My oldest kid is a senior in high school, applying for college. He's applying to several extremely good schools, but is also following the standard advice to include some colleges like Harvard that are a bit of a "stretch". He probably could get in, but wouldn't be in the top 20% of applicants. If they accept him, is it still a good idea to go for it (assuming good financial aid)?
Conventional wisdom would say, "Yes. Get into the best college you possibly can." But I just finished reading "David and Goliath" by Malcolm Gladwell who also wrote the well researched, persuasive, and provocative books "Outliers", "Blink", and "The Tipping Point". The theme of "David and Goliath" is that many things that are normally thought of as advantages often prove to be disadvantages. Also, disadvantages are often advantages. Goliath didn't have a chance.
In one of the chapters, Gladwell argues that it isn't always an advantage to get into the best school, the best sports team, the best corporation. It's best to be a big fish in a small pond, to be in a situation in which you can be in the top 10% of your peer group. He describes studies showing how the big fish in the smaller ponds--the students at the top of their class in less elite colleges--were more successful in their careers than the small fish at Harvard and other top schools. The small fish at Harvard had higher SAT scores than the big fish at the schools that were merely "good", but they often were overwhelmed by competition with Harvard peers. After being the best students in their high schools, they were humbled and lost confidence when they fell into the middle of the pack at Harvard, often dropping out of the harder majors to find majors in which they could compete.
This concept goes beyond just avoiding academic challenges that make it hard to "shine". It applies to career choices, to how nice a yard I want to have, to other things I want to accomplish. It's good to shoot for the moon, but perhaps not the stars.
