Relative deprivation theory: Relative deprivation theory is the idea that people feel deprived when they compare themselves to others and feel they have fewer resources than they want or deserve.

If you’re part of a smaller organization but at the top rank in that organization, you’re more likely to stand out. Being at a lower rank at a higher institution is just the same as being high ranking in a lesser institution. So it’s a smarter decision to have a definitive chance in standing out than risking not just for the clout of having a higher institution name on your resume. To further this, from my perspective, you can get the same access and opportunities, if not more, at a “lower ranking” institution. If anything, in a smaller grouping, you have access to more personalized time and more focus on the areas you’re strong in. A less competitive environment with plenty of access to vital resources is going to have a higher turnout of success than a highly regarded establishment that only offers opportunities to top-placing students. When someone is placed in a highly competitive environment where the chances to have thought-provoking conversations with the experts in those establishments can only be provided to the very top, placing students, then even students in the 80th percentiles, will get left behind and not regarded as highly as their higher-ranking peers. Even if those students would be considered brilliant in a smaller organization. So it’s all about recognition then? Well, not complete recognition, I guess, but more so establishment? Establishing oneself in their own regard in their respective study, regardless of the institution they are pursuing that study at, is that the ultimate goal? Maybe not the ultimate goal but certainly a counterpart of what creates and leads to success. In the same regards of how connections get you further than others, the people you know. But then connections and recognition go hand in hand. If you have connections you're recognized, vice versa. 
Expectations placed on students in higher institutions also play a role in Relative deprivation theory. At higher institutions higher expectations are placed, whereas at lesser establishments the expectations aren’t as high. So what does this mean? I guess it means with the expectations being placed so high, the bar at a seemingly unreachable level unless you’re the best of the best, only adds to Relative deprivation theory. You’ll see your higher ranking peers succeeding in the same environment you’re placed in and can’t help but compare yourself to them. Why can’t I do that? Why don’t I get personalized time to talk to the professor? Why is my hard effort not recognized just because someone is doing better? Someone doing better than me doesn't mean I’m also not doing amazing. We place so much value on adjectives and words and praise. But that’s not the point, just a surface level observation I felt compelled to type for some reason. So when we compare ourselves in such a regard, we often feel we have less. Or deserve more. When in reality we have enough. We’re given enough, just not as much as the other person next to us which in turn makes us feel lesser. So, is there a solution to this? I don’t know. Not my priority right now. I’m just brain dumping. Maybe policy? Like the implementation of policies that target social economic inequality, education inequality, ect ect. Policies that even the playing ground. Okay, so say that is the solution. Is that even attainable? Plausible? In a society in which we place such heavy emphasis on wealth, success and constructs and concepts of what it means to be ‘good’ or ‘better’, can the playing ground ever actually be leveled? The only way I can see any progress in this regard ever being made is only if we completely deconstruct the American political standing - the foundation of which was built upon privilege and intellectual bias among other things - and even then how could that ever be attainable? And suppose we did it, suppose we completely managed to burn it all to the ground. Then what? Does human instinct override ethics and moral code? Will the intrinsic greed of few always override the ethic and moral code a society must be built upon? Will the selfishness of man always find a way to intervene in the weaving of science, art, and religion, intervene with the pillars to a functioning society that does not invoke Relative deprivation theory. 
Yeah I know I went off a little but I’m rounding back to the main point now I guess. Welcome back to the conversation Relative deprivation theory. I find that when I look up this theory, in order to research others' understanding of it or personal thoughts, I'm just met with definitions and answers to exam questions in relation to Relative deprivation theory. Which is frustrating and seeing as It’s 2:32 in the morning as of me writing this, the public library a block away from me is not exactly at my disposal. And the internet only has so much, so I guess it’s just me myself and I. Also in no way is this meant to be professional or anything at all. This is nothing really. Nothing but my own personal perspective, me word vomiting all over google doc, nothing more then me idea dumping. As if any of this is classified as original ideas. I’m just taking what I learned and trying to process it, if I didn’t I’d probably go crazy all night. Back to Relative deprivation theory. From what I’m seeing so far according to the Oxford Reference, “The concept was introduced by the US sociologist Samuel Stouffer (1900–60) and several co-authors in their study of The American Soldier (1949), where it was reported that army units with the highest rates of promotion also had the highest levels of dissatisfaction among those not promoted.”. So this really isn't a completely new thing. 
I found that a similar theory called the social comparison theory was also created around the same time frame (1954, first proposed by psychologist Leon Festinger). Anyways, I’ll get into that later. If I remember to. Rounding back to Mr. Samuel Stouffer’s study, it’s comparative how like with the soldiers, scholars face the same mindset in educational institutions. When a place with very high regard is credited with the highest test scores or most promotions or whatever statistic is on the table, those who aren't reaching that standard are obviously going to be dissatisfied. And none of this means that those students don’t have brilliant minds, but when they are in an environment where they are constantly being compared, or comparing themselves, to peers with higher class rankings, it’s hard for them and others to not discredit all the hard work they’ve also been doing. And that’s why they become failures, not because they aren't great. They are great. But because they become a product of their environment and it warps their mindset into making them believe they aren't great, all because they didn’t come in first place. That’s what’s wrong with our society, we’re so quick to disregard anything that isn't the absolute best. So these students who are seen as sub par in comparison to their peers give up, even though compared to the rest of the large majority are still young great minds with endless potential. Because their accomplishments were so easily disregarded they struggle to find value in their work and fail to see their potential. Therefore, Dying out. It’s pretty depressing now that I’m thinking it through. I mean yeah it was bleak before but now it’s just really stupid in retrospect. All because we can’t get over ourselves, a young mind with quick wit and eyes with plenty of spark turn dull throughout the years due to indifference towards their efforts. That just sucks. Anyways, that's my think piece at least.

(Excuse any typos this was written at 4am)