<p>Is doing an EC for the love of competition and the desire to win a valid ulterior motive?</p>
<p>^^Entering a competition because you want to compete well and/or win the competition isnât any kind of ulterior motive; itâs the direct, main motive. E.g. competing in the Olympics to win a gold medal would be the direct motive. Competing in the Olympics to become famous and get lucrative endorsement contracts or get dates with celebrities would be ulterior motives.</p>
<p>So in college terms, practicing your piano to be able to play beautiful music and win piano competitions would be a direct or main motive. Practicing to have some EC that will look good on a college app would be an ulterior motive.</p>
<p>An âulterior motiveâ is typically not entirely respectable, because it implies some sort of hidden goal or deception.</p>
<p>I should have just left it at motive. And I like the way you phrase it. Thereâs nothing wrong with practicing skiing to win a gold medal.</p>
<p>@ Epiphany,</p>
<p>I agree, many kids THRIVE when they are challenging themselves and leading the activities they participate in. I know a lot of kids like that, and that is right for them. My problem is with the premise that EVERY kid must show leadership or their college applications will be perceived as weak. Think of society at large, how could society function effectively if everybody wanted to do the same things and everyone wanted to be a leader? If every body wanted to be a leader, even at HYPMS, how would those colleges function? You need to bring together varied talents to have a diverse class. I think that the Adcoms are very aware of that, and look for diverse abilities and talents in their admitted class.</p>
<p>Well, the thing about leadership is that it is not necessarily all about an officer position in a club or organization. Simply taking initiative to combat a known problem, or finding new and creative ways of doing things, can also be considered leadership qualities. These types of leaders donât lead by name; they lead by example.</p>
<p>@Cluelessmom2: Not everybody needs to show leadership. The vast majority of colleges donât factor ECs into admission decisions. Only the very top college do, and one would expect that we should reserve top educations for tomorrowâs leadersâŠ</p>
<p>^You need to rethink that statement. There are plenty of people who are not classical leaders, but who deserve a top education.</p>
<p>You may be using a different definition of leader. There are plenty of aspiring scientists, writers, etc. who may not gravitate toward leadership positions. They are no less deserving of a top educationâŠ</p>
<p>Sure, I donât think everyone needs âtraditionalâ leadership positions. But people should still be involved somehowâextremely bright students who donât use their intelligence to better their world and community donât deserve a top notch education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand what you mean but this is written poorly. Letâs consider some mathematical prodigy who does nothing but math and has medaled at the IMO multiple times (hypothetical). If he has no other ECs/leadership positions, but is just a math genius, how can we say that he doesnât deserve a top education? The math work heâs doing will eventually be applied in other fields and benefit society, even though all heâs doing is math and discovering math. He may not directly change the world, but his research does. How can one say that he doesnât deserve a top education?</p>
<p>I think it varies. For a math genius, or others who donât really want to think about anything outside of pure academics, I donât think the Ivy League is necessarily the right place. Some schools, such as MIT or UChicago, are more fitting for that type of student. So, itâs not that he doesnât deserve a âtop educationâ â he just shouldnât go to a school which cares about things outside of pure intellectualism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. Not every leader aspires to the presidency.</p>
<p>And what about shadow leadership? Like the kids who run clubs that do not have de jure presidents or kids who are de facto leaders?</p>
<p>If theyâre the leader of the club, they can make themselves the âleader.â</p>
<p>Our debate team is effectively captainless, but some person still puts down captain.</p>
<p>@kameronsmith,
Whatâs in a title? If a school team has several very effective and talented members, should the designation of one of them as a âCaptainâ or âPresidentâ make that person more desirable to the Adcoms? Every member might be making an equal, but different contribution. Harvard and Princeton would be very appreciative of the Math genius, by the wayâŠboth schools have magnificent Physics and Math departments, and I suspect he might fit right in. There is plenty of room for non-leader types in the Ivies too, you know. All those Nobel Laureates and Fields Medalists need people to carry on the tradition!</p>
<p>@An0maly and Fledgling,
You are right, leadership can assume many non-traditional forms.</p>
<p>
Without that designation, adcomms have no ability to KNOW that this member is particularly talented. Like it or not, American society is based on competition and recognizing achievement with extrinsic rewards (titles, money, admission, etc.).</p>
<p>Ahhh, you are on a slippery slope there. Is the Captain necessarily the most talented? What if there are other equally talented people who do not wish for the limelight? Then, would the adcoms be making the right choice?</p>
<p>Answer this question: if a student is the best member of the team, but isnât captain, how would adcomms know it?</p>
<p>Maybe medals, or commendations. My experience with my sonâs ECâs leads me to believe that effective members do get recognized and win awards. But my experience is limited. Perhaps you have instances where that might not be possible. Speaking from the perspective of a high school teacher, sometimes it is not the most talented, but the most âpopularâ team member that gets elected to be Captain of a team. Somewhat unjust huh?
So if the adcomms were to go just by the evidence of âleadershipâ by title, they may be misled.</p>
<p>
That might be true, but in some cases, particularly team-based competitions itâs not. Without that leadership, itâs difficult to distinguish between the team leader and a mediocre member who hardly contributes,</p>
<p>
I donât think leadership in clubs should be popularly chosen. At my school, the club advisor or outgoing president choses the next one, and I think itâs vastly superior.</p>
<p>Is a system where the friends of the people currently in leadership get chosen really vastly better than a system where the most popular people get chosen?</p>
<p>For that matter, is it really different at all?</p>