I think it would only be human to pick the 'big fish'.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios. Being the big fish, you dominate the subject (or subjects). Everybody knows that you are the expert or 'main man' to go to, and being in such a position commands respect. Having said that, there is an expectation from you to perform
exceedingly well if you are 'top dog' - the biggest fish of them all, no matter the size of the pond itself.
Being a 'dumb kid' in a selective school is a bit of a paradox, but I will go with it for a minute. If you are at the bottom of the bunch, and you're in a school full of intelligent (above-average) students, you will be tempted to learn even more than you would, had you attended a public (or in my case, Catholic) institution. Coming last in your subjects would give you all the more reason to perform better the next time, unless you are one of those students who 'settle for less', per se.
Going to a selective school does have it's disadvantages as well, as you would constantly be the subject of ridicule (I would imagine). This wouldn't be great for your ego, in which case you would do anything to be 'a big fish'.
In recapitulation:
Big fish - 'normal' school
- You're reknowned as the leading authority in a particular subject (or subjects)
- Others will look up to you, in terms of a source of motivation or guidance/advice
- You don't have a lot of pressure to perform, as selective students do, in their given school
- You can relax and feel comfortable (which isn't to say, selective schools do not 'relax and feel comfortable')
- You generally
do have a better time at school, although your marks may not reflect those of another student, attending a selective school.
- If you're at the top, you're likely to remain at the top for a longer period of time
- You may seem approachable, rather than be considered as 'competition' for those
beneath you (I don't mean to say: "You are better than everybody else").
- You may not perform as well as you could, potentially.
- You will be forced to 'settle for less' in some circumstances, whereby your marks will double or triple the school's average (depending on the school) - therefore you won't be getting
as high a mark as you would, had you been in a selective school with 95+ marks (or thereabouts).
Small fish - selective school
- You are constantly being ridiculed, or expected to 'fail'; at the bottom of the cohort
- You suffer from low self-esteem as you are always being considered a failure, in terms of the school's average or class average
- You lack any motivation to perform better, although being at the bottom may force you to shape up (or
ship out,
literally!)
- Your marks may be moderated moreso than another student, attending a non-selective school
- You will have more people, with a larger knowledge base than your own to ask advice, seeking guidance/help (if they are available, or 'nice' enough to help you).
These points are coming from a non-selective student, attending a private, Catholic, all-male school. I have never been in a selective school, so I know my points will be rebuked (if not confirmed). I know some of the points are biased and most are
assumptions, I admit that, but I'm trying to remain objective (as much as possible). Having never been in a selective school, I don't know what it is like - but I can only imagine what it may feel like. Being a big fish has it's advantages and disadvantages, although being the small fish at a selective school is not so bad in itself.
Now, having said that -- we have
'smaller fish to fry'.