<p>Perhaps my impressions have been clouded by the ultra-competitive region in which I live. </p>
<p>An anecdote: Even musicians can be competitive! Right before a regional competition, another musician who plays the same instrument as my daughter "accidentally" knocked my daughter's instrument out of her hands so she was unable to compete with her own instrument. I wouldn't be surprised if there is sabotage in other disciplines, as well. </p>
<p>Some kids seem to know how to position themselves in order to land the plum opportunities. It may not appear to be underhanded, but it is quite sophisticated and intentional. Nudging your way into these positions is something the "nice" kids seem to have trouble doing, either by choice or by temperament, from what I have seen. </p>
<p>justbreathe: You experiences are quite heartening! I am glad you shared them.</p>
<p>It is ironic that those of us with a role in leadership selection of young people look for the opposite of what perhaps many people on and off CC assume about "leadership." If you extend it to its logical counterpart, leadership qualities in the secular sphere are parallel to "sainthood" or "holiness" qualities in some religious spheres: that is, we look for sacrifice, selflessness, generosity, role-modeling, encouraging cooperation, letting go of ego for the sake of The Greater Good, answering "a call" when there's a leadership vacuum. Notice I didn't say we're looking for religiosity or morality per se, although an ethical component tends to come with the territory (these candidates being rather ethically formed, versus what may be not as standard or typical for the rest of their peers). But the analogy fits on some levels -- common threads being character, service, & internalized responsibility.</p>
<p>Otherwise known as, Real Male Leaders are not bullies or egotists, and Real Female Leaders do not try to ape stereotypes of male leadership. </p>
<p>Competitiveness is not synonymous with leadership, nor is it necessarily a component. Leaders tend to be <em>confident</em> people, but their effectiveness as leaders is directly related to their confidence in <em>others</em>, more than in themselves. Their success as leaders is very much contingent upon their optimism about people & their ability to coax that assumption into action.</p>
<p>Stereotypes can be dangerous when, like this, they result in opposite assumptions about a category.</p>
<p>It may be that students in certain regions are <em>wannabe</em> leaders, but that doesn't mean that they meet the litmus test inside a college admissions committee.</p>
<p>epiphany: I agree with everything you say about what makes for a true leader, and am encouraged that someone who plays a role in leadership selection believes as you do. However, I must say that the students in our area who have gained entrance into the very top colleges are not at all what you describe! They are the cutthroat (be it obvious or subtle), machiavellian types. They may present a veneer of collaboration or cooperation when needed, but when it comes right down to it, they are out for themselves. Apparently they have been able to pull the wool over the college admissions committees' eyes. </p>
<p>Again, this is just my experience. I am glad to know it is skewed and not representative of the process as a whole.</p>
<p>" If you extend it to its logical counterpart, leadership qualities in the secular sphere are parallel to "sainthood" or "holiness" qualities in some religious spheres: that is, we look for sacrifice, selflessness, generosity, role-modeling, encouraging cooperation, letting go of ego for the sake of The Greater Good, answering "a call" when there's a leadership vacuum. "</p>
<p>This is so very true. It's what I've looked for when being an alum interviewer for Harvard. It's also what I've looked for when interviewing students for a highly competitive leadership program in my city.</p>
<p>It's a myth that competitive schools and leadership programs are looking for "me first" students who became leaders by stepping on others. Those are exactly the type of people whom we don't want to choose.</p>
<p>It's also very easy to differentiate the kind of leaders we're looking for from the step-on-others and looking-for-resume-decoration type of "leaders." Their answers to questions like: "Why did you participate in this activity?", "What contribution of yours in this activity are you proudest of?", and "What is your definition of 'leadership?'" highlight very different things than what the egocentric "leaders" think are important. </p>
<p>People who backstab and kissup their way to presidencies in student organizations tend to sit on their backsides and do nothing because their only goal was to polish their resumes. Those aren't the kind of people that Harvard and legitimate leadership programs (not talking here to the leadership programs that are open to those who can pay big bucks) are looking for.</p>
<p>Those last 2 paragraphs of post 25 are absolutely correct. The questions (& answers) sort out the true leaders from the pretenders, on the one hand, and the tyrants, on the other.</p>
<p>Truth is, leadership is a good deal more complex than the OP, JNSQ or epiph describe. And worse, we don't even know very well what the ivy admissions process selects for. </p>
<p>We can suspect the following:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>different colleges may well emphasize different qualities in their admissions process.</p></li>
<li><p>attitudes and pressures toward achievement vary from HS to HS, town to town, region to region.</p></li>
<li><p>leadership means different things to different audiences. To some, it may mean the "epiphany" model. To an athletic coach, it may mean aggressiveness. To a sales VP, it may well mean something else.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>So unless someone has magical insight, I'd stop pointing fingers and maybe just listen a bit to different experiences and different reactions.</p>
<p>(reminds me of the group of blind men who come across an elephant....)</p>
<p>Glad to hear it Northstarmom! I don't know that I believe the admissions folks have mastered the art of discerning the true leaders from those who know how they should appear and the answers they should be giving. Otherwise, how would the single biggest and self-proclaimed egotists at my daughter's HS be heading to Harvard and Yale this year? True, they are well-known, but more for their stunning arrogance than their willingness to ever put themselves second. One of these gentlemen told my daughter that he was "disappointed" in her for doing so well in class, and wrecking the curve; she was, in his words, making him "look bad" and he needed to keep his grades up because he was going to Yale! Like I said, we live in an ultra-competitive place.</p>
<p>the audience we're talking about here is not business sales or athletic leadership, necessarily, or at least I don't think that's what jnsq was alluding to in her own replies. Hard to fake it in the way she describes, as a leader of a sports team, and still claim success as a leader. Won't win too many games that way, or at least not score many morale points with your teammates. </p>
<p>And since two of us <em>are</em> in on the selection end, a couple of us actually do know what we're talking about.</p>
<p>Of <em>course</em> leadership is complex. That's entirely the point. That's why particular quesions are asked, to get a complex profile in a variety of leadership areas & qualities.</p>
<p>jnsq,
I have no doubt that jerks get in under the wire, as well. Not everybody is interviewed as thoroughly & with discernment as is ideal. However, you personally probably don't know that the supposed "leadership" of the supposedly arrogant students to which you refer are what got them into H and Y. Could be that their families were loaded, and donated. Could be for other reasons, where the nominal "leadership" was not a factor or was even a "negative" in certain aspects, but was overridden by compensating factors. Do not assume that arrogant people are admitted because they're arrogant.</p>
<p>True, true, epiphany. I never did assume he was admitted because he was arrogant, but I did wonder if his arrogance and willingness to intimidate propelled him into high-profile and important, prestigious roles, positioning him to compete and win on a national level. And his family is loaded, big time, so that explanation crossed my mind, too.</p>
<p>Maybe it's the area I live in too, but I can identify quite well with jnsq's experience. Now, my own S is attending an Ivy, and I love him dearly, so this is certainly not an attack on anyone. But, I concur that it is a Darwinian experience trying to "rise to the top" of a high school like ours. Students whose accomplishments are not high school-based and who are admitted to an Ivy, need not fit the negative stereotype at all. But being a "top dog" within the high school scene here most definitely requires a "survival of the fittest" mentality and only the toughest can do it. Why? Because it's a large school and the demand for leadership positions is much greater than the supply. Kids will therefore use whatever means--legitimate or unscruplous--and any tactic or manipulative trick they can to get what they want. </p>
<p>Want to be captain of your sports team? Start plotting in freshman year already. Be oh so encouraging of your teammates in front of the coach--the same teammates you criticize when he's not around. Fight off all comers so you get to carry in the equipment bag every day and look humble. And if you're a great player but not captain material and aren't ultimately selected, well, threaten to quit the team unless the coach makes you captain. Oh, and get your parents to complain to the AD.</p>
<p>Want to be elected to student govt.? Don't worry about which position your skills are best suited for, rather use game theory to calculate which of your opponents will run for which offices so you can strategize accordingly. Show some skin in the photo on your campaign posters--sex sells.</p>
<p>Ask others for help with your homework, but always manage not to have your HW paper with you when friends ask YOU for help. Falsely accuse the top student of cheating. Cheat yourself if you can, but just don't get caught. </p>
<p>Don't have the heart for this? Go to the state U, ha ha. </p>
<p>Even parents here know who their child's "competition" is, and offer advice to their children as to how to beat out the other kid. Kids who want those plum positions begin to see others only as pieces to their puzzle. Some kids play this game well, some play just enough to satisfy the requirements of their application, and some refuse to play at all.</p>
<p>^^^My sentiments exactly, TheGFG. When I read the original article last week, I didn't associate the author's comments only with Ivy League or top-tier college students. I thought of all those high school students for whom admissions is a game, sometimes (but not always) played at the expense of others. That's a sad commentary on what the process has become--in some geographic areas, in some high schools, and for some students and their parents. In my college years, I found the students at my well-known college to be far nicer than the self-absorbed and not very friendly students in my high-powered suburban high school. But then and now, there were/are too many students and parents who are obsessed with prestige, disdainful of lesser-name (and heaven forbid, public) schools and the "dull" students who are unfortunate enough to attend them, and willing to create whatever resume and persona they need to get where they intend to go. Instead of nitpicking about the author's intentions or her statistical accuracy, let's see her article as one person's anecdotal, gut reaction to what has (in my opinion) become a somewhat troubling process.</p>
<p>P.S.: I find my own S's high school to be refreshingly free of the problems TheGFG describes!</p>
<p>Let's not forget one other phemomenon about andecdotal evidence. One bad story will seem to cloud all of the good ones. I remember that when I arrived at college I quickly heard the story (urban legend?) of the pre med student who was nailed into his room so that he would miss the pre-lim exam (perpetrated by other premeds reportedly). I do not know if this was true, but it shows a mindset. Also, one obnoxious person can tend to drown out all the other nicer ones. </p>
<p>I think everyone probably has met someone, either in their own life, or their kids' lives, or even through friends that meets the ruthless, trample over everyone, successful stereotype. Yet don't overlook all the others who are not that way. I worked in a large law firm at the beginning of my career, and these were grads of very prestigious universities and law schools. Some of the people were the steamroller stereotype, and others (many more others- associates and partners) were genuinely nice and caring. No Kidding. Unfortunately, I think I remember the bad stories better than the good ones. Human nature? Mine I guess.</p>
<p>I always tell my kid to look for the good about everyone, even if it seems difficult. Why? I believe, maybe selfishly, that a positive attitude is healthier than a negative one.</p>
<p>right, geezermom. What I described really applies to those students who are primarily motivated by the college admissions game--not just the Ivy-bound. Here there is an ever-present consciousness of looming college admissions, and the viewpoint of many people is colored by that goal. It doesn't make them bad people, but a hyper-focus on anything can cause a person to lose perspective about those around him.</p>
<p>Thank goodness for folks like epiphany. But, we also can't generalize to all admissions folks based on epiphany's stated criteria. Isn't it pretty well-established that the Ivies are trying to select students who are, or ultimately will be, the best and most influential in every area of human endeavor? To be the best, one generally needs a competitive mentality--even if one is only trying to compete with one's own previous performance.</p>
<p>Perhaps the "not-niceness" of the students the author refers to, is unrelated to the qualities of the accepted students, but rather is cultivated by the culture of the U once the students arrive. My Ivy-league D has told me that P students have a reputation for arrogance. Although I am sure these types of "reputations" are primarily a result of inter-school rivalries, I have found that there is usually at least a little truth to most stereotypes.</p>
<p>Just reality check, here: The students who rely on athletics and/or on high school student gov't as "leadership" quotients are not necessarily in the running in the leadership category for elite college admissions. The students you describe, fictional or otherwise, may by other reasons end up at some 'elite' U, but it will not be for those "leadership" positions, and what those positions have and have not demonstrated about them.</p>
<p>Gamesmanship is not leadership. And lots of admissions committees are very clear about how student gov't positions can be acquired by manipulation and/or by "popularity."</p>
<p>Again, do not confuse attributes of a student with the reason(s) for their admissions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just reality check, here: The students who rely on athletics and/or on high school student gov't as "leadership" quotients are not necessarily in the running in the leadership category for elite college admissions. The students you describe, fictional or otherwise, may by other reasons end up at some 'elite' U, but it will not be for those "leadership" positions, and what those positions have and have not demonstrated about them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How do we know this? Anyone on these boards ever get a chance to be PART of an admissions committee? If not....</p>
<p>It is hard not to engage in ex post facto musings, especially when the application process is not transparent and oftentimes seemingly random for the individual applicant.</p>