<p>Being a leader on a large scale - very few people will ever really do that. Exhibiting leadership qualities can be done by many people in ordinary / everyday or “small” circumstances.</p>
<p>Think Canuckguy meant: On CC * it sure would seem* it is mostly racial/ethnic affinity, followed by social-economic affinity, as far as I can tell. </p>
<p>And, Bel, when you “write about the positive correlation between socioeconomic status and intelligence,” I think the kickback you get has to do with the sources you link to, which tend to be small potatoes, a reporter who picked up some info, a U study not yet widely confirmed, etc. </p>
<p>The “saving ourselves” song was written by David Lippincott, then a Yalie, went on to write advertising jingles. First copyrighted 1946. Per numerous sources, incl Lib of Congress.</p>
<p>As for “leaders of their generation,” what I don’t get is why you are tearing it apart, QM. Surely, you get it. Re-posing it ways that don’t make sense, change just a word or so to take us in another direction or alter the context. Why? </p>
<p>The point is, “leaders of their generation,” in whatever they may choose to do, is not limited to conventional, narrow perceptions such as “He’s the pres of my U” or he’s the best worker here or belongs to this profssional organization. You minimize. </p>
<p>We could change the topic to Stanford, which- somewhere- says they like kids who have taken an entrepreneurial appproach to their educations. And maybe you’d say, WHAT? They want kids who started some little business?</p>
<p>Each college has an idea of kids who fit and thrive there, based on their own self image, goals, histories, staffing, facilities, reputations, and on and on. Any kid who wants to apply should be looking for that. Not assuming what made him BMOC in his hs is “it.”</p>
<p>I understand the entrepreneurship “thing,” lookingforward, and wouldn’t interpret that overly narrowly.</p>
<p>I don’t have an issue with Yale. Nor with Harvard, Princeton, Caltech, Chicago, Duke, Northwestern . . . the University of Northern South Dakota at Hoople (I think P.D.Q. Bach is on their faculty) . . . </p>
<p>I just think that when a university says it is looking for the “leaders of their generation” they actually mean it. Not to say that everyone who is admitted is a future “leader” of that caliber. Not to say that local leadership is not important. Not to say that raising a family is not important, even without any contributions as a volunteer. But to say that I really think they do mean “leaders of their generation” in the sense that the words would be commonly understood.</p>
<p>Actually, I have to admit I have forgotten the context in which this discussion started. :)</p>
<p>Posts 731 and 736.</p>
<p>“Required” might be incorrect choice of words. They plug this class in all their presentations and seems like it is THE most sought after class whether it is required or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very interesting regarding “best worker”. </p>
<p>In some firms I’ve worked at, being considered a “good/best hard worker” was used to denote someone who had a strong work-ethic and good in his/her current position, but with little/no potential to succeed at the next higher-level positions…especially those requiring managing/leading other people. </p>
<p>In short, such a phrase was used by managers as a way to praise someone for proficiency and dedication in the present position while also denoting they have little/no leadership potential or a possible dullard. </p>
<p>I’ve only seen this phrase used in such a connotation at two firms I’ve worked at so I’m curious…are these firms isolated cases or is it more commonplace than that?</p>
<p>“They want kids who started some little business?”</p>
<p>This might have become a big issue for Stanford admissions and I wonder if they are not already jaded. Way too many kids think they need to start a business and/or non-profit to apply. You can see the trend just in those kids who post on CC.</p>
<p>Cobrat, whatever. whatever. k? Your employer, your friends , family, college, whatever. It was just a phrase. Not an opportunity.</p>
<p>Already jaded? </p>
<p>Based on my imperfect sampling consisting of anecdotes, I think that the stories of undergraduates arriving at Stanford with a working business or NPO is way overstated. </p>
<p>The fact that students in certain fields develop an entrepreneurial spirit while attending Stanford might have much to do with the location and the exuberance of Silicon Valley and San Francisco scene. </p>
<p>From my vantage point, I doubt that Stanford values students who might have started their company or organization more than other schools, and I seriously doubt that it might be a quasi pre-requisite. In fact, the same student might get a bigger bang for his buck at other schools where this type of applicant represents a rarer commodity. </p>
<p>But things are changing rapidly, and my anecdotes might become as pass</p>
<p>xiggi - there seems to be a correlation between people starting companies and their stanford applications. So the question is whether kids are doing this to impress adcoms or because it is what their natural tendencies are, i.e., having an entrepreneural spirit?</p>
<p>If too many are doing it to impress the adcoms, then it impacts everyone adversely.</p>
<p>Well, the correlation with applicants might not be as relevant as the correlation with … enrolled students. Since we know so little about what REALLY happens in Shaw’s office, we have to speculate wildly about what triggered the A for accepted letter. </p>
<p>This reminds me of the story about the famous tortilla essay that was presented to Stanford’s GBS. The successful application created dozens, hundreds or perhaps more copycats that were equally … poor. While the copycats believed there was a direct correlation between admission and a “risky” essay, the truth that the student had been accepted IN SPITE OF THE ESSAY came out later. </p>
<p>For all we know, all those budding entrepreneurs who beef up (or embellish) their r</p>
<p>who have taken an entrepreneurial appproach to their educations</p>
<p>Any leg-pulling going on?
Not started a business. Not even likely to someday start a business.</p>
<p>“marked by imagination, initiative, and readiness to undertake new projects” - enterprising.</p>
<p>Have fun with it. Fine by me.
Just try to climb out of the thinking box.
Or not.</p>
<p>Small wonder all those hs kids and OP’s friend are utterly baffled and assume admissions is a crapshoot or run by nincompoops.</p>
<p>Should I have used quotes? That was : "And maybe you’d say, 'WHAT? They want kids who started some little business? ’ "</p>
<p>(And you did.)</p>
<p>lookingforward, by “you” in post #743 at the spot:
I assume that you meant the generic “you” rather than the personal “you” (since the earlier part of the post was addressed to me).</p>
<p>Otherwise, I advert you to the first line of #744.</p>
<p>But Q, don’t you see “entrepreneurship” and “entrepreneurial approach” are different in intent? And the phrase is modified by “to their academics?” For some reason, the point was instantly crystal clear to me. (Maybe because of my own experiences.) Look at the assumption here that this means/meant applicants should start a biz. Or that there may be misled lemmings.</p>
<p>I’m not throwing these things out to trick people. But I am surprised.</p>
<p>Sure, yes, we can agree on something, lookingforward! In fairness, I did call it the “entrepreneurship ‘thing’ .”</p>
<p>It is also crystal clear to you that Yale means " ‘leaders’ of their generation" when they write "leaders of their generation?</p>
<p>I admit that instead of being haphazard in my terminology (i.e. “thing”), I might have taken the time to say that I understood that Stanford is looking for students who take an enterprising approach to their education (probably including volunteer activities, and possibly including activities involving remuneration)–that is, students who seek out opportunities in a proactive way, where the opportunities do not necessarily have any relation to making money or setting up a business. All of that = “thing” (clearly).</p>
<p>"This reminds me of the story about the famous tortilla essay that was presented to Stanford’s GBS. "</p>
<p>I think that essay did not tell me onething about what mattered to this person and why. :D</p>
<p>I will throw in “create opportunities” on top of “seek out opportunities” in the spirit of true entrepreneurship (which I probably don’t have). Wait, can I use “entrepreneurship” there, or will that occasion new objections?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s crystal clear to me that Yale’s “leaders of their generation” means exhibiting leadership qualities in whatever sphere – and includes, but is MUCH broader conceptually than “becomes the CEO of a company” or “holds an influential political post” or “leads the team that cures cancer.”</p>
<p>Likewise, it’s crystal clear to me that Stanford’s “entrepreneurial approach to their education” means, well, an entrepreneurial approach to whatever opportunites are relevant, and includes, but is MUCH broader conceptually than “start a new business.”</p>
<p>I am a little taken aback that such smart people choose not to read things conceptually.</p>