Why do colleges look particularly for leadership positions when not all are outgoing?

<p>florida: I can sympathize with your sentiment and others who lament the rat race that exists now for top school admissions. It’s at such a frenetic level that concerns me as well.</p>

<p>But if I may: look at it from the side of the top schools. Nowadays, you get 25000 applications. Your first cut is “who can fit in”. Then what do you do to narrow it down to the limited spots you have? Seriously. What solution do you offer? I’m not saying any perfect system exists – but to bash top schools for looking for “intangible” criteria – dismisses the real issue at hand. Too few slots for way too many qualified applicants.</p>

<p>All things being equal, why shouldn’t a college pick a student leader over an otherwise great but “average” student?</p>

<p>And saying that applicants need to parrot “diversity is good” – it’s their party and they set the rules. These “diverse” schools seemingly have a stranglehold on the so-called “top 25” status. If diversity is such a bad thing, why do they still hold these places? I would posit that their student make up is a vital part of what others praise them for. While my personal politics may have run counter to what many of my classmates, I’m 100% glad I was in an intimate living situation with them.</p>

<p>

There’s nothing wrong with that, from the kid’s point of view. But from the elite college’s point of view, it cuts against the business model. Why would the college take somebody who was second-chair clarinet in All-County Band, when they can get somebody who was on “From the Top?” As noted above, they get thousands of applications, so they can take kids who have great scores and great grades and great ECs and great recs, as well as achievements outside the school. So why wouldn’t they do that?</p>

<p>Note: if somebody is a brilliant mathemetician, he or she will get admitted into a top school without any leadership in ECs–as long as he or she is brilliant enough.</p>

<p>I don’t think the ‘good old days’ of college admission were so great: I’m thrilled that it’s not automatic that if you attended a top prep school and had the right connections, you got into an elite school. I’m delighted that you don’t get omitted automatically because you are black or female or have a jewish surname. I LOVE the meritocracy! And if that means that kids have to work harder to demonstrate ‘merit’, so be it.</p>

<p>The fact is there are dozens, if not hundreds, of excellent schools, many with outstanding honors programs, that you can attend if you want to opt out of the rat race. But if you think it’s more interesting to attend a school with kids who are not just academically excellent, but also excel in music, or sports, or the arts, or some other area, then realize you will be held to that standard too.</p>

<p>You do not need to be outgoing to be leadership material. In fact, many leaders are reserved in nature. Leadership is seeing something that needs doing, and addressing it, without needing to be poked, prodded and directed by others. </p>

<p>Leadership is a response, not a trait. Running around and collecting club presidencies is not leadership. I imagine that elite colleges are looking for students who are self-directed and disciplined in their activities; that bodes well for a life of leadership.</p>