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:

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 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.

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.

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:

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!!

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?

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: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: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.