As we know, scholarships choosing criteria include academic, extra co-curricular activities, interview performance and family financial status. What I want to highlight here is extra co-curricular activities.
Do we need a scholar to be an all-rounder? Okay, I think some posts are required, to prove that you have leadership, but somehow, does it matter for a scholar to be a leader? In this world, we need leaders as well as followers. What would happen if everybody wants to be leader? Who's going to lead and who's going to follow? Sometimes, leaderships are skills born with. Isn't it unfair for those who are without leaderships? They can't grab any post in school. So, they're underdogs in scholarship competition. However, do we need everybody to be leader? Take doctor as example, do we need so many "Datuk Seri Dr......"? Doctors' job is to treat patients, do we need leaderships here?
Post-grabbing competition in schools is really cruel and bloody, backstabbings are common. It's a battlefield, and those involved are normally "good students" or more precise, "academically good students". The final aim is always.....scholarship.
Then, the next issue is sports. I can understand, a well-balanced student should involve in sports other than books. However, not everyone can be representative. An academicaly excellent student who plays badminton during free time, but not good enough to represent the school, and another better-than-average student but very good in badminton, representing state. Which one do you choose? Some are born sportsmen, isn't it quite unfair?
Is it that an engineer, doctor, pharmacist, dentist etc...... must be an all-rounder?
I truly do not believe that positions reflect a person's true leadership skills. Positions only show someone's bargaining skills - political skills. At my school, people get posts by saying, "Eh, if I suggest you for the post, you must suggest me also ah!"
Then, the club either ends up inactive or is active without the leader around. In the end, the credit goes to the president. Bullsh*t.
To me, leadership skills come from the little little things in a person's life. You lead your siblings to academic success by doing homework with them. You set a good example by doing household chores, etc. You become someone whom your friends/siblings look up to.
And when these forms of leadership become evident, you take up heavier tasks. You get elected because of your skills and capabilities, not politics.
What's written on paper (scholarship applications) do not measure these kinds of leadership. What they (the sponsors) want is the end product. "Oh, you're the president of this. Good!" In the end, the person they see is someone very quiet who lacks ideas in an active discussion.
And yes, doctors, for example, do require leadership skills. Like I said, it's the little things that count. A doctor leads other ancillary staff (nurses, MAs, etc.) to perform a task at the highest possible quality. A doctor has to make sure that everyone's on the same boat - to provide the best healthcare, and not be taken aback by other things.
