For a scholarship I am filling out, it’s asking me to list my extracurriculars, leadership positions in them, as well as whether the leadership position was elected or appointed. For one of my clubs, I could technically pick either option truthfully, since I was in a sense “appointed” by a teacher BUT I’m sort of “elected” by the members.
So which looks better – elected or appointed?
I sense that the scholarship wouldn’t be asking if it wasn’t important or useful information
Without more context, I would say that it does not matter. Elected positions are often no more than popularity contests. What matters are your accomplishments in the position.
Say something like “Divine Intervention”, it makes you look super cool
Your accomplishments are much more important than if you were elected or appointed.
There’s a video showing an ex Stanford adcom, giving a slight preference to elected:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96XL8vBBB7o
Go to the 3:30 or 4 minute mark, her words: getting elected by peers says a lot.
“Elected positions are often no more than popularity contests.”
For most elections, you have to be likeable to win, and appears that adcoms know that. And I can tell you anecdotally of course, that in some local high schools in bay area, presidents of the class have done really well wrt college admission, like Stanford-Harvard well. Yes correlation is not causation.
So if you have a choice, go with elected.