When "only the best" backfires
When my brother sat down with his 13-year-old daughter to decide which high school she would attend, they followed a simple rule: She should enroll in the “best” possible high school she could gain admission to.
Makes sense, right? Well, at the time, I thought so too. After all the applications, it seemed that my niece had won the equivalent of the high school lottery. She'd been accepted into one of the most competitive, high performing high schools in the country. On top of that, it was public and therefore free!
No one but you can determine whether a highly competitive high school is right for your child. But it’s worth pondering these questions before you and your child make your decision.
Will your child excel no matter how competitive the school? Is a competitive environment motivating to him or her or inhibiting?
Does your child need special mentors and relationships to teachers to motivate him or her?
Do you imagine that your child will want to explore many kinds of hobbies, arts, sports during high school or does he or she already have a high level of expertise in his or her interests?
Does your child test well? (This can make all the difference when it comes to getting into colleges.)
Is it a financial imperative that your child attend a public university?
And what are the admissions policies of your state university in regard to in-state students?
Most parents would agree that the best school means the best thing for their child. Yet somewhere in the translation the concept of “best” becomes synonymous with “competitive.” Competitive schools generally hold their students to high standards which research shows has a huge impact on student achievement. But these schools can also subject students to a cut-throat atmosphere which inhibits learning.
Take my niece, for example. She’s artistic, athletic, smart and curious. Yet there was little room for exploration at her high school since every aspect of the school – from the sports teams to helping with props for the theater – involved a competition to participate in a given activity. It wasn’t that the school was filled with mean, competitive people – it was just that like at many public schools, resources were limited and these multi-talented, achievement-oriented kids all wanted to do everything!
When it comes to applying for colleges, parents and kids discover that choosing a school because of its competitiveness also can backfire. Jay Mathew, education columnist for the Washington Post, recently reminded readers that research shows that the “more brilliant the student body of the high school your child attends, the more likely he or she will lose out in the competition for the most prestigious colleges.” Why? Because choosey universities are trying to balance their rolls: they don’t want too many students coming from a single school.
Highly competitive high schools can make it hard to get into large public universities as well as Ivy Leagues – an important financial factor for many families who can’t afford out-of-state or private tuition. My niece excelled in high school, but she didn't graduate at the top of her class. Because she wasn't in the top 10%, she didn't make a cut off for gaining admission to one of the University of California schools. (University of California recently announced new policies to go into effect in 2012 which weigh test scores, advanced placement classes and class ranking). Other public universities have similar “top of the class” admissions policies: University of Texas admits the top 10%, while Florida universities admit the top 20%.) In the end my niece gained admission to a UC school after a professor spotted her at a biology competition and actively recruited her. But I always wonder, had she gone to the “second best” high school in our metropolitan area, would have had more opportunities to learn and find mentors? Would she have been able to get into more colleges?
