Why do colleges place such emphasis on “leadership”??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've asked myself this for a long time. Apparently calm, reserved people who are very good at what they do and who may very well be the leaders of tomorrow, but haven't thrown themselves heedlessly into teen "leadership" ops because they're a little more thoughtful about their lives, are less "interesting" to colleges.

OP here. This is it, exactly. My kids love to read, and have more or less taught themselves about the subjects that interest them. They are intellectual, funny, interesting people - but none have any desire to run for class president, etc. They simply enjoy participating in their various activities. Don’t colleges need (and value??) students like this?

I honestly don’t think the top tier value these students. A SLAC (especially a mid tier slac) or the honors college at a public flagship is more likely to appreciate such a student. Their Professors will definitely appreciate them!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do they really want an entire class full of leaders, with no one to lead? My child is deeply involved in several activities but doesn’t have the desire to lead any of them. What’s wrong with someone who is committed to a sport/club/activity but is not the leader? All of these things require participants and frankly, a huge group of leaders on campus sounds like a nightmare of bossy type-A extroverts. Just seems like colleges should place less emphasis on “leadership” and more on dedicated participation.

[Anonymous]

Haven’t read all the responses but my take on the interest in “leadership” is that it’s really more about initiative, does the student show that they can start or do things on their own? As the president of a club, can they come up with ideas or activities that others will engage in? As a team captain, can they demonstrate through their own excellence or apply their personality to motivate others? As an employee, did they seek out and apply for a job? Do they show up every day and demonstrate a work ethic to something in addition to school? I think there are a lot of ways to demonstrate leadership and that it’s a valid question. All of that said, I do believe some kids haven’t had as many opportunities to shine or are late bloomers. But I do think most kids and adults are able to find some way to demonstrate leadership as it relates to their interests and passions and I understand why schools look for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure it is quite a simplistic as you are making it out to be. Being president of 10 high school clubs is much less meaningful than investing in a few issues in a meaningful way. For example "president of the speech and debate club" checks a box, but president of S&D who developed a volunteer coaching program for the local Boys and Girls club shows much more dedication, KWIM?

What is S&D?

Speech and debate

[Anonymous]

I agree. Determination, hard work, creativity, service, teamwork, and kindness are all important. Yet the focus is always on leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's wrong with someone who is truly an intellectual, who would rather sit in a library reading than do anything else? These are the people that universities used to be for. Faculty at places like oxford and cambridge are laughing at America where faculty rarely win in on admissions and no one is looking for that intellectual spark.

American schools would rather produce rich donors than academics

They need a lot of the former to support a handful of the latter.

Harvard could never take in another donation and be fine based on its endowment

Academics are largely supported by government research grants, not rich donors or endowment.

That's why many public universities have world-renowned academics despite generally being cash-strapped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:University professor here. It's not what most professors want. The last thing we need is arrogant little pricks coming in thinking they are revolutionizing the world with an IQ of 120. This is just one example of very many, but I had set up a booth to recruit students for a study several years back. It was going just fine until a 20 year old came up to me and insisted he was a "direct marketing expert" who was "transforming businesses." He would not leave my booth and I lost a number of potential recruits in the thirty (!!) minutes he lectured me on what I was doing wrong with my advertisement and recruiting script. I came to learn he had taken TWO CLASSES in marketing to gain his "expertise." Like dude, you're a sophomore, not a business transformation expert. Leadership is a buzzword invented by administrators so that they can ignore SAT scores in favor of subjective and ever changing definitions of "personality" to broaden their admissions pool. The reality is that we get a lot of students who have been falsely indoctrinated by their parents, high schools, and others that they are leadership material, even though when they graduate they will probably be performing some menial task. It's not proven but I believe the inflation of young people's expectations that they will all be some kind of leader or world changer is contributing to depression in the late 20s/early 30s workforce

If you are a university professor who was taken for a ride for 30 mins by a sophomoric kid with 2 classes, this explains why this country is going down the toilet. A prof who spends all his life thinking should be able to spot a fake within 10 secs. You are the moron here.

Agree. Probably rushes home to accommodate students who reschedule meetings at the last minute / a different thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've asked myself this for a long time. Apparently calm, reserved people who are very good at what they do and who may very well be the leaders of tomorrow, but haven't thrown themselves heedlessly into teen "leadership" ops because they're a little more thoughtful about their lives, are less "interesting" to colleges.

OP here. This is it, exactly. My kids love to read, and have more or less taught themselves about the subjects that interest them. They are intellectual, funny, interesting people - but none have any desire to run for class president, etc. They simply enjoy participating in their various activities. Don’t colleges need (and value??) students like this?

I honestly don’t think the top tier value these students. A SLAC (especially a mid tier slac) or the honors college at a public flagship is more likely to appreciate such a student. Their Professors will definitely appreciate them!

That is my D. She got into an honors college this year and her activities were pretty bogus, just a volunteering job and an instrument neither of which were impressive. She has almost a perfect GPA in a tough program and had a 1400 SAT score.

[Anonymous]

The Air Force has a great line for folks like this: followership.

In fact you actually can’t really be a great leader - besides perhaps an entrepreneur - without first mastering good followership, particularly in large orgs.

There should be more scholarship on this subject.

https://www.afcent.af.mil/Units/386th-Air-Expeditionary-Wing/Commentaries/Display/Article/572434/5-rules-for-effective-followership/

Maybe consider USAFA? Write a killer essay on your good followership?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because they don't want to be the college "where fun goes to die."

Because American colleges have residential campuses and want to see them thrive.

Because leaders launch well and make the school look good in the eyes of prospective parents, alumni, grad schools, and employers.

I'm sure the list goes on. Those are just some thoughts.

Agree they need some rah-rah types to make the college run. The guy in my college who was president of everything student government, etc, has been the mayor of a large US city for several years now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Elite colleges are basically looking for one thing: evidence that you will someday be either very rich, very famous, or both. "Leadership" is an attempt to screen for that.

It's ridiculous, but you don't have to apply to those colleges. For most careers (other than the rich/ famous ones), it really doesn't matter where you went for undergrad.

+1

Personally, I think any institution works best if it has a mix of leaders and facilitators and followers. (My kid is definitely the facilitator -- she's never out in front, but she brings people together and connects them. She's a highly cooperative kid who gets along with almost everyone.) But that's not actually what elite schools care about. They want to know if you are going to increase their prestige and/or donate lots of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:University professor here. It's not what most professors want. The last thing we need is arrogant little pricks coming in thinking they are revolutionizing the world with an IQ of 120. This is just one example of very many, but I had set up a booth to recruit students for a study several years back. It was going just fine until a 20 year old came up to me and insisted he was a "direct marketing expert" who was "transforming businesses." He would not leave my booth and I lost a number of potential recruits in the thirty (!!) minutes he lectured me on what I was doing wrong with my advertisement and recruiting script. I came to learn he had taken TWO CLASSES in marketing to gain his "expertise." Like dude, you're a sophomore, not a business transformation expert. Leadership is a buzzword invented by administrators so that they can ignore SAT scores in favor of subjective and ever changing definitions of "personality" to broaden their admissions pool. The reality is that we get a lot of students who have been falsely indoctrinated by their parents, high schools, and others that they are leadership material, even though when they graduate they will probably be performing some menial task. It's not proven but I believe the inflation of young people's expectations that they will all be some kind of leader or world changer is contributing to depression in the late 20s/early 30s workforce

If you are a university professor who was taken for a ride for 30 mins by a sophomoric kid with 2 classes, this explains why this country is going down the toilet. A prof who spends all his life thinking should be able to spot a fake within 10 secs. You are the moron here.

Yeah, that's not a leader, or a "leader," that's a jerk. There have always been jerks and there will always be jerks, people who think more of themselves than they should.

My kid hates being involved in any kind of club but he is a natural leader and it will come out in all of his recommendations. He has lots of ideas and people like to follow him. He often gets some crazy notion about a special project and the other kids in the class and even the teacher get excited about it and they all end up working on it (he figures out ways to involve everyone, delegates assignments, and ends up basically a project manager) even though it was just some thing he thought was cool. His resume is thin but I'm confident that his teacher recs will tell the admissions people that he is the real deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do they really want an entire class full of leaders, with no one to lead? My child is deeply involved in several activities but doesn’t have the desire to lead any of them. What’s wrong with someone who is committed to a sport/club/activity but is not the leader? All of these things require participants and frankly, a huge group of leaders on campus sounds like a nightmare of bossy type-A extroverts. Just seems like colleges should place less emphasis on “leadership” and more on dedicated participation.

OP, just because you have an issue with extroverts, doesn't mean that everyone else should.

[Anonymous]

I think this is another example of how kids from disadvantaged backgrounds get screwed. They often don’t have the bandwidth because of home situations or are working because they actually need the money with no extra time to start clubs and non-profits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this is another example of how kids from disadvantaged backgrounds get screwed. They often don’t have the bandwidth because of home situations or are working because they actually need the money with no extra time to start clubs and non-profits.

It’s expensive to outsource the creation of a website for your fake club