I feel a need to point out that at my school, “heavily populated environments” generally consisted of fraternity parties, Greek Week, football tailgates and other activities sponsored by the fraternities.
We had old tests in our physics library, and we were encouraged to look at them by our professors.
We also had a bar crawl and associated T-shirts.
I don’t think these things are Fraternity exclusives.
Not the same thing. That’s a situation in which the professors encourage you to do this. Heck, there’s nothing wrong with merely looking over previous tests.
The problem occurs when you know that the professors gives the same sets of tests every year. At my university, it was common knowledge that several of the fraternities maintained libraries of test results from professors who were known to recycle their material each year. No sane teacher would encourage his students to look at exam results from previous years under those circumstances.
With all due respect, I’m really getting tired of this counter-argument. Nobody – and I mean nobody – has claimed that only fraternities engage in any of the negative behavior mentioned in this thread.
FTR, I do agree that fraternities are sometimes the victims of public misperceptions. However, that doesn’t mean we can justify their behavior by complaining, “We’re not the only ones who do this!”
But if the same behavior exists in similar proportion amongst all college students, it’s not honest to list that behavior as a reason to dislike fraternities.
Does it really cost so much to belong to a house? I’d always thought the cost was only nominally more than, say, that of just staying in the dorms. Although that in itself, is a far sight more expensive than commuting to a local school and continuing to live with your parents.
Depends. My school had the typical fraternity movie setup. A big “fraternity row” of large columned mansions (roughly 30 or so).
Here’s how your money gets broken down:
Housing fees - I forget how much they were, but they were roughly similar to how much you would pay for living in the dorms plus your meal plan. This gets you housing in the fraternity house plus the fraternity meal plan (a cook prepares lunch and dinner mon-fri). The money gets pooled by the university housing board and is also used to buy food, pay for the cook, and maintenance on the house.
Social dues - Housing fees, since managed by the university, can’t be used to buy alchohol. So each brother pays an extra couple hundred dollars to be used to pay for booze. Note that for coctail parties, housing fees can be used to buy the mixers, but not the alchohol.
National dues - Fees paid to the national headquarters. They were like $35 in 1995.
So it’s a bit more expensive than living in the dorms, and probably a lot more expensive than living off campus.
Is it a valid reason if you similarly dislike any other college students (fratboys or otherwise) who engage in such behavior?
Not so far as I can see.
Let’s say I’m heard to exclaim loudly about how I can’t stand public schools, and when pressed for a reason, I explain that they use standardized testing, which I feel is foolish, educationally speaking.
A rebuttal is offered, pointing out that the vast majority of private schools also use standardized testing. “Oh, well,” I reply, “I similarly dislike them, too.”
But that doesn’t make sense – why single out public schools in the first place?
The analogy is relevant only if standardized testing is the sole reason for your disdain for public schools.
If it does, then perhaps. Remember though, I was not objecting to someone saying, “Fraternity members don’t do these things any more than other students do!” Rather, I was objecting to the counter-argument, “Fraternity members aren’t the only ones who do these things, you know?”
Based on both personal experience and the aforementioned Google Scholar results, I’m not prepared to grant that there is absolutely no difference between fraternity boys and non-members in this regard. But even if we did – even if there were absolutely no statistical difference – one could still object to the fact that fraternities provide an institutionalized method for such behavior, and I can’t fault anyone if that makes this bitter pill taste even more unsavory.
Inexactness on my part, I should have said it a different way - I am acknowledging that the impression of association with wealth may well be unjustified, but that the exemplars of the group that we are most commonly confronted with are wealthy. Captains of industry, prominent political figures. Most fratboys we see come from money. This may point to a correlation, or it may not. In that sense, we may be getting the right or wrong impression.
That’s not necessarily true. Most famous frat boys end up with money, but not all of them come from it. Of course, if they didn’t become successful, you wouldn’t know about them. It’s not like all of us go on to head up Fortune 500 companies.
For example, two of my fraternity’s more distinguished alumni are Frank Lloyd Wright and Neil Armstrong; both came from lower middle class homes. Obviously, others came from privilege- James Baker and Benjamin Harrison, for example. But in any walk of life, privileged kids have a better shot at success; why should fraternities get blamed for it?
That’s not what I’m saying. Let me point out that I had no idea Neil Armstrong was in a fraternity - I was never confronted with his ‘frattiness’. Is it common knowledge he was in a particular fraternity, and I’ve just missed that?
I’m saying that most prominent fratboys - people who are notably associated with a fraternity - are also people who came from money. George W. Bush is the most recent posterboy. There aren’t many, either - it’s a small sample size. This does not imply that most fratboys come from money.
Nevertheless, this can create the association in some people’s minds that membership in a fraternity is associated with wealth and privilege.
And let me be absolutely clear - this is not a belief I hold, but is part of my speculation as to the reason for general resentment of fratboys.
No. Actually, IME, you would never know that such-and-such famous person was in a fraternity unless you read an autobiography, except for a few Presidents. I’ve read full biographies of several members of my fraternity which never mention any Greek affliation. The only reason I know is because fraternities themselves keep pretty up-to-date on who’s who among their ranks. Obviously, having some famous or uber-famous alumni is good for recruitment.
One of the more common rush-related T-shirt designs used by various chapters of my fraternity says, “We put a man in the White House (Harrison), we put a man on the moon (Armstrong), we put a man in the Hall of Fame (Lou Gehrig)… where can we take you?” or some variation thereon.
A less common (but more amusing) version includes, “we put a man in Loni Anderson” as the fourth line, with a picture of Burt Reynolds.
That might be part of the problem; the only time you see fraternities in the news is when they’re doing something bad. CNN is always going to mention the Greek affiliation of the guy who gets somebody killed because he made them chug a bottle of Jack Daniels… but not of the guy who won a Nobel.
Presidents are a special case, because people love those conspiracy theories about Skull and Bones, and to a lesser extent, conventional social fraternities.
Since Presidents almost invariably come from privileged households regardless of whether they were in a fraternity (about 50% so far have been), it’s a pretty unfair belief. I can see how people come to hold it, of course.
ETA: Actually, I misspoke a bit. I have seen a fraternity mentioned on the news for doing something good: in 2000, my fraternity’s international governing body and that of another major national frat decided to make all their houses “dry”. That got tons of play.
No reflection on frats but I think we would all be surprised by how many professors reuse the same old tests. Fraternities have continuity over the years and so, maybe, more ability to benefit from those lazy Profs.
In my area of study there were a few professors who were known to do the exact same thing every year. If you knew someone who took class X from him last year, that person could tell you a lot about how to get a good grade in that class, maybe even give you exact questions or even whole tests. Cheating or good advice? It was certainly laziness on the part of the professor.
One aspect of fraternity life that I only saw after my son joined one is due to the drinking age. When I first went to college the drinking age was 18 - so going away to college sort of = starting to drink. Now you can’t legally buy and drink until you are 21. If you join a fraternity when you arrive at college you suddenly have lot of “brothers” who just happen to be able to buy and a place when you can drink it. It creates a sort of black market type of drinking that I don’t think is good for anyone and certainly didn’t help my son. Is there any evidence that fraternity memberships shot up when the drinking age was changed?
now that’s the sort of thing that should happen a lot more often, and that should get a lot more attention!
It wasn’t entirely an altruistic move. Liability insurance for fraternities (especially those with their own housing) is ridiculously expensive- only Lloyds’ of London offers it. The dry housing project brought the cost down considerably.
Anyway, it wasn’t necessarily a good thing. The fraternities which were smart enough to police themselves didn’t need it, and the ones which weren’t ignored it.
IME, a dozen freshmen getting wasted in their dorm and hoping the RA doesn’t come in and bust them are a lot more likely to end up injuring or killing one of themselves than 30 guys in a fraternity house spread over a broader age range. The key is that with a fraternity there’s always somebody older and wiser to say, “okay, he’s had enough”.
Part of the problem, (IMHO) is the ridiculous age requirement of 21 for the purchase and consumption of alcohol in the US. I always knew my limits because I’d been drinking (first shandy and then beer and wine) with my family. Americans, generally, learn their limits at high school parties, where they slam through them and wind up puking everywhere.
ETA: I’ll grant that part of the problem with fraternities is that sometimes there’s one guy who’s older, but not wiser, yelling “suck it up and take your shot, pledge!”
Many national fraternities are now officially “dry” at their chapter houses. This means that they are as dry as the dorms - officially without alcohol, but in reality swimming in it.
Even back in the 80s my chapter house was expected to be dry. We kept a separate account for purchasing alcohol so that when we presented our books to the inspector from National they would not show any house alcohol purchases. This was all due to risk management issues at the national level, and tied into our insurance payments.
Yeah, that’s always the case. It’s why every fraternity party I ever saw was clearly a paragon of responsible drinking. Those wise 22 year olds keeping everyone in check.