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

[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.

Completely empathize. My DD took on a leadership role in HS because she knew it was important for college apps, but she hated the experience. She went through college as an avid participant and was much happier. She’s actually pointed out how much she hated being a group leader and will never repeat it.

[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.

Definitely. What they need, and few get, is good counseling on how to present their real contribution to their families in "college speak" about leadership, initiative, service, etc.

[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.

Yes they do. Elite schools are looking for leaders. Not a great analogy but my college takes pride in getting a large number of football players each year that were high school captains. Something like 90% were captains. They are all not going to be captains at the college level but that is the type of person they want. To continue with this theme, during the Tom Brady era in New England, the Patriots were always close to the top in the NFL in signing new players who had been college captains. Take it with a gain of salt if you want but yes elite colleges want to educate and mold leaders.

[Anonymous]

They want to produce enough leaders to stay in the headlines for their accomplished graduates.

[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.

I dunno, UChicago and W&M sure seem proud of that reputation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another way to look at it is that colleges want students who are independent critical thinkers. If your child is heavily involved in an activity but you can’t find any way to spin that into an example of leadership, then they’re probably doing little more than simply showing up and doing what they’re told. It’s your child is truly engaged/invested in an activity, surely at some point they’ve thought to themselves that X might be a better way to do something, or Y could be a great addition to what they’re already doing. If your child isn’t even doing that, what are they going to contribute to the college community other than filling a seat?

I don't think they do. They want kids who'll regurgitate the professor's views back to them and feed their egos. But colleges sure do talk a big game about "leadership" because it's a nebulous enough concept that they can use to justify discrimination in their application process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

wtf does this even mean?

That was the best line.

Truth.

Love that bolded sentence!!

Except it points to the law of diminishing returns in IQ.

120 is called the sweet spot for IQ 135+ cdd as uses decline in ability to function in society.

[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?

It’s like S&M, but without all the fun bits. Aka, referenced in the previous sentence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another way to look at it is that colleges want students who are independent critical thinkers. If your child is heavily involved in an activity but you can’t find any way to spin that into an example of leadership, then they’re probably doing little more than simply showing up and doing what they’re told. It’s your child is truly engaged/invested in an activity, surely at some point they’ve thought to themselves that X might be a better way to do something, or Y could be a great addition to what they’re already doing. If your child isn’t even doing that, what are they going to contribute to the college community other than filling a seat?

I don't think they do. They want kids who'll regurgitate the professor's views back to them and feed their egos. But colleges sure do talk a big game about "leadership" because it's a nebulous enough concept that they can use to justify discrimination in their application process.

You must have gone to really bad schools if you think professors just want students who regurgitate what they have been told. Nothing could make the job more boring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ugh - a campus full of extroverts sounds like a nightmare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It’s like S&M, but without all the fun bits. Aka, referenced in the previous sentence.

[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.

Kids who are working can absolutely use that on their application. We are fairly well off, however, my daughter had a seasonal job every summer since the one after 8th grade, and in the summer before her senior year in HS she ended up supervising 4 people, 2 of them college students. She did not aim for Ivy+, but she did very well with the next tier of schools, and I think her job made her stand out by showing maturity, responsibility and, yes, leadership.