By Amani Hassan

The concept of the ‘ideal’ student is prevalent in universities, often shaped by expectations that reflect the institution’s prestige and effectiveness. The ideal student is typically understood as diligent, respectful, and engaged—traits that align with a ‘professional’ image. Universities further reinforce these qualities as desirable through scholarships, awards, and recognition. The University of Toronto’s Clubs and Leadership Development Division of Student Life (SL) offers training workshops for student leaders, aimed at cultivating these professional traits.

To understand SL’s philosophy on leadership, I asked staff whether they viewed leaders as ‘found’—already exhibiting certain traits—or ‘created’ through training. Staff explained that SL approaches students “where they are” in their journey, focusing on further development rather than attempting to “improve” students. However, the mere existence of these workshops suggests that SL staff consider certain professional traits, behaviours, or knowledge bases to be ideal for effective leadership. At the same time, the SL department’s approach is informed by the universiy’s guidelines for student groups on campus. For clubs to be formally recognized, and gain access to resources such as funding and dedicated spaces, they must follow a set of bureaucratic procedures administered by Clubs and Leadership. 

Formalization presents a contradiction: it enables access to services, but it also can hamper club activities. My own experience as a member of a newly recognized course union is relevant here, as our group often struggled to book spaces on our college campus despite following all the required steps. Ultimately, our group’s unique situation as a new and particularly small union seemed to set us below more established student groups that were given priority in the bureaucratic hierarchy. 

However, we already exhibited effective leadership, as through creating our union and seeking recognition, we willingly took the initiative to form a stronger community of practice. We found alternative ways to assert our right to meaningfully engage in our club activities when faced with bureaucratic obstacles: We held meetings in accessible spaces, encouraged non-members to participate in our events, and connected with professors who supported our efforts. In doing so, we managed to create opportunities for ourselves that the university’s formal system for supporting student clubs had failed to provide.

While SL’s workshops on interpersonal skills can be valuable in navigating bureaucratic structures, true student leadership cannot be learned in a single evening. It is developed through practice and experience and includes the ability to act independently and creatively within the constraints of an institution. In my experience, student leaders take initiative and find ways to lead, even when faced with systemic barriers. Ultimately, effective student leadership arises not from adherence to institutional expectations but from the autonomy and resourcefulness students develop through their own experiences.