa cum laude) poor kid at an ivy who got into T5 MD and got a fellowship leading to free tuition for the final 2 years, back in the early 00s when med school merit was not as common as it is now, and none of it was need based. I know the ivy environment prepared me to get to a top med school ready to compete and win. If I had picked a big-fish undergrad school I would not have developed my max potential nor won the award and saved the $.