6 ms·
Why Are American Colleges Obsessed With 'Leadership'?
- calibraxis 13y agoPresumably managerialism? Structural analysis of universities is obviously relevant. As well as their function in the economy.
- rayiner 13y agoAre they particularly? They lead with Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, extremely elite schools that produce a large portion of the country's leaders. How many CEOs have one of these schools or Stanford on their resume? It is in the interest of these schools to cultivate these people. Outside this elite circle, I'm not sure the premise is true. I went to a state school, and leadership was never a big concern. Much more so teamwork.
- michaelochurch 13y agoMost of that shit was designed (originally) with racist intent. I don't think modern admissions committees are racist; at this point, it's more of a "how things were always done" dynamic, and it's taken for granted that nonacademic factors should have a huge influence over college admissions. (One problem is that grade point averages aren't standardized and the SATs don't go high enough for as competitive as college admissions are. The bullshit gets such a high weight because so many students are 2400/valedictorians, now that admissions are a national pool with many students submitting 20+ applications.) Admissions tests (such as the SATs) made college admissions "too" meritocratic in the 1920s-30s and prep-school boys started losing spots to ethnically diverse applicants from public schools. For example, student bodies went from 0-3% to 20-25% Jewish in a year. Many of the professors and administrators welcomed the change (the quality of students improved) but wealthy donors went into race panic and demanded that WASP-biased extracurricular factors (what would be called "pattern matching" in modern VC-istan) be injected back into the process.
- maxerickson 13y agoCollege Board publishes test results: http://research.collegeboard.org/content/sat-data-tables http://research.collegeboard.org/content/sat-data-tables This is the interesting one for this question: http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-Composite-CR-M-W-2013.pdf http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/S... 494 students scored a 2400 in 2013. ~8,300 students scored better than 2300, the tippy top of the 99th percentile. So SAT scores might not be serving the most selective institutions, but what about the thousands and thousands of spots available at what are reasonably called good schools?
- AnimalMuppet 13y agoInstitutional pride/snobbery? "We don't just admit smart people. (The really smart ones go to MIT, not here.) No, we admit leaders! That's how you know that we're more elite even than MIT!"
- gumby 13y agoI don't remember MIT caring much about "leadership" when I attended back in the 80s but I do remember being contacted by the institute in part because they wondered why MIT folks worked at and founded some major companies yet were almost never the CEO (and thus the big financial gifts went elsewhere). I will say that back then MIT was pretty anti-entrepreneurial; policy was more important (which makes sense when you think about how MIT functioned, and still functions). That seems to have changed somewhat.
- brianchu 13y agoI currently attend UC Berkeley and graduated from a fairly affluent top US high school a few years ago. Meaning: everyone was very concerned (I won't say obsessed) about college admissions. This focus on leadership in admissions is very well known, and manifests itself conspicuously in competitive high schools. There's a considerable amount of unspoken pressure to get "leadership" positions in school clubs, do "leadership" activities in community service, do varsity sports or other leadership in sports, and participate in ranked competitions. The list goes on and on. This breeds a lot of cynicism about people's motivations, especially as people try to game the system (with empty leadership positions). What starts to happen is that when people hear about a high schooler who goes off and founds a non-profit and does work in Africa (or something like that), people start to wonder whether that person did it just to improve their admissions chances. The sad part is that this person could very well be genuine. EDIT (reply to below): Sometimes those people are college admissions officers. I'm in college now, so I don't worry much about that stuff anymore. I just recognize that the system is screwed up.
- jsun 13y agoyeah that kid doesn't really give much of a damn whether you thought his experience was genuine:)
- eieio 13y agoI saw exactly this situation in high school. I went to a prep school, so there was definitely explicit pressure to do things that look good for college. Two of my classmates put together the "Dollars for Darfur" program, which became a relatively big deal. They spoke in front of congress, appeared on some morning shows, etc. Sometimes it was honestly hard to have a conversation about the program that didn't involve some cynical "and this'll look really good on their college application" type of stuff. Which is true, it's an impressive project and I'm sure it boosted their changes, but it was always sad to me that people questioned their motives. Definitely a combination of jealousy and cynicism.
- Glyptodon 13y agoI found this very frustrating in High School. It ruined clubs because people weren't interested in the club, just the resume. ...It's such great leadership to get yourself elected leader of the club that doesn't do anything because you're too busy being a "leader." No doubt said "leadership" provided some compelling anecdote for an entrance essay... The whole approach to 'leadership' taken these days where it's almost a subject itself is so frustrating and at odds with the whole idea.
- Bahamut 13y agoThese schools are not perfect at identifying candidates, just as with any process involving people currently. I view that more as a problem than anything else.
- crazygringo 13y ago> But the implicit message behind the rhetoric of leadership in the American college admissions is that intellectualism alone is not enough, even for an academic institution. Simply learning for learning's sake is not enough. Implicit? I'd say it's pretty explicit. Harvard, Yale, etc. aren't trying to be "normal" colleges, they're explicitly trying to produce the next generation of world leaders. Admissions make very clear that intellectualism/learning on its own is not enough. And rhetoric? It's reality. Our most recent 6 terms of presidents, and 9 out of 9 current Supreme Court justices, all have degrees from Harvard or Yale. So the whole leadership thing appears to be working, whether or not you think that's a good thing. I don't think Harvard, Yale, or anybody else is arguing that most colleges need to, or should, focus on leadership. But they're certainly within their rights to want to -- it's one of the things that makes Harvard and Yale what they are.
- Crito 13y agoWith Yale or Harvard it makes perfect sense to emphasis leadership. Emphasizing leadership skills for STEM students at engineering schools? That makes less sense. Emphasizing leadership skills for developers at West Coast tech companies? Now we're just getting silly... Sure leadership plays a role in what I do, but I wouldn't rate it in the top 5 important skills. As an example, to help myself get into college I was in the boy scouts and got eagle scout (that was the only reason, I hated it.) The idea there was that by teaching other kids how to use an axe without dismembering themselves, I demonstrated leadership skills that would prove valuable in computer science... Of course that is rubbish, that stuff doesn't even have anything to do with leadership, it is just going through the motions. Paying lip service to the idea of leadership because the idea of leadership, not actual leadership, is something that we are all addicted to. I've gotten use to it though. My personal theory? Leaders overemphasis the importance of everyone being a leader. Just as tech people get behind "everyone should be a coder" initiatives, leaders get behind "everyone should be a leader" initiatives.
- dubfan 13y agoI always detested this empty "leadership" concept and I actively avoided doing anything like that in high school. I was lucky enough to get into my top choice of universities despite this. Today, I don't think I would be able to do that, and I only graduated high school 10 years ago.
- hans 13y agowhy is the tech industry obsessed with 'entrepreneurship' ?
- amtab 13y agoIt's easy to say that the American college admissions game relies on strange and difficult to quantify criteria, especially at top schools. The more interesting aspect is the comparison to the UK and other high quality European universities. As a student at a "prestigious" American college, I find it strange how little the lone wolf mentality is encouraged. In graduate programs, the most successful students are almost always lone wolves in many ways, since leadership ability doesn't get you very far with pure science or truly original ideas. I wonder what the impact would be if American universities used Oxford / Cambridge as a model instead of whatever they're doing now.
- bgilroy26 13y ago"A" people hire "A" people.
- vacri 13y agoThere's a theory that new world European colonies tend to be more socially dynamic because it's more likely that an "A" will migrate from the home country than a "B", so you get more "A"s overall, which affects the general culture. I'm not sure if I believe it or think that the premise of social dynamism is that simple, but it's an interesting idea.
- bgilroy26 13y agoThis is a barstool conversation topic I enjoy. To my mind, the traits that you would expect in immigrants to the "new world" would be a mix of positive and negative ones. The way I see it, if I were successful back in the old country, I would not move. If I were unambitious in the old country, I would not move. But there you have it.
- Glyptodon 13y ago... and just to be clear "A" stands for "Annoying."
- downer84 13y agoBecause capitalist societies are sociopathic constructs that thrive amidst a backdrop of perpetually unresolvable conflict. The word "Leadership" is merely parlance for unquenchable Macbeth-like ambition, in a land where "greed is good." This mindset is a self-fulfilling recursive prophecy, whereby everyone's self perception of their own Divine entitlement to authority stokes the flames of the human conflagration with a too-many-chiefs-not-enough-indians firestorm of caffiene and ritalin fueled animosity. Oh wait, was I supposed to read the article?
- 001sky 13y agoConsider a degree like a widget that is a trust metric. If you want to extract the highest price for your widget, you sell your product to the market with the deepest pockets. That in a nutshell seems to explain why university education is pitched to the 1%.
- goggles99 13y agoIt's been quite obvious for some time that learning institutions (especially at the university level) have an ever stronger left leaning political and cultural agenda. Who better to indoctrinate to push their agenda than future leaders? These "wise fools" will be the ruin of us all.
- kimonos 13y agoBecause those who take leadership roles will eventually become efficient employees..
- erobbins 13y agothose of us in the lone wolf camp get pushed aside a lot, and generally have to create our own opportunities.. which suits us just fine :)
- ACow_Adonis 13y agoWell, its a social signal isn't it. Take a job interview at an investment bank. It is incredibly important, if you want to get the job, that you simultaneously deny being primarily motivated by money, power, and status, while sending the social signal that you are in fact primarily motivated by money, power and status. If you weren't, you're probably making a mistake applying for a job at an investment bank (although I believe the joke about someone writing on their resume/cv/cover letter about their "lifelong passion for taxation/equities/super funds" did the rounds a few years ago). So you get your extra-curriculars/interests/academic quals to do the dance about how well a rounded person you are, but simultaneously you must wear the right clothes, drop the right names, read the right things, follow the right topics, and say the right words to strongly signal that your main motivators are in fact money, power and status and that you accept that. And if, god forbid, you're ever asked the question outright, you must find a way to explicitly deny it, while sending the subtle message that is completely the opposite. Similarly, what are colleges selling/interviewing for? Well it sure as hell isn't skills or merit, because most rich people didn't use skills or merit they got from university to get rich, and many of them could be gotten at a similar standard for a far cheaper price. God no. Connections. Power. Links. And the hunger for doing what is required for more of it. And that's what "leadership" signals. That you care about it. That you want it. That you'll be surrounded by others who think and want the same. That's what elite universities are selling. As for the rest, well, that's probably just regular human imitation/cargo-cult mentality. It seems almost second nature for humans to mindlessly try to imitate those they find socially powerful.
- zaraflan 13y agoYep, it's a social status dogwhistle, just like requiring college degrees for jobs where it is in no way relevant. There's also a significant racial component to it. It's not a coincidence that top power-broking universities have moved sharply away from objective towards subjective metrics and increased the percentage of legacy admissions at the same time that increased access for minorities has been sought.
- spiritplumber 13y agoThis explains why Americans look at me like I just ate a bug when I tell them that I'm not interested in leadership, at best I can be interested in teaching, but my main work focus is making things.
- stonemetal 13y agoIt seems like the US has a fascination with leadership. I remember when I was in college and going to meet and greets held by companies on campus all I ever heard is that they were looking for leaders. Never smart or hard working, just leaders. So it isn't just colleges it is the whole culture.
- geophile 13y agoBetter question: Why are Americans obsessed with 'leadership'? With leadership defined as being charismatic and influential, not necessarily wise, correct, or even logical. I think a large part of the answer has to do with the belief that if you lead a group of people who do X, then within that group you must be the best at doing X. Which is puzzling, because everyone who has ever had a mediocre boss knows this to be false.
- grimtrigger 13y agoLeadership is power, and people love power. I don't think its an American condition, though it certainly manifests itself here quite loudly.
- geophile 13y agoI agree completely, which is why I didn't generalize further.
- hkmurakami 13y agoThis made me remember that the business school I was at had enough leadership positions in the student clubs to accomodate something like 70% of the student population. It was basically a joke, hahaha.
- Einstalbert 13y agoConsidering our leaders in America, I think it being a joke fits right in line.
- TwoBit 13y agoYou all have it wrong. Universities are obsessed with leadership because those kinds of people are the ones that will donate to the school later.
- CurtMonash 13y agoThe only thing that sounds at all wrong here is the conflation of leadership with authority. Way back in the 1970s, I observed that a lot of universities were focused on training leaders. I was at Harvard at the time, and they didn't much care whether you wound up as a leader in scholarship, politics, business or whatever; but they assumed they were training some kind of leader. The case was even more extreme in other countries. Tokyo University was obviously in the business of training its country's leaders. Poorer countries had their one-best-university with a similar charter. France had its Ecoles Normale. And by the way -- notwithstanding what the article writer says, a lot of the UK's leadership does come from Oxbridge.
- clavalle 13y agoAmericans colleges are obsessed with leadership because it is one of the United States' main exports and profit centers. Look at Silicon Valley. What is the whole phenomena of technical innovation about if not leadership?
- jayvanguard 13y agoChoice quote: "People who can climb the greasy pole of whatever hierarchy they decide to attach themselves to."
- elag 13y agoTypical Oxford defeatism. They simply don't understand that in America everyone can be above average.
- ulfw 13y agoBecause everyone in America believes they have a chance to be a leader someday. Better to believe in the dream than to be disgruntled I suppose.