Impulsestorm :: :: Too Many Chiefs and not Enough Indians

Recently I went to UC Davis on a little summer tour my mom planned to try to get me exited and motivated to do well in school to get into a high level college. While that trip itself did not have the level of motivating effect my mom had hoped for, I figured I might as well talk to some of the counselors there about how I would stand using all the qualifications I will theoretically have by the time I apply for college. This was around a 3.7 GPA, Eagle Scout, LEADER of my Boy Scout Troop, Section LEADER in marching band, and ideally high SAT scores from what I got back on my PSATS. Given this information, I asked one of the counselors there what my chances of getting into their college was. I was somewhat taken aback by the answer I received. The person seemed to have little interest in my academic qualifications, but commented at length about my leadership experiences. She said it was good that I had my Eagle rank, but I should try to get into more leadership opportunities. I should try to be the President or vice President of my ASB.

This was very similar to the talk I had when I talked to Military recruiters about the West Point, Anapolis and the Air Force Academy. Only thing is that there is a big difference between a military college and a civilian one. In the Military college you are studying and training to become an officer, the leaders of the military. In a civilian college, chances are you are just going to one of the normal people that make up the population of the US. Chances are more likely than not that you will not become a world leader of any sort. So, this begs the questions, if you are not going to be a leader, why must you train to be one just to get into college? why must you be a leader to get into college, and of course why do colleges seek everyone on their campus to be leaders? In respect to the President or Vice President of the ASB, those things are little but popularity contests, and have little to nothing to do with real leadership.

When everyone is a leader, bad things happen. It's like the saying goes:Too many chiefs and not enough Indians. I have had some experiences that clarify this in my mind as fact. In my Marching band, there is a small circle of people charged with giving leadership to the 140 members. this circle numbers about 10. The teacher who runs the program told everyone at the beginning of the season to "be a leader, even if you didn't have the official title". Few could have predicted the chaos that would ensue. instead of just a few people giving instruction to many in a fast and efficient manner, everyone was shouting instructions at everyone. groups of two people would be giving each other instructions simultaneous. Then the REAL leaders had to sort through all the confusion and silence all those who were trying to be leaders to restore order. The amount of time wasted was astronomical. This problem still exists, and still wastes time. Real life account of how not everyone can be leaders if anything is going to get done.

Since I have established the point that too many leaders is a bad thing, why is it that colleges want everyone to be a leader, and seem to be more interested in it than things like academics? This is the question at hand, and the information above is why it baffles me. If a college is looking for a "whole person", then in my opinion leadership qualifications should be something that people who are leaders can use to get into college, not something that is demanded of everyone.

Impulsestorm	Username: Password: