<p>I remember reading it on the website of one of the clubs. I think the limit is 3. If two get in and one don't, all three are in. If only one is chosen, none of them are in.</p>
<p>And from what I understand, can't you just sign in to another club if you don't get into a bicker one...
can you bicker two clubs?
I think there is a chance in the fall of junior year to join eating clubs, so I don't think you would be left out in the cold if you want to join one. </p>
<p>I mean, obviously that's different from Harvard's blocks because well, it's housing and you need to live somewhere.</p>
<p>"I mean, obviously that's different from Harvard's blocks because well, it's housing and you need to live somewhere."</p>
<p>Both at P, as at H, everybody of course gets a place to sleep and to eat at - I think this was not the point alumtoher tried to make.</p>
<p>I think she was trying to get at the fact that the same principles that get demonized in the P club system by some people are to be found in other contexts at other colleges. Her analogy was only partial though in my pov.</p>
<p>coureur I mention Harvard, BTW over here not on their site, just to point out that social exclusion and inclusion exists everywhere. Not trying to make a one-to-one correlation. In other words, while the political issues around eating clubs are one thing, the concept that they wreak havoc on innocent students another. Exclusion occurs everywhere there are people. Luckily so does inclusion.</p>
<p>BTW, I don't really care for the eating clubs, but they aren't all that hard to avoid. There is always a club party you can get into if you want to, and eating independent as an upper classman is pretty cool.</p>
<p>I don't think the block system is a big deal; do that many people stress over it? As has been mentioned, you don't have to choose to be with other people, you can be in a block of one. I don't have anything against that system. </p>
<p>I was referring to your comment about the admin finding a place for a block to stay somewhere if they don't get into X. There's more urgency for them to find Y or Z because it's necessary to live somewhere. It's not as detrimental not to get into X eating club because you can always eat at a dining hall. But that's not even the point because your assumption that not getting into X is the end all and be all of your luck with eating clubs is not true. You can still get into somewhere else if you were rejected from X.</p>
<p>"But that's not even the point because your assumption that not getting into X is the end all and be all of your luck with eating clubs is not true. You can still get into somewhere else if you were rejected from X."</p>
<p>Please mind that we are talking about BLOCKS getting into y (or z) if not into x!</p>
<p>The difference in our context is that indeed the probability FOR A BLOCK to get into y or z is not as large in the eating club context than the residential house context. Why? Because there is no agent to almost guarantee (the block group provision which does not exist per se in the eating club context although (small) blocks may very well get in collectively) the individuals to get into y or z (if not x) AS A BLOCK! ;)</p>
<p>Mark that I was not arguing against the eating clubs as such. I was simply discussing the differences of the "analogies of exclusion".</p>
<p>Well of course nothing is guaranteed with the eating clubs. Even sign-in ones may be too full to accomodate you. I was just pointing out that you don't have to be split apart from your "eating buddies" if you so desire to stay with them. I don't even know what the argument is about the analogies of exclusion, I kind of spaced out for most of this thread. :p</p>
<p>"Well of course nothing is guaranteed with the eating clubs. Even sign-in ones may be too full to accomodate you."</p>
<p>Thank you for finally confirming my argument (ESPECIALLY with regard to "blocks").</p>
<p>" I was just pointing out that you don't have to be split apart from your "eating buddies" if you so desire to stay with them."</p>
<p>Staying in the meal context here: are you talking about the soon-to-come 4 year college or independent housing? - this would be a new subject.</p>
<p>"I don't even know what the argument is about the analogies of exclusion, I kind of spaced out for most of this thread."</p>
<p>The question I discussed was whether the lose analogy that Alumother invoked was reasonable.</p>
<p>I think Alumother's rivalry with Byerly tends to cloud her judgment when it comes to Harvard. There is nothing negative or anxiety-producing about the blocking group mechanism. Nor is it in any way analagous to Princeton's eating club system. It's simply a mechanism to ensure that groups of friends can stay together in moving from the Yard to the Houses. </p>
<p>(As an aside, I have no problem with Princeton's eating clubs, other than their role in the illegal distribution of alcohol. But that's probably a topic for a different thread - one that I have no interest in starting.)</p>
<p>Prefontaine=Byerly? I think not. I am not sure where that perception comes from.</p>
<p>Good lord. I had that reaction to Harvard's system long before I had any experience of Byerly. If we are going to discuss ad nauseum the social structure of Princeton it makes sense to discuss the social structure of the other universities kids are considering. I suppose the next thing to talk about is Stanford's dorm structure and the role of the fraternities. I don't know anything about Yale, so wouldn't presume to bring their system up. </p>
<p>Stanford's dorm process is actually quite positive, from what I see and hear in the neighborhood.</p>
<p>Alumother's judgment about Harvard is certainly not clouded by any online "rivalry" with me ... that's silly.</p>
<p>Rather, as I have noted, her hostile comments about Harvard on the College Confidential site date from the moment her daughter's SCEA application was rejected.</p>
<p>No, my presence on the board at all dates from after my daughter's rejection:). And she only applied because her GC thought it was a safety:) and my father would have been upset if she didn't. She thought both Yale and Harvard were full of kids who weren't really kids but more like adults...</p>
<p>I of course think they are both wonderful universities for the right people.</p>
<p>This thread seems to have been constructed with the sole purpose of ruffling a few feathers...</p>
<p>Hmmm ... I don't think so, Alumother ... wasn't she waitlisted, and then rejected later? A legacy at Princeton, and a facbrat at Stanford, and yet her first choice was Harvard.</p>
<p>You were not bashing Harvard previously - as, for example, by starting the current thread.</p>
<p>No. Never rejected. Now that I think about it, never rejected anyway. Her first choice was not Harvard. It was just where she chose to apply EA. Because, as I said, she was told it was her most likely safety. Because, I as said, her GC thought having an uncle and an aunt and a grandfather etc. counted as a legacy.</p>
<p>For the record, she was accepted at Princeton and Stanford, waitlisted at Harvard and Columbia, accepted at Cal with a Regents and an invitation for an alumni scholarship. She took her name off the Harvard and Columbia waitlists, because she then decided that Princeton and Stanford were pretty damn good. And I'm glad she did that since Harvard went to its waitlist and Princeton did not this year so spots were freed up early.</p>
<p>She never liked Harvard or Yale, and only applied to Harvard to make my father and her GC happy. Luckily it all turned out well.</p>
<p>And I have said the exact same thing about Harvard ever since I started posting.</p>
<p>And this thread was constructed to put the eating clubs into perspective. And feathers are frequently ruffled on this board in a multiplicity of ruffling styles.</p>
<p>Especially yours. ;)</p>
<p>Typical post hoc rationalizing.</p>
<p>I regret starting this thread. The blocking groups were a phenomenon I thought was worth mentioning to give context. It all devolves into personal comments, ranging from attacks to winks. I even thought I was being mature and well-behaved to post here rather than the Harvard site. Oh well. On the Internet there just isn't any way to have one's character and overall self add support to comments. In real life I'm used to the people I deal with giving me the benefit of the doubt and assuming integrity on my part due to my track record. </p>
<p>Notice how the milder among us eventually retreat and say "Oh never mind" while those possessed of a little more spleen stay on and on?</p>
<p>And Byerly - do not mention my daughter again.</p>
<p>Alumother ... sing praises to your alma mater to your heart's content; but under all the circumstances your Harvard-bashing - no matter what thread its on - appears to be peevish post hoc sniping.</p>