<p>Hello, I am a junior in high school and Chicago is my dream school. I feel like many other Chicago students with one exception: I have a lot of leadership talent. (Girl Scouts, leader of summer camps, editor in chief, president...) If the stereotype is true that UC students lack leadership (is it?) then will this talent be considered a "hook"?</p>
<p>Umm, I don't believe such a stereotype exists. If anything, it's opposite. We produce a ridiculous amount of Goldwaters, Rhodes, and Fulbrights, all scholarships that require an immense amount of leadership. We're at least in the top 5 schools that produce these types of scholarships.</p>
<p>Yes, I always hear what I called the "stereotype" and yet I SEE the opposite. So in that case, leadship will help significantly?</p>
<p>i dont think you will find any top school with students that lack leadership, other than a tech school. i am going to chicago, and i started a debate club and ran my own business in the summer.</p>
<p>"I feel like many other Chicago students with one exception: I have a lot of leadership talent."</p>
<p>I'd be insulted if I were a Chicago student.</p>
<p>There is some substance to this stereotype. I can't find it now, but newmassdad once contrasted for me some official-type speeches by high-ranking officials at Chicago, Harvard, and Yale, about what they were looking for in applicants, and what the "aims of education" were. Leadership figured very prominently in both parts of the equation for Harvard and Yale: they were looking for leaders, and training leaders. Not exclusively, but it was among the top two or three things. Leadership barely figured at all in the Chicago statement: it was looking for minds, and training minds to think. (Maybe if newmassdad sees this, he can re-point us to the sources. But maybe, now that his kid is on to greener pastures, he won't look.)</p>
<p>Anyway, all that material was a few years old, and I don't think there would be such a marked difference in similar speeches today. I think it is generally assumed that the current University of Chicago administration and trustees want to see some leaders coming out of the college -- in part because, long term, it tends to be leaders who make multi-million dollar gifts to their alma maters. </p>
<p>Of course, there were always leaders among the student body at Chicago. They mainly got there by accident, though, like stars in club sports. But my sense is that Chicago is affirmatively looking for more of them now. Chicago isn't likely to have a class of all chiefs and no think-tank denizens -- even Harvard doesn't do that -- but I'm confident that, if the OP is accepted and enrolls, it won't be all that lonely at the top.</p>
<p>Back in 2006 or so, I saw an article that U of C had placed more CEOs into fortune 500 companies than any school except the University of Texas, with which it was tied. Must be some leaders coming out of the school.</p>
<p>I can only speak from my own experience, and that is that I held down an important leadership position in high school and I continue to have important leadership positions in college. </p>
<p>To me, being a leader is all about getting along with people even when you want to wring their necks and listening more than talking. It's all about being kind and understanding, and learning how to make your words effective by making them few. It's also about keeping true to your word and being aware of other people and anticipating potential complications. While Chicago is not a leadership training camp, I think that the classroom experience helps develop all of those skills I just mentioned, so I can see why Chicago kids go on to be leaders even if they weren't leaders in high school.</p>
<p>My friends and most Chicagoans are not very open with regards to talking about achievements past and present, so it makes it hard for me to generalize about the Chicago student body.</p>
<p>(JHS and others may be amused that I was able to connect the dots and realize that I know nmd's d in real life. It just took me a long, long, long time to realize that the person I know who downplays her achievements, and the father who talks about them are related to each other!)</p>
<p>What I will say for sure is that Chicago kids are by and large against the idea of resume-building for the sake of future employers; that when Chicago kids do things, they do them because they are passionate. Unlike on CC, where students tend to claim involvement in multiple clubs for the sake of college and tend to ask what "looks good," a Chicago kid tends to only get involved in something if he or she thinks it will be fun and worthwhile. This means that you get a lot of kids who don't invest as heavily into extracurriculars all across the board, and, with that, extracurricular leadership. If they invest into it hardcore, it's because they are hardcore about it.</p>
<p>S1 had some significant leadership in HS -- not the popularly-elected sorts of things, but roles where he taught and mentored students at very high academic levels, and gave presentations on his research to professors and experts in the field. He took his geekiness and turned it outward.</p>
<p>The leadership was a natural growth of his personal interests, multiplied by the personal growth it took for him to have the confidence to teach, and multiplied again by the intensity with which he is now pursuing these things as long term goals.</p>
<p>Will it make him a big alumni contributor? Probably not. Will it make him a $&*% good professor? Yup. He would rather make a difference in that way than by becoming the next Bill Gates. </p>
<p>Four years ago, I would have NEVER imagined this.</p>
<p>Whether Chicago admitted him because of "leadership," I don't know. Whatever the reasons, they knew they were getting someone who was not afraid to conquer new things and take chances, who was not afraid to admit his mistakes, and who is absolutely genuine in his passions and beliefs.</p>
<p>JHS,</p>
<p>Still here on occasion! Sorry I do not remember the links I posted. But yes, I fear for kids at some schools like Harvard; all leaders, no followers. </p>
<p>Truth is, though, that leadership is much more complex than just being elected president of a youth organization, or even being picked by a HS teacher for some "leadership" honor. These things count, they are important, of course, but there is much more to leadership than this. </p>
<p>I think there are several things to keep in mind:</p>
<ul>
<li> leadership is not the same as popularity, although it is hard to "lead" if one is disliked!</li>
<li> the concept of leadership varies over one's life, career path, personal style and such.</li>
<li> leadership does not count for much in college applications. But in fairness, not much else beyond grades, scores and recs does either (unless you're applying to U Chicago, where essays seem to matter a lot!)</li>
<li>as parents, none of us truly understand how adcoms make their decisions...</li>
</ul>
<p>It's curious that my own D, who graduated in June, received "leadership" awards from UofC, as well as one of these well known national scholarships that emphasizes "leaderhip" even though she's never been an officer of any student group, was not even the captain of her sports team and would not be considered a "popular" kid (even though she has an adequate share of good friends - enough for her!). </p>
<p>Near as I can tell her "leadership" was more by example and willingness to help others. Of course, this is often the case in real life - leaders are recognized for their contribution to society (at whatever scale you want - school, community...) without actively seeking any recognition at all! This kind of leader does their own thing, does it very well, and helps others to excel too.</p>
<p>nmd, I disagree that Harvard kids are all leaders and no followers. Based on my good friends there....</p>
<p>... one was a leader of sorts in high school, but is more content to follow, and listen
... three are impatient when it comes to group work and prefer to do their own thing
... three are talented in ways that don't naturally lead to leadership positions</p>
<p>Any business takes different kinds of personalities. You need some client interface people who are warm and fuzzy and you need some brainy powerhouses. I think Harvard, and most schools, recognize that good attributes come from all over the place.</p>
<p>How can having leadership hurt you? UofC might not place great emphasis on it but that doesn't mean they're actively seeking something against it.</p>
<p>unalove,
Would it be safe to assume that leadership and extracurriculars as a whole play less of a role in Chicago's admissions than they do in other institutions of similar caliber? </p>
<p>(This isn't a hidden chances post or anything of the sort. I'm fully confident of my own ECs/leadership. Just curious.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
unalove,
Would it be safe to assume that leadership and extracurriculars as a whole play less of a role in Chicago's admissions than they do in other institutions of similar caliber?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One thing I've noticed about admissions regarding schools of any caliber (case test scenario: my peers in high school) is that the admissions readers tend to view applications and applicants on their own terms. This is probably where the wholly unjust college admissions process takes a turn towards fairness-- the process of "reading" like an admissions counselor includes a lot more than just counting up leadership positions on a resume, and more towards thinking about personality, potential, and fit. And also the fact that, much like Tyra Banks and her cronies, the committee has to make some kind of decision, and their rulings are never consistent against one another. </p>
<p>My personal take on the admissions process for both Chicago and other colleges is that extracurricular leadership is not necessarily the golden egg; it's who you are, what you've grown up with, and what you've done with it that is significant.</p>
<p>If Chicago has any kind of "trend" in admitting students, I think it's in admitting students who are excited about the core, about being challenged, about learning, rather than students who just want to claw their way into a prestigious school with a well-regarded economics program. Meaning that Chicago wants students who want Chicago.</p>
<p>Reflecting on my own hobbies, I know that they are all leadership and educational based. Several of my EC's tend to mesh with leadership. (ex: editor in chief, science fair) These revolve around what I love to learn but incorportate leadership. TBH I don't know why anyone would want to go all around the board with EC's. I do not consider it an accurate portrayal of the student and his/her passions. </p>
<p>As for the first few posts, I am sorry if they offended anyone. I never sincerely believed them but heard about them on this site. I just wanted clarification.</p>
<p>Just want to remind folks that we don't really know how adcoms make their decisions. Indeed, I suspect most of them would have a hard time describing the process (just read any of the many "confessionals" published...) and worse, we don't even know if they really do in practice what they say (and may think) that they do. </p>
<p>Indeed, academic research on the topic consistently shows pretty big discrepancies between what admissions folks say publicly and what they actually do in private. </p>
<p>The important thing for an applicant is to keep in mind that you are what you are. Admissions is not a game, so don't try to game the process. Just put your best foot forward as honestly as you can.</p>
<p>^^ I like that post very much. Too often I think I answer questions about admissions based on what I would do if I played adcom. But in all honesty admissions is a big and carefully guarded black box.</p>
<p>The College is clearly looking to bring in more well rounded individuals, which at Chicago means more students affiliated with traditional leadership EC’s such as the campus newspaper, Model UN, Mock trial, etc. versus haute nerd outlets like documentary film, chess, or fiction writing. Indeed, when I entered the College - not too terribly long ago - the idea that you would have any EC was not a given nor really even a prerequisite for admission. There were plenty of people who applied as math nerds, came to be math nerds, and indeed spent four years as math nerds, with their only other activity being obligatory dining at their house table as an underclassmen. However, by the time I left Chicago it was increasingly rare to meet first years who did seemingly nothing structured outside of class. </p>
<p>Then again, it should be noted that a lot of popular EC’s at Chicago still don’t “count” by other schools standards (insofar as employers and professional schools don’t give you any application benefit from them, and realistically, this is what the administrators are focused on). As much as you may like Doc Films, Scav Hunt, or being on the Scrabulous team, they are just not serious resume boosters. Also, the expansion of some of the more plain vanilla EC’s by Ivy standards has been met rather negatively by segments of the campus. For instance, several people at my house table had plenty of choice words to say regarding Blue Chips, which is still going strong as the campus investment club. </p>
<p>At the end of the day though, Chicago clearly sees EC’s as a complementary second to formal academics, which is certainly not the case at several other top universities where a bare bones, Cliff Notes / Schaum’s Outlines approach to studies is OK so long as it’s freeing up time for something suitably constructive. Ted O’Neil & Co. don’t seem to expect that you can spend an ungodly number of hours each weak outside of class going to non-academic events, all while doing half your reading and attending half your classes, and at the same time not run into trouble gradewise.</p>
<p>uchicagoalum, were you a math nerd (or did you want to be)?</p>
<p>I am seeing the light...S1 is an unabashed math nerd with very social ECs. Can't argue with Ted O'Neill that college IS a place for academics, though...</p>
<p>Psssht! Math? More like major in bad boy with a minor in cool. ~ Fresh Prince of Bel Air</p>
<p>I was in a weird place at the U of C. The really hardcore intellectuals kept at a social distance because they thought I was too dismissive of their Ivory Tower clique (I don't generally talk about academic topics outside of the classroom, or yuppie cultural happenings for that matter), whereas I could never really see eye to eye with the banker / consulting... primates. I definitely fell into pre-graduate school nighthawk crowd for my three years, with the downside being I cannot really say I carried forward any friends past graduation. </p>
<p>I did try doing the EC thing my first year, but got turned off to it quickly. Just seemed like a lot of effort for activities I only marginally enjoyed, accompanied by an inordinate amount of social posturing. Then again, I also found the house system to be somewhat of a social overload. House tables were more than enough "getting out" for me on any given day.</p>