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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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?
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 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?