Of course mine slacked by some standards, but then I live in an inexpensive state where the public universities are not that hard to get into. So it was not required that they be stars at everything and also rich for them to be able to acquire traditional college educations at public research institutions, paying in state tuition.
Back home in California such is not the case. A grade point average below 4.0 now means exclusion from UC admission and from merit based scholarships, such that if you are the type best suited to a traditional college education and you only have a 3.5 grade point average, then that is not easily accessible to you — anywhere — due to the cost when not the competition.
Everything would be fine if said child were of the type who would also thrive at a CSU or someplace similar. But if they are in fact the intellectual and not the trade school type then they must be pushed to make much more than minimum standards, because they will be bored at trade schools and teacher’s colleges and everything, everywhere is so expensive and so competitive that you must be a star.
I had this argument with my parents back in the day – they wanted me to slack off and I thought it unwise, kept pointing out that we were in a recession and the economy would never really grow again, so one could not afford to waste any opportunities – yet I never believed in pushing kids the way people began to do later. But now, given the prices of everything, I do: they have to win many prizes, no doubt about it, because otherwise nobody will be able to afford a thing.
Axé.
coldhearted scientist وداد 
This is an issue with my granddaughter, who “only” made 98the percentile in both math and reading/vocabulary on the test to get into the magnet school for academically gifted children in Seattle. That wasn’t good enough. Her best friend made the cut. This was when she was seven!
So it seems kids can’t slack, even in elementary school!
I think it’s ridiculous. I can imagine horrid tiger moms all over Seattle pushing their kids into high achievement. Ugh.
Where did you hear that fact about UC admissions? It’s my understanding that 3.0 still establishes eligibility for in-state students (3.4 for out-of-state), though there are other criteria (must be college-prep courses, must have nothing lower than C). To get the campus of your choice is another matter, of course. Merit scholarships are yet another…
Whether it’s really true that kids can’t slack or fail, that certainly is the perceived reality among many parents and kids. It’s very different from when I was in high school–I was not a slacker by any means, but my mostly A’s, some B’s, the occasional C would probably not get me into my extremely selective ivy-covered alma mater today.
That’s eligibility but UC is the top 12.5 percent so if that group is more than just eligible then standards go up. How I know what really happens: students who don’t get into any UC so come here, experiences of my friends’ kids, etc.
I also don’t remember many actually having high school grades as low as 3.0 when I was an undergraduate in the 70s. This was at Berkeley, where the acceptance rate was 77%.