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

[Anonymous]

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]

Agree with you OP.

Waiting for the BS to flow..

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Weigh in.oops

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

I think they're thinking beyond. They want all their students to go out into the world and be leaders.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

They want students who will go on to found companies, become Presidents, and donate millions back to the campus.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

All the PPs referencing future donations and fame are spot-on, I think.

[Anonymous]

I think it just sounds better.
Most people don’t want to be a follower and don’t want their kids to be followers ( although most people ARE followers, for obvious reasons). In the same vein, most people don’t want themselves or their kids to be considered average, although of course most people are average.

[Anonymous]

Ha! I agree with you, OP. But I think it's a good way to distinguish a kid who really cares about an activity, and has put in a lot of time and effort, from a kid who joins 12 clubs just to pad the resume.

[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?

The problem with this argument is that it doesn't align with what we know about how
People make scientific and intellectual progress. There are
Reasons why someone could be a math prodigy at
Age 10 but not a great legal scholar. In some disciplines people
Do their best work in their 50s so there is no reason to expect
Everyone to speak at age 17 or 18 or 19. It would be like the
Army looking at 17 year old recruits and saying who is
Likely to become a general. You would get some of it right
But a lot of it wrong.