<p>
</p>
<p>The same thing that gives me the “right” to decide I want to hang around with A, B, C and D but that I’m not interested in pursuing a friendship with E, F, G, and H. Are you friends with every single person you ever run across?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Everyone would flock to the “popular” houses. Would that be a good thing? The current system, while imperfect, enables everyone to get a chance to be exposed to all the houses in a systematic fashion, as opposed to all the new freshmen deciding upfront they want to be Kappa Chi Whatevers because they hear they are the “best” house.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably the same downside that any organization might find, or any college, for that matter. Some people are very socially unskilled, just as some people are incredibly inept academically, or athletically…What would be the downside of having an open football team or an open theater scene? For example, whoever got to the audition first got to choose the role they wanted, regardless of skills and talents…Perhaps we could have an “open” senate and congress and everyone who wanted to be a congressman or woman could just go ahead and “be” one. Or, when school is over…whoever wanted to go and work for microsoft? Maybe Microsoft could be made to employ everyone interested?</p>
<p>This is just a silly question. Life is not a gradeschool classroom. Unfortunately, not all gifts are evenly distributed.</p>
<p>As for socio-economics, I’m very sad to hear someone would lose out because of that, particularly since on my D’s campus, it plays no part at all. Including having confidential scholarships…</p>
<p>Cornell opens the dorm early free for anyone who wants to participate in rush. They also do not require any rec letters.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No more than five PER HOUSE? That’s insane. That sounds like one of those over-the-top situations, where it’s the in-club based on who you know from back home. That bears no relationship to a system in which a rec letter is simply, “Hey, keep an eye out for ___ when she comes through.”</p>
<p>soze: These are national organizations. They have the tight to chose their members. Just like the Boy scouts had the “right” to decide that my 8 year old was not eligible to be a member because he refused to honor the religious oath of its members. He would not have been a good representative of the scouts because of his atheism and many people that rush are not considered good ambassadors to the GLO. </p>
<p>To those talking about how important it is to get letters of recommendation, etc for high school seniors: if it is important to someone, then they will do it. After all CC is full of kids that will do anything to get into the college of choice, including tracking down letter fo recs, SAT prep, etc. How is this different? When I go to college and decided to rush, I contacted my teachers from high school, members of my community, etc, recent grads already in the greek system, etc to get letters. Yes, it was work, but it ceertainly wasn’t more work than crafting an admissions essay or interviewing at a college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Football and theater require a particular competency. This competency can be judged by qualified people who have expertise in making the proper determination. This is not the case with fraternities or sororities. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You really don’t get it at all.
I’m saying that all the students at a given college have the absolute right to have a chance at the same experience. If they are going to be judged or evaluated as to whether they can participate in a given activity which is sanctioned and approved by their college, then they have the right to have this judging be relevant to the activity in question (such as acting talent for theater, athletic talent for football, etc.) and have this evaluation be done by people who are qualified to perform these evaluations.</p>
<p>Someone who is from a lower social class, overweight, unattractive, socially awkward, speaks with an accent, unpopular, handicapped, poorly dressed, etc. is just as entitled to the opportunity to experience the full range of sanctioned college activities as everybody else. That’s what college is all about: take all these DIFFERENT types of people, throw them together and watch the amazing things that will happen. BUT… if you immediately start segregating students as soon as they get there and setup barriers to interaction and exclusive clubs, etc. you are diminishing the college experience for everybody.</p>
<p>Don’t even kid yourself that self-segregation doesn’t occur regardless of whether there is a Greek system or not. Here’s a concept: The same girl who would refuse to talk to some other girl because she dresses “funny” is going to be that kind of girl regardless of whether she’s in a sorority or not. </p>
<p>And again, you keep talking “barriers to interaction.” There are no barriers erected, at least on the chill campuses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m well into my 40’s, so I have no idea what a “chill” campus is. But if an organization that does not welcome all who wish to join is not a “barrier to interaction.” Then please tell me what is.</p>
<p>These kids do all have an equal chance at the same ezperience. that is what RUSH is all about. They have the chance to apply to these organizations. Coming from a very competitive rush experience, I can tell you that in some houses, looks had something to do with it. In others, it was the alumni connections or the type of clothing. In most of the houses, it was about making connections and having fun at the event, meeting lots of people and being yourself. I was not rich, came from a town of 800 people, knew NO upperclassmen when I arrived at college. My roommate was a legacy at a house, knew tons of people and didn’t get in. My pledge class had girls of various socioeconomic levels, diverse majors, geographic diversity, etc. It was a top 3 house on my campus, but we were not all rich, skinny and blonde.
Implying that groups should let everyone in also ignores the fact that houses have limited amounts of space. If the house can hold 60 people, why should I let 80 join?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At some colleges, some students who want to join frats/sororities get no bids. At some colleges, that includes students who would be willing to join a number of different houses but get rejected from all of them. At some southern colleges (and maybe some colleges in other areas) a lot of students get rejected from all houses.</p>
<p>At other colleges, the fraternity/sorority system is set up so that any student who rushes will get a bid from at least one house.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you willingly participated in this?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When a sorority member begins to talk about how her house is “top 3,” it sounds to me like sororities are ranking women into more desirable and less desirable categories… and that the women in the “top 3” feel glad they don’t have to live with the lower orders, the undesirables.</p>
<p>Yes soze, I willingly went through rush. Did I gravitate to the houses that based their decisions on looks or clothes? No! they were not “my kind”. But I went through rush to find “my people”. I happened to find a connection with a group of amazing women. They are my sisters for life. One reason this is evoking such a strong reaction with people is that the experience doesn’t end when college does. My ties to this organization are there for life. I have written recommendations for people and also alerted my old campus to a girl that wasn’t as good as she looked on paper. I do care who enters my family.</p>
<p>Actually the rankings were somewhat objective. It was a house consistently known for having good pledge classes, lots of volunteer work, high GPA and success in Greek sponsored events. So we ‘earned’ rank by being involved in the house and upholding the ideals based on the organization. it wasn’t about being the richest, prettiest, sluttiest, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, if we were in 1950’s Alabama, you would have had no problem riding in the front of the bus?</p>
<p>One thing I’ve noticed is that Greek Life is not very popular in the North but very popular in the South. For example, a lot of schools in the North don’t have greek life and here in the Northeast it’s very uncommon (I think 2% of UMass-Amherst students are involved?). However in the South at schools like Alabama or Ole Miss, the %'s jump up to 20-30% or higher.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So if I say I went to a top 20 college (per USNWR), am I saying that any college below top 20 is less desirable and the people who attend those schools are undesirables that I’d never want to associate with or sit with at a lunch table?</p>
<p>soze: to equate joining a sorority (or, more accurately, participating in rush to join a sorority) to condoning racism is stretching it. I have tried to keep this conversation civil, even as you attempt to bait those of us who see the good that comes from the GLOs. I don’t condone racism nor the implication. the parade of rush was chaotic and absurd at times, but it was not inherently evil. You, on the other hand, can’t seem to see that good can come from these organizations for those that join.
I can’t follow your logic, when you make these ludicrous jumps. Should all-womens colleges (or all-mens) be forced to accept those of the opposite gender based on equality? Should I PM you evey day with lengthy messages because I want to be your friend? I guess in the back of my mind, I wonder, why are you so worked up about this issue if you never experienced Greek life on your campus. Why care so much about a subject to which you have no knowledge?</p>
<p>And guess what, Soze? If you found a group of girlfriends at Brandeis through whatever means (living in the same dorm, having an activity in common, etc.) that you’ve remained friendly / close with for years after, then what’s the essential difference in the end result? Surely you’re not equally friendly with every single person in the Brandeis class of 19xx.</p>