#usc2020

On March 23, the last batch of golden acceptance packages were mailed to thousands of potential Trojans for the class of 2020. According to data from USC Admissions, this past year showcased the most competitive admissions cycle — a whopping 16.5 percent admission rate, with 31 percent of the admits boasting an unweighted 4.0 GPA. It’s no secret that stellar grades, enrollment in AP/IB classes and star-studded extracurricular activities are essential for admission to any competitive college. However, in addition to this more-than-full plate, college admissions place an over-emphasis on leadership more than anything, making it not just a factor in a student’s holistic acceptance — but an obsession.

According to the USC Admissions website, leadership is one of the factors that the University takes into consideration, in addition to grades, curriculum, service and unique talents. It’s not enough to have good test scores — many admitted students were class presidents, editors-in-chief, valedictorians and National Merit Finalists. Admissions committee members judge applicants on their potential for leadership once they arrive on campus, but this type of judgment doesn’t go away after admissions — this mindset continues to perpetuate once students are on a college campus.

There is a cynical interpretation of the way the word “leadership” is used in American higher education, especially at universities like USC. Conflating actual leadership with the business-like rhetoric of admissions personnel and corporate culture — the idea that a person is only successful if they are in a leadership role — is extremely fallacious.

Almost a century ago, admissions officers at Ivy League schools decided that “leadership” needed to be an important admissions consideration because simply admitting the best academic performers excluded too many “leaders,” resulting in a student body unrepresentative and ill-fitting of the institutions’ values and history. Though this change had laudable intentions, over the years, the definition of the word “leadership” has been considerably diluted.

The word “leadership” is tossed around on campus, but if examined closely, it’s broad and hard to define. A leader is such a broad term, some would define a leader as somebody who can command a large crowd — extroverted, assertive, with strong social and networking skills to fit the ideal mold.

However, by perpetuating a narrow view of a “leader,” the emphasis on a specific type of leadership eschews and devalues other potentially important roles like being a team player or a lone wolf. Like leaders, those who are team players or lone wolves can be just as bright, motivated, passionate and curious of individuals. Whether it be the introverted student who influences behind the scenes or the rebellious genius who does not see the value of hierarchy, everybody executes their gifts in a different way.

In a Harvard Business Review article, Dean Ernest Wilson III of the Annenberg School of Communication of Journalism notes his three-year journey of compiling data that answered his question of what qualities were critical to success. He talked to people from all over the world, from business executives in Los Angeles to public relations professionals in Shanghai, everybody with acknowledged the necessity of one quality — empathy.

“All of the people we interviewed were serious business executives. Empathy was not the first virtue I associated with the rough-and-tumble of today’s highly competitive business world. I expected to hear about boldness, perseverance and toughness,” Wilson wrote in his article.

According USC Third Space, emotional intelligence is essential to cultural competence. Empathy is essential in effective leadership because it allows people to see the world through the eyes of others and to constantly be looking at things in different perspectives.

Whether it be through leadership roles, job offers or college admissions, there is a stigma toward soft attributes like emotional intelligence and empathy, when in fact they are essential to the inner-workings or any business, organization and university. Defining a leader as an extrovert precisely excludes those who are introverts but nevertheless have the potential to ignite positive change on campus. There are lone but brilliant thinkers whose contributions make us rethink our way of living.

The reality is that all college grads, even as heads of companies, are going to end up working in teams, so the notion that leadership is the most important quality should be shifted towards the development of other character traits such as empathy and teamwork.

The admissions process is extremely flawed, leading prospective students to believe that the only way to get to their dream school is to be the president of a club or to fit a certain mold. If colleges were to place more value on interpersonal approaches in their admissions, it would diversify and reshape what it means to be a valuable and ideal leader.