Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to be a big fish in a small pond compared with being a small fish in a big pond. I believe that’s been borne out psychological research

As someone who's been the big fish (not by choice), there is a cost to it too. When you basically can cruise through school half asleep and writing with your left foot, you are not developing the skills you should be developing. You simply don't know what you don't know. And no one is paying attention because "you'll do fine, no matter what"

Exactly my experience. Coasted through a small private school, then when I got into a tough college where everyone was the same size fish, I didn’t know how to work hard. Too used to coasting. Most painful of all, students there who went to the public school I should have gone to were better prepared mentally than I was. If I had to do it again, would have gone to public HS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to be a big fish in a small pond compared with being a small fish in a big pond. I believe that’s been borne out psychological research

As someone who's been the big fish (not by choice), there is a cost to it too. When you basically can cruise through school half asleep and writing with your left foot, you are not developing the skills you should be developing. You simply don't know what you don't know. And no one is paying attention because "you'll do fine, no matter what"

+1. Being a big fish in a small HS pond stunts people in a lot of ways.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to be a big fish in a small pond compared with being a small fish in a big pond. I believe that’s been borne out psychological research

As someone who's been the big fish (not by choice), there is a cost to it too. When you basically can cruise through school half asleep and writing with your left foot, you are not developing the skills you should be developing. You simply don't know what you don't know. And no one is paying attention because "you'll do fine, no matter what"

This!!!

Big fishes everywhere OP. Even in small ponds

Anonymous wrote:Don't worry about anything "from a college admissions standpoint." Send your kid to a high school where he'll thrive.

+100

Anonymous wrote:Small schools can be cliquey. Let your son decide where he wants to go.

+1

Anonymous wrote:Better to be a big fish in a small pond compared with being a small fish in a big pond. I believe that’s been borne out psychological research

As someone who's been the big fish (not by choice), there is a cost to it too. When you basically can cruise through school half asleep and writing with your left foot, you are not developing the skills you should be developing. You simply don't know what you don't know. And no one is paying attention because "you'll do fine, no matter what"

I would stay away from hypotheticals and focus on actual specifics. What are your kid’s interests? What subjects in school? Does he have a nice group of current friends (bird in hand…)?

In other words, If he loves robotics club, look at the actual offerings at schools. Or go to a sporting event, school play or concert. Or pick up the literary magazine. If he loves math, figure out what his math track might look at or look at writing electives if that is his jam. What will matter to him is how he spends his time so I would research those activities and try to decide if some place excites him more than others.

Anonymous wrote:I have a very shy smart kid and we are zoned for Langley. He has a nice group of friends but I feel he is getting lost in his large classes. I worry he will not shine. We have the means to pay for private school and want my kid to have a positive high school experience.

From a college admissions standpoint, would it be better to be a top kid at a small/medium private compared to a good student at a top public?

Every single kid at Langley seems so similar to one another. Everyone has perfect grades. Everyone plays a sport or two well. Everyone plays an instrument or does some other artsy extracurricular. Everyone is this well rounded carbon copy of one another.

From a college admission standpoint, it all evens out at the end. You might have fooled the admission counselors if your other option was a smaller, less competitive public school. But they compare kids against similar socio-economics, so your kid will be up against the perfect Langley kids with an understanding that he couldn't cut it at his local public, and the parents had to pay. He might have a better HS experience, but don't count on any benefit with college admissions.

Small schools can be cliquey. Let your son decide where he wants to go.

In order to avoid smart high-achievers at public school, you will send your kid to an expensive private school, where there will be no smart high-achievers. Sound strategy. Be sure to report back on how it works out for your kid.

How can you be sure your student would be the top kid, the big fish?

Ask them where they think they’ll be happy.

Don't worry about anything "from a college admissions standpoint." Send your kid to a high school where he'll thrive.

Better to be a big fish in a small pond compared with being a small fish in a big pond. I believe that’s been borne out psychological research

I have a very shy smart kid and we are zoned for Langley. He has a nice group of friends but I feel he is getting lost in his large classes. I worry he will not shine. We have the means to pay for private school and want my kid to have a positive high school experience.

From a college admissions standpoint, would it be better to be a top kid at a small/medium private compared to a good student at a top public?

Every single kid at Langley seems so similar to one another. Everyone has perfect grades. Everyone plays a sport or two well. Everyone plays an instrument or does some other artsy extracurricular. Everyone is this well rounded carbon copy of one another.