<p>In the past 1-2 days, I've seen 1-2 threads pop-up concerning leadership and popularity. More specifically, the question that has come up is "Do colleges recognize that leadership positions are more times than not based on popularity?" While I personally believe that colleges do have some understanding of this, leadership positions (esp. if you get them via a vote), can speak a lot about your character. </p>
<p>Why are people popular? Because they have a charismatic quality (like beauty, brains, athletic ability or a perfect mixture of all of these things) that draws people to them like flies. Whenever they want something (like a leadership position), it is easy to reach out to many people who like them and secure the spot for themselves. Having the ability to make people hear you (whether you innately deserve it or not) and communicating with them is a skill that is so valuable in the world beyond education. Anybody who is successful in the world today is a powerful speaker. Granted, not all famous leaders would've been popular in high school. But at some point in their lives, they would've become popular, and that would've helped launch them to success. </p>
<p>I used to be one of those people who completely flew under the radar. But then I got tired of having opportunities taken from under my nose because someone more popular than me got them. I figured out that I wasn't getting these things because people didn't really know what I was capable of. Now, I make it a point to appeal my abilities to everyone because I never know when they could lend me a hand. I am still by no means popular, but I don't completely fly under the radar anymore. </p>
<p>My point is that leadership positions can not only show your commitment to an activity, but also appeal to your abilities as a 'people person.' In a world where communication is so prevalent, it is important to be able to handle and lead people well, and I feel like this is what colleges see in leadership positions. Your ability to interact with people.</p>
<p>Thoughts? Opinions?</p>
<p>General Disclaimer: I'm a high school student, so I am in no way claiming to be more knowledgeable about the world. This is just what I've observed. Take my words with a grain of salt, if you will.</p>
<p>I don’t think high school popularity is necessarily indicative of qualities associated with a good leader - I feel as though elaborating on my point will make me seem bitter, though, LOL. </p>
<p>I guess it comes down to how each school’s “popular” crowd comes to be. If a school puts the athletes on a pedestal, then the popular kids won’t appear to have a correlation to desired traits. If the school’s popular people are leaders or very smart people with good intelligence skills, then there will appear to be a correlation.</p>
<p>I think that who is popular in general really doesn’t mean anything, and has no correlation with the real world. Rather, at some schools there is a correlation between what makes you popular and what makes you successful in the real world.</p>
<p>Personally, I was incredibly unpopular around 5th-6th grade. Then as people matured, I got more and more popularity. As a freshman, I had more friends who were seniors than any other grade. Things really turned around the end of my sophomore year. I am now a senior and I think I actually have a very good reputation in almost every crowd, and have an amazing group of friends with a handful of very close ones. I can’t name a person who really dislikes me or won’t be seen around me. I don’t think I changed so much as the definition of popular changed. It shifted from looks and social skills to intelligence, priorities, and some remaining social skills. If we extend that idea of shifting definition out, then the definition of popular in the real world would equate to sucessful, but it would be a more evolved definition of popular.</p>
<p>Basically, I think there is so much discussion about this because the definition of popular changes a lot, even after high school. Success is related to popularity, but only the popularity as defined at each stage.</p>
<p>@PengsPhils equating athletes with those who do not have desirable traits…really? Many times athletes have some of the finest leadership traits around. Being a member of a team, in general, requires one to be cooperative and focused on teamwork to achieve a common goal. These are all valuable assets and are common to successful people. It sounds to me, you are calling athletes “dumb jocks”. While there may be some who fit that mold, IMHO, they are not the norm.</p>
<p>OP, I think you make some good points. Popularity is key to getting the votes…no doubt about it. Good for you for seeing your weaknesses and doing something about it. That will help you later in life, when interviewing for a job, when meeting new people, etc. The best advice I got as a young person was to envision who I most admired, and figure out what qualities they embodied. Were they compassionate, assertive, nurturing, etc. Then find ways to implement those traits into my interactions with others. For me it was working on being more outgoing/assertive. I practiced being the first to strike up conversations at every opportunity. It was difficult, but after awhile, if became MY trait. </p>
<p>Good luck. Sounds like you will be just fine. </p>
<p>@shellz , I agree that is not the case. I myself am a 3 sport varsity athlete. I am not saying at all that all athletes are “dumb jocks”, but using that as an example of a trait that often doesn’t correlate directly with success but often with popularity. Lack of correlation does not imply that it is correlated with the opposite, only that they are independent of each other.</p>
<p>Really that has little to do with the point of my post. Substitute in whatever you want for jocks or athletics.</p>
<p>I don’t think people are only well known for the type of “popularity” that everyone is keeping in mind. If someone is acknowledged as being a capable, smart person by other students, they have a high chance of being voted. I don’t say that to be cheesy, but I do have friends that are known because of the classes they take, the activities that they’re in, etc., and they do have an easier chance getting a position than someone that isn’t.</p>
<p>In my case, I’d like to think that it was partially the reason that I got voted for SECME and Beta Club presidents. The thing that surprised me though was that in the case of Beta Club, the person I was running against knew a lot more people in the club. Although, I did hear people say that he wasn’t fit for the role. That surprised me because I was under the assumption that the most popular person would win.</p>
<p>I don’t think someone has to only know a lot of people to be able to acquire roles. I think that they have to be able to express interest in it, to talk to people comfortably, and generally be responsible. Although, popularity certainly does help.</p>
<p>@PengsPhils…your reality is very different than mine and much of that is likely due to age and experience. Perhaps I should wander back to parent cafe, as I just now realized this is a high school board. Carry on!</p>
<p>I prefer to refrain from using the term “popular”. The vibe I get from my school is not one that herds kids into cliques and the ones with more talkative / attractive people becoming more “popular”. There aren’t many stereotypical “nerds” at our school, AP classes are filled with all types of students. I always questioned why all the students in a school may see a certain person or certain group of people as “popular”. People are friends with all sorts of people, myself and everyone I’ve talked to doesn’t do anything for the sake of maintaining their “popularity”, if they even recognize it exists in the first place. Nobody excludes certain kids because they’re “less popular”… nobody makes fun of certain kids because theyre “less popular”… I just don’t see it, and I get confused when kids from other schools use the term. The concept is irrelevant in my eyes based on what I’ve been through so far in high school.</p>
<p>In other scenarios, people that have a lot of friends, do not necessarily fit the stereotypical definition of “popular”, as well as vice versa. Nobody is really outright mean to each other in a general scene, in the hallways, in classes, etc. I’m sure there’s stuff that goes on that I don’t see, though, but you’d expect that everywhere.</p>
<p>It’s really weird, because I was expecting a whole different scene when I was entering high school. I’ve found that the concept of “popularity” doesn’t exist, and my theory is that at my school, there are no definitive traits or personality types that make anyone “stand out” and become “popular”.</p>
<p>For the most part, my school has an overwhelming majority of geeks (geeks are cool) because it’s a technology magnet, so it attracts that type. There generally aren’t stereotypical “popular” kids, but I guess there are those people that a lot of people tend to know. That’s kind of natural though, with a small school of 600.</p>
<p>To get a position, it does take popularity and experience… ~In college I can’t even get an elected position / appointed position because there often are more experienced upperclassmen (a huge factor of bias for many) that have had positions before or people that had more opportunities to showcase what they can do. It’s hard to out compete these people unless you can be very persuasive and go undaunted with your Q/A skills (which some of us are really terrible at doing these on the spot)…</p>
<p>People are “popular” because they are involved in the opportunities out there… If you can’t get a position, find a way to start by taking the opportunities that are handed down to you (or if they are not, make way for them or ask the leaders of a club for ways you can help out).
You don’t always need a position to be active: If you aren’t the Science Olympiad captain for example, you can still pour efforts into helping your fellow teammates study / succeed. Try taking the initiative to be involved in club committees if you can. And for school election related stuff, pour your energy into student body activities. Get all the experience you can, and then you can play with the elections if you couldn’t win before. ~If you don’t win, maybe your opponents started building their skills and have been involved for a longer time. If all else fails, it may be disappointing, but you can call yourself a leader if you serve others in a way a leader would.</p>