If Hazing is Wrong, what's a better alternative?

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by msl2008

also, i believe i am able to compare hazing vs non hazing also b/c i joined an 2 honor fraternities also. the requirements for one of them was to do 10 hours of philanthropy, have 1 on 1 talks with 10 professors, attend 10 social functions, and maintain a 3.0 gpa. i thought that was a joke compared to my fraternity hazing.

Apples and oranges.

now i've been thinking over all the comments and my own thoughts and here is my conclusion: i believe hazing is good b/c it weeds out people so the remaining members can feel like they accomplished something. now that may or may not be a stupid argument but for me i'm proud of joining my fraternity b/c lots of people who start do not finish and become brothers. to me, that makes me feel good that i accomplished something that others couldn't. it's like getting admitted to harvard, passing the cfa/cpa exam, getting promoted, or something like that. now if hazing were eliminated, i think the only way i would still be "proud" of being in my fraternity is if 30-40% of pledges never become brothers and so we maintain our "high standards." however, the thing i noticed with fraternities is that i would say 90%+ of pledges who begin become brothers and to me that just dilutes the program. maybe that's where i'm going with this....

just a thought

Going through hazing is nothing like getting into Harvard. You prove yourself to the admissions counselors by maintaining a high GPA, being involved, and striving for community service. Are people that went to Harvard "not good enough" because they didn't have to do pushups as part of their admissions process?

[KSUViolet06]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Are people that went to Harvard "not good enough" because they didn't have to do pushups as part of their admissions process?

I really don't get what this guy's thing is with pledging and the military and physical stuff.

The military does that stuff because they're TRAINING PEOPLE TO BE SHOT AT.

You know, you can be a proud and productive member of a fraternity with having to *gasp* go through borderline basic training to get initiated.

Perhaps it's the girl in me, but I just really fail to see what physical activities have to do with developing members who are productive. I have seen my chapter produce class after class of dedicated members (many who go on to apply for national positions) without it.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

Perhaps it's the girl in me

[msl2008]

my whole point is that i want to be part of an exclusive club. hazing (at least from what i've seen), has made lots of people quit and thus has made the club exclusive. if there was a non hazing program where we turn 60% of pledges into active members, i think that would be good enuogh for me because then it's not like everyone gets in.

harvard has a tough admissions process where only 20% of applicants get in or even lower. thus it is exclusive. if there was a non hazing program that could do this, then i would definitely consider it. in the abscence of that, the only way i see to make people quit is hazing. it might be wrong but i find a problem when everyone is accepted into an organization b/c it dilutes the quality. what if everyone was a doctor or everyone was a CFA/CPA or any licensed thing. no one would want that rite? thus we need something that can weed out people. hazing does that. also, a non hazing program that automatically dropped 40-50% of pledges could also do that and i'd probably be ok with that too.

[KSUViolet06]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Why the frown?

[KSUViolet06]

Originally Posted by msl2008

harvard has a tough admissions process where only 20% of applicants get in or even lower. thus it is exclusive. if there was a non hazing program that could do this, then i would definitely consider it. in the abscence of that, the only way i see to make people quit is hazing. it might be wrong but i find a problem when everyone is accepted into an organization b/c it dilutes the quality. what if everyone was a doctor or everyone was a CFA/CPA or any licensed thing. no one would want that rite? thus we need something that can weed out people. hazing does that. also, a non hazing program that automatically dropped 40-50% of pledges could also do that and i'd probably be ok with that too.

But why make people quit?

Here's a thought, you could only take on those highly qualified applicants from jump street, and not have to be bothered with "weeding out" anyone.

This thread makes my heard hurt. i'm going back to Recruitment, lol.

[agzg]

Your selection process should be what makes it exclusive, not making people quit through hazing.

[DrPhil]

If university admission is used as an example, it makes more sense to use programs with cohort effects. Undergraduates tend not to have extensive bonds with their cohort, especially when there may be hundreds or thousands of them.

Graduate programs that emphasize cohorts (not all of them do) and cohort bonding do have processes of exclusion and inclusion beyond the basic admissions requirements. Applicant weeks where applicants interact with faculty and graduate students are encouraged to attend programs that they may not want to attend and interact beyond their comfort level. Many faculty members consider themselves gatekeepers who have the last word on whether you remain in the program or flunk out because of their course. This sometimes includes being a complete asshole to some students and not helping students who need help. Yes, these faculty members are sometimes reported to the graduate schools and reprimanded if there are enough reports.

I have heard faculty and students refer to these as legal hazing rituals. Jokingly and seriously. So this is seen as a difficult but necessary part of the process by many people. They think that if you can handle it, you will be ready for anything when you finish your graduate degree.

(I am not typing in support of hazing, just providing the different contexts since folks want to use examples.)

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

Why the frown?

I still don't believe this has too much to do with gender. Right or wrong, females engage in hazing at various physical levels.

Also, I frown whenever I hear women refer to themselves as/be referred to as a "girl."

[msl2008]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

Your selection process should be what makes it exclusive, not making people quit through hazing.

Well i have yet to see a fraternity or sorority make their selection process exclusive. when i see 90% of pledges become brothers/sisters that doesn't scream exclusivity to me. what makes it even worse is when i talk to my friends in different fraternities and we discuss what we did during pledging and they all say they would've quit if they had my process. i feel very accomplished when they tell me that.

so now the hard part is coming up with a non hazing program that can effectively eliminate 40% of a pledge class so that only the strong survive and the ratios would be similar as if we had hazed which would keep the exclusivity but not break any laws.

[KSUViolet06]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I still don't believe this has too much to do with gender. Right or wrong, females engage in hazing at various physical levels.

This is true. Maybe I was thinking along that line because in terms of GC like 90% of the hazing incidents we hear about are with fraternities. This doesn't mean that hazing is committed exclusively by males.

Oh and you are right on about grad school. Sometimes it feels like hazing, lol.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by msl2008

Well i have yet to see a fraternity or sorority make their selection process exclusive. when i see 90% of pledges become brothers/sisters that doesn't scream exclusivity to me. what makes it even worse is when i talk to my friends in different fraternities and we discuss what we did during pledging and they all say they would've quit if they had my process. i feel very accomplished when they tell me that.

so now the hard part is coming up with a non hazing program that can effectively eliminate 40% of a pledge class so that only the strong survive and the ratios would be similar as if we had hazed which would keep the exclusivity but not break any laws.

Instead of eliminating 40% of a pledge class, why not pledge 40% fewer people? That's what I'm getting at.

Your MEMBERSHIP SELECTION (handing out a bid, extending an invite through intake, whatever you call it or whatever system you use) IS WHAT MAKES YOU EXCLUSIVE, NOT your new member program/pledge program/line program. You should initiate all the people you pledge.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by msl2008

Well i have yet to see a fraternity or sorority make their selection process exclusive. when i see 90% of pledges become brothers/sisters that doesn't scream exclusivity to me.

Is it possible that you don't really know what you are talking about?

Originally Posted by msl2008

what makes it even worse is when i talk to my friends in different fraternities and we discuss what we did during pledging and they all say they would've quit if they had my process. i feel very accomplished when they tell me that.

Take those stories to other people and you will get laughed at.

There's nothing impressive about someone who sits around boasting about their "accomplishments" as a "pledge." Have you done anything for your organization since then?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

Maybe I was thinking along that line because in terms of GC like 90% of the hazing incidents we hear about are with fraternities.

Yeah my perception isn't based on GC.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by msl2008

my whole point is that i want to be part of an exclusive club. hazing (at least from what i've seen), has made lots of people quit and thus has made the club exclusive. if there was a non hazing program where we turn 60% of pledges into active members, i think that would be good enuogh for me because then it's not like everyone gets in.

harvard has a tough admissions process where only 20% of applicants get in or even lower. thus it is exclusive. if there was a non hazing program that could do this, then i would definitely consider it. in the abscence of that, the only way i see to make people quit is hazing. it might be wrong but i find a problem when everyone is accepted into an organization b/c it dilutes the quality. what if everyone was a doctor or everyone was a CFA/CPA or any licensed thing. no one would want that rite? thus we need something that can weed out people. hazing does that. also, a non hazing program that automatically dropped 40-50% of pledges could also do that and i'd probably be ok with that too.

It's funny how your stance went from "I know the physical stuff is wrong" to "physical stuff is what makes us exclusive." Which is it?

The examples that you are giving don't make sense. Going to Harvard, becoming a doctor, and becoming a certified CPA/CFA are things that are achieved by working hard academically, not physically. In these examples, exclusivity is reached from the start. Harvard doesn't admit everyone only to weed out the bad seeds -- they take care of it from the beginning.