Best and Brightest, but Not the Nicest

[je_ne_sais_quoi]

epiphany: I'll modify my conclusion to read: "They are just not to be found in abundance in the Ivy League colleges since that is not what those colleges SEEM to be looking for, based on my limited experience."

Sorry if my opinion came off sounding like fact.

[Consolation]

Amongst the 6 or so Ivy acceptees in my S's class is one kid who fits jnsq's description to an absolute T, and a couple more who are definitely on that continuum. They all have a lot of drive to "succeed." Then there's my kid.......he's the cuckoo in the nest, I think.

I don't mean that he is an altruist, or that he doesn't want to be successful, but his innate independence makes him unwilling to play the game the way you need to in order to be amongst The Annointed in high school...or at least at our high school.

[justbreathe]

I find this assertion completely ridiculous. The individuals I've encountered in college are WAY nicer than the kids I went to high school with. I've never met so many friendly people before. In high school if I missed class I had to ask to borrow notes from people. In college, I've had many friends come visit me when sick, not only bothering to go grab me my stuff from my room to bring to me at the nurse's office, but also voluntarily just bringing their notes for me to borrow too, without being asked. I've had MANY friends lend me their textbooks. Heck, I knew a girl who, upon learning that I did not have a hat for the snow, pluck the one she was wearing off her head and put it on mine, declaring it an impromptu gift.

[marite]

I agree with epiphany. Leadership as defined by top colleges does not entail stepping over other people to get to the top. It does not have to mean to be president of the student council. It often means true excellence such as can be displayed by musicians, actors, painters, medalists in olympiads (I know of no underhand activity involved in these "competitions."

Sounds like the author of the article thinks that college is like high school, full of mean girls. That's not been my experience or the experience of my kids.

[nceph]

Add me to the list of those disagreeing with the notion that the top colleges, or Ivy League colleges in particular, are attracting non-nice students or, more ridiculously, are looking for non-nice students. My D has been amazed at how kind her classmates are. Yes, offering and sharing notes, books, study materials, time to help each other. Yes, checking on sick friends. Are there some not nice people roaming the halls of the Ivy League? I'm sure there are, but I'm not at all convinced that they are there in any greater proportion than at other institutions.

[je_ne_sais_quoi]

Perhaps my impressions have been clouded by the ultra-competitive region in which I live.

An anecdote: Even musicians can be competitive! Right before a regional competition, another musician who plays the same instrument as my daughter "accidentally" knocked my daughter's instrument out of her hands so she was unable to compete with her own instrument. I wouldn't be surprised if there is sabotage in other disciplines, as well.

Some kids seem to know how to position themselves in order to land the plum opportunities. It may not appear to be underhanded, but it is quite sophisticated and intentional. Nudging your way into these positions is something the "nice" kids seem to have trouble doing, either by choice or by temperament, from what I have seen.

justbreathe: You experiences are quite heartening! I am glad you shared them.

[Anona]

I wouldn't be surprised if there is sabotage in other disciplines, as well.

My son was sabotaged by one of his own teammates in a debate tournament.

[epiphany]

It is ironic that those of us with a role in leadership selection of young people look for the opposite of what perhaps many people on and off CC assume about "leadership." If you extend it to its logical counterpart, leadership qualities in the secular sphere are parallel to "sainthood" or "holiness" qualities in some religious spheres: that is, we look for sacrifice, selflessness, generosity, role-modeling, encouraging cooperation, letting go of ego for the sake of The Greater Good, answering "a call" when there's a leadership vacuum. Notice I didn't say we're looking for religiosity or morality per se, although an ethical component tends to come with the territory (these candidates being rather ethically formed, versus what may be not as standard or typical for the rest of their peers). But the analogy fits on some levels -- common threads being character, service, & internalized responsibility.

Otherwise known as, Real Male Leaders are not bullies or egotists, and Real Female Leaders do not try to ape stereotypes of male leadership.

Competitiveness is not synonymous with leadership, nor is it necessarily a component. Leaders tend to be *confident* people, but their effectiveness as leaders is directly related to their confidence in *others*, more than in themselves. Their success as leaders is very much contingent upon their optimism about people & their ability to coax that assumption into action.

Stereotypes can be dangerous when, like this, they result in opposite assumptions about a category.

It may be that students in certain regions are *wannabe* leaders, but that doesn't mean that they meet the litmus test inside a college admissions committee.

[je_ne_sais_quoi]

epiphany: I agree with everything you say about what makes for a true leader, and am encouraged that someone who plays a role in leadership selection believes as you do. However, I must say that the students in our area who have gained entrance into the very top colleges are not at all what you describe! They are the cutthroat (be it obvious or subtle), machiavellian types. They may present a veneer of collaboration or cooperation when needed, but when it comes right down to it, they are out for themselves. Apparently they have been able to pull the wool over the college admissions committees' eyes.

Again, this is just my experience. I am glad to know it is skewed and not representative of the process as a whole.

[Northstarmom]

" If you extend it to its logical counterpart, leadership qualities in the secular sphere are parallel to "sainthood" or "holiness" qualities in some religious spheres: that is, we look for sacrifice, selflessness, generosity, role-modeling, encouraging cooperation, letting go of ego for the sake of The Greater Good, answering "a call" when there's a leadership vacuum. "

This is so very true. It's what I've looked for when being an alum interviewer for Harvard. It's also what I've looked for when interviewing students for a highly competitive leadership program in my city.

It's a myth that competitive schools and leadership programs are looking for "me first" students who became leaders by stepping on others. Those are exactly the type of people whom we don't want to choose.

It's also very easy to differentiate the kind of leaders we're looking for from the step-on-others and looking-for-resume-decoration type of "leaders." Their answers to questions like: "Why did you participate in this activity?", "What contribution of yours in this activity are you proudest of?", and "What is your definition of 'leadership?'" highlight very different things than what the egocentric "leaders" think are important.

People who backstab and kissup their way to presidencies in student organizations tend to sit on their backsides and do nothing because their only goal was to polish their resumes. Those aren't the kind of people that Harvard and legitimate leadership programs (not talking here to the leadership programs that are open to those who can pay big bucks) are looking for.

[epiphany]

Those last 2 paragraphs of post 25 are absolutely correct. The questions (& answers) sort out the true leaders from the pretenders, on the one hand, and the tyrants, on the other.

[newmassdad]

Truth is, leadership is a good deal more complex than the OP, JNSQ or epiph describe. And worse, we don't even know very well what the ivy admissions process selects for.

We can suspect the following:

- different colleges may well emphasize different qualities in their admissions process.

- attitudes and pressures toward achievement vary from HS to HS, town to town, region to region.

- leadership means different things to different audiences. To some, it may mean the "epiphany" model. To an athletic coach, it may mean aggressiveness. To a sales VP, it may well mean something else.

So unless someone has magical insight, I'd stop pointing fingers and maybe just listen a bit to different experiences and different reactions.

(reminds me of the group of blind men who come across an elephant....)

[je_ne_sais_quoi]

Glad to hear it Northstarmom! I don't know that I believe the admissions folks have mastered the art of discerning the true leaders from those who know how they should appear and the answers they should be giving. Otherwise, how would the single biggest and self-proclaimed egotists at my daughter's HS be heading to Harvard and Yale this year? True, they are well-known, but more for their stunning arrogance than their willingness to ever put themselves second. One of these gentlemen told my daughter that he was "disappointed" in her for doing so well in class, and wrecking the curve; she was, in his words, making him "look bad" and he needed to keep his grades up because he was going to Yale! Like I said, we live in an ultra-competitive place.

[epiphany]

Re Post 27:

the audience we're talking about here is not business sales or athletic leadership, necessarily, or at least I don't think that's what jnsq was alluding to in her own replies. Hard to fake it in the way she describes, as a leader of a sports team, and still claim success as a leader. Won't win too many games that way, or at least not score many morale points with your teammates.

And since two of us *are* in on the selection end, a couple of us actually do know what we're talking about.

Of *course* leadership is complex. That's entirely the point. That's why particular quesions are asked, to get a complex profile in a variety of leadership areas & qualities.

[epiphany]

jnsq,
I have no doubt that jerks get in under the wire, as well. Not everybody is interviewed as thoroughly & with discernment as is ideal. However, you personally probably don't know that the supposed "leadership" of the supposedly arrogant students to which you refer are what got them into H and Y. Could be that their families were loaded, and donated. Could be for other reasons, where the nominal "leadership" was not a factor or was even a "negative" in certain aspects, but was overridden by compensating factors. Do not assume that arrogant people are admitted because they're arrogant.