<p>It’s proven to be pretty effective. Generally, the captains care a lot about the team and want a good team the next year, so are apt to chose the best person. Since they’re graduating, social relatonships generally aren’t a big deal. Also, it’s usually a decision made between the advisor and the captain.</p>
<p>I don’t know. Maybe I’m just being pessimistic, but I wouldn’t really trust people at my school to pass on their title based solely on merit.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, that’s probably a flaw in the culture of your school. No system is immune to a nepotistic culture.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not a “premise” of even the Ivy League, let alone all the other colleges/U’s. 
You might want to do a search on the “leadership” issue which appeared either in this forum or in PF several months ago. It actually might not even have had ‘leadership’ in the title, but the discussion morphed into that.</p>
<p>(1) No, the Elites (for example) do not want 100% leaders.
(2) They do want (when they can get it!) people of character and example; that is a form of effective personal leadership that does not depend on organizing people or developing initiatives or heading up efforts or being elected to political positions.
(3) Leadership in the conventional, “recognized” (visible and dynamic sense) is an edge, not a prerequisite, at Harvard, but often particularly if there’s a relationship to the field of study or the presumed trajectory of the student’s future – such as someone clearly interested in politics and current issues, someone with demonstrated interest in international affairs, etc. They would hardly expect a musicology or Classics major necessarily to have inclinations toward leadership.</p>
<p><a href=“2”>quote</a> They do want (when they can get it!) people of character and example; that is a form of effective personal leadership that does not depend on organizing people or developing initiatives or heading up efforts or being elected to political positions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yup – basically, leaders by example. :)</p>
<p>@ Epiphany,
You just made my point. That is exactly what I have been trying to say. I am saying that it is not necessarily true that leadership is a ‘must-have’ even for the Ivies. They pick all kinds of great kids with varied talents, some who are leaders in the conventional sense and others who are more off-beat. Sadly, they also reject equally great kids. So Lady Luck is a big player in all of this. You could do everything humanly possible and still get rejected.</p>
<p>^ I agree. You never know what the adcoms are looking for in their applicant pools during any given year; it changes each time. Some get lucky and some don’t, even though those who don’t aren’t necessarily any less qualified.</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>Even in the adult world, club leaders and political leaders usually are popular. That’s because people won’t vote for people whom they don’t like. This even is true of people running for president of the US.</p>
<p>People also aren’t likely to follow leaders whom they don’t like unless, for intstance, the consequences of disobeying are prison or something equally unpleasant.</p>
<p>So, I have a question about extracurriculars. </p>
<p>What if an admissions officer picks up two applications that are very, very similar. Similiar GPA, similar SAT score, etc. Student A is the president of the Stars Wars Club and puts in a lot of time planning Stars Wars marathons and events and has recruited several other students to the Stars Wars club. Student B is a member of the Save the Orphans in Africa club, but does not have a leadership role. Student B participates in events to help save African orphans, but does not organize them. How does the admissions officer differentiate between these two students?</p>
<p>@nolagirl:
Keep in mind that they are building a class using these applicants as raw materials. I think it would really come down to how many other Star Wars fans applied vs. kids wanting to save African orphans.</p>
<p>I think it depends on how the student is perceived.</p>
<p>If the Star Wars kid has some fun stories to share in different parts of the App or is really likeable, the kid is going to be liked by the Admissions Counselor. If the African Orphans kid shows a passion for that, then they’ll like it.</p>
<p>I think you’re biggest mistake is comparing the two in a vaccuum. Both could get admitted, and both denied. Chances are that the one activity isn’t going to make a massive difference.</p>
<p>i think we’re all assuming that all 250 (or whatever amount) of 2400s are even applying to any or all of these schools.</p>
<p>
Um, no we’re not. Obviously, some of them are going to (they’d be stupid not to). If the applicants at any one school are fewer than 250, that only <em>increases</em> the attractiveness of a perfect score.</p>
<p>From post #59: “Latinos and african americans get in easier because they are underrepresented in college and more of them should be admitted to make them represented equally in colleges.”</p>
<p>Amazing how diversity has come to be a moral end in itself, trumping all other concerns.</p>
<hr>
<p>While it obscene for Asians to get held to a different standard, I’m guessing the bulk of the non-admit horror stories involve Asians trying to get into science/math/enginering programs, where they are often present in extremely high numbers. Do you ever hear of an Asian who wants to major in French or philosophy being held to a higher standard?</p>
<p>
Stereotyping, even subtly, is quite offensive.</p>
<p>It’s a stereotype, but statistically this is true. There are, of course, exceptions but a generalization automatically false.</p>
<p>Jersey, way to duck the question. I hate the whole quota thing as much as anybody on earth. My sincere question is if anybody knows of highly qualified Asians who are intending to major in the humanities and social sciences getting rejected in favor of others who have grossly less gaudy credentials. If no, then some of these cases which look so unfair on the surface (Asian with 3.9/2300 being rejected, and non-Asian with 3.6/2100 being accepted) might simply be cases where there isn’t enough room for all the brilliant applicants who want to major in certain subjects, as opposed to there being an evil plan at work.</p>
<p>60% of the world population would fall under the category of “Asian”, Asian is such a big word, East and South Asians aren’t even the same physically at all, yet we are grouped together as Asians, that’s why we’re overrepresented, because Asians in general are flooding the world in the first place!</p>
<p>okay sweetheart you can put whatever you want on college confidential, but quit ********ting yourself. The scores and that GPA alone would guarantee you admission to the colleges that you got rejected from. So when your ready to come clean please try another post.</p>
<p>There is actually a statistical correlation between SAT score and success. This does not mean all high SATs will be successful and all lows won’t, but there is a correlation.</p>