<p>
</p>
<p>How did you survive at a college without fraternities to provide the free food?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who says one has to be confined to one’s own campus for raiding free food sources? :D</p>
<p>My son is a theater major. He is going to rush because he wants to meet people outside the theater community. Ironically, joining a frat will likely diversify the type of people he interacts with on campus. </p>
<p>I’ll add that at his university, the frats don’t have houses on campus and I don’t think very many people live in the off-campus frat houses. Students are required to live on campus for a minimum of 3 years. My son will probably live in the theater theme house next year.</p>
<p>^^ Exactly. The essay writer says he wants college students to interact with lots of students with many different interests and backgrounds not just the frat or sorority groups because those are too narrow and everyone is the same (which I disagree with). He then says the houses should be use for groups with similar interests like chess club and computer games. Really? Putting all the chess club kids together is going to encourage them to meet others from a different region of the country, a different racial background, a different major? Putting all the business club majors together is going to encourage them to hang out with the music majors? Fraternities and sororities usually have quite a mix of majors (not always, as sometimes the music majors form a sorority, or the engineers all join the same one). Mine did.</p>
<p>At my daughter’s school, they have FIGs, Freshmen Interest Groups, in the dorms where you can opt to be with others from your major or with the same interests. You room on the same floor, have at least 3 classes with your group, and sometimes have a 1 credit seminar. My daughter didn’t want to do it and when I asked why she said she wanted to meet lots of people not just theater majors, and that she’d have these same classes anyway (freshmen majors take all but 2 classes together). She was so right! Her friends who did opt for the FIG are already sick of all those in the groups. 24/7, same kids, same talk. My daughter knows all these kids, but also know her roommate’s friends, her sorority friends, her sports friends, her dorm friends and all their friends. One of her friends doesn’t even want to be a psych major anymore, but now is in that FIG for the year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, yeah, it will. Isn’t that obvious?</p>
<p>I think it will not. Many students who have an interest in a limited subject like chess or video games may also have the same background, same major (math, computer science). Students majoring in music have music in common, but maybe no one in the group will say ‘Hey, let’s go watch a basketball game’ My cousin had 5 suitemates. They were all identical! Three from NY, 2 from Mass, one from CT. Their majors were history, american studies, English. Three of the 6 were named Kate/Katie! Shake it up a little. </p>
<p>CF, you continue to operate under the stereotype that all Greeks must be similar, white, high SES kids. </p>
<p>Joining Greek life absolutely enhanced the diversity of the girls I interacted with, beyond just those in my (very small) dorm and in my (very small) major. I wouldn’t have become friends with theater majors or engineering majors or journalism majors otherwise. </p>
<p>I agree that the author’s lack of diversity argument was totally off the mark. My three friends in our freshman dorm clique who did not join a sorority spent the next three years living together in an apartment, while I shared a house with about 50 women that changed from year to year. There is no question about who had the more diverse experience. </p>
<p>It’s December, DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR KID IS APPLYING? Brotherhoods and sisterhoods have the potential to enrich college life but we know about the potential for harm too. There are obvious solutions. Many schools have implemented solutions. Those schools also act swiftly and appropriately when the rules are violated. You read that a given frat or sorority was closed due to one or two recent events. Those are schools you could probably trust.</p>
<p>Unfortunately some schools hide, deny, and cover up violations. Here is where the public can make a difference but chooses not to. By the time there is an expose of wrong doing, the involved university administration has been complacent with, hiding, knowledge about, and sometimes at the helm of, the wrong doing for a good long time. If they are partners in one cover up, wrong doing is probably ubiquitous across that campus. The school has usually engaged in or allowed a range of unethical or illegal conduct-until they feared that it would be revealed by others-or until it was revealed by others. You’d hope for high ethical standards from those we entrust to educate the next generation of world leaders but these college administrators can’t even rise to the low level of legal. And yet, the public sends its offspring to that same college in the fall. Why? </p>
<p>Consider the investigation a few years ago of a public university that revealed egregious conduct by administrators; Cover ups were common and those objecting to misconduct were marginalized. And quite a bit of misconduct was clearly described in a public report after an expensive investigation. But the report focused on athletics. Those outside athletics had little interest. Lawyered up, the school obscured, denied, lied, and ruined lives. When that didn’t shut people up, the extensive PR machine went into overdrive to bury the report. Upshot-Some of those that were mentioned by name in the report as involved in the misconduct were promoted. And since that report? It was revealed this same institution was aware of, but denied, hazing (for years). It later was forced to release letters by parents begging (BEGGING) the school to help protect their offspring! The same institution refused to rehire an instructor for refusing to engage in wrong doing. There was corruption, refusals to process grievances and many other violations. So it was no surprise that the same university was one of the first placed on the list of schools suspected of incorrectly handling Title 9 violations-an investigation of which the lawyer argued the school out of (no surprise either that they wanted to avoid a thorough investigation). And that is just the misconduct that became public. </p>
<p>When a school is revealed to have covered up misconduct don’t think the misconduct is confined to one area on campus. It is not only about bad frats or bad athletics. It is about corrupt university administrators who adopt “win at any cost” mentalities and use the excuse of “student privacy” to hide their illegal activities. With lawyers (often paid by your taxes) skilled at deception, universities with this mentality are masters at double-speak and maneuvering to obscure misconduct. When that deception is finally revealed, don’t make the mistake of thinking it is confined to the topic at hand. And when multiple scandals are revealed, run! Why would you want your son or daughter there? What don’t you know? The thing you do know is that the school administration will have their reputation and not your offspring’s best interests in mind. </p>
<p>And you want your offspring to attend that “highly rated” school? And now let’s talk about different schools-Dartmouth or UNC-Chapel Hill-or UVA. There is no doubt that misconduct was known by school administrators for a long time…long enough to provide an opportunity to change…if they cared to see things change. But that did not happen. You should ask yourself why before chalking up an application fee to that school.</p>
<p>If you have a son or daughter applying to college you should investigate paper trails of misconduct. Then ask yourself why those institutions would allow misconduct to persist. You should wonder what is still hidden. I’d not be too concerned to read that a given frat has been suspended or closed at a particular university. I’d be glad that the misconduct was stopped. I would be far more concerned about evidence that a university denied problems and misconduct and was eventually forced to reveal problems. When that sort of thing happens you can bet that the administration is corrupt and you can bet that the misconduct is ubiquitous in that institution. Don’t risk your child.</p>
<p>UVa’s faculty have no problem with a greek free campus: <a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?;
<p>^Setting aside the current situation at UVA, it is not surprising to me that faculty at many colleges may be anti-Greek. From what I have read, faculty in general have been criticized as contributing to the “party” atmosphere at some campuses, due to their lack of involvement in students’ lives. Apparently, one of the goals of residential colleges was intended to be for the faculty to engage with and influence the student body on levels other than as a lecturer in a classroom. This of course, would require more work on the part of the faculty to become more present. It would be much easier for them to simply do away with the loci of the parties than take a more active role. </p>
<p>In the article cited above, Sullivan notes that faculty should stop scheduling Fridays as a class-free day, as it contributes to the three-day party weekend atmosphere. I’m sure UVA’s faculty is not thrilled about the prospect of losing their three-day weekends as a result of the fraternity incident. Better to get rid of fraternities. (Again, in UVA’s case, the issue is more dire). </p>
<p>Wow, I never heard of Friday as a class-free day!</p>
<p>The most common, and preferred, teaching schedule is a Tu/Thurs class rather than a Mon/Wed/Fri class. And that is because, at least at my spouse’s school, students skip the Friday class so often it is not worth teaching it. </p>
<p>Unless there is an overabundance of classroom space, wouldn’t MWF class times be more common, since there are more of them than there are TuTh class times (because the TuTh class times need to be 1.5 times as long as the MWF class times for a given amount of weekly class time, so fewer TuTh classes can fit in a day than MWF classes)?</p>
<p>I teach at a university where Friday is a (nearly entirely) class-free day. This is done for two reasons: (1) Most of our student population is made up of relatively low-SES folks who hold jobs (often full-time jobs), and it makes it easier for them if there’s three days of the week that they know there’s no classes; and (2) it provides a workday when the faculty are all going to be available for the endless meetings that are an essential part of our jobs.</p>
<p>Contra what @Bay implied (well, maybe more direct than an implication, really), UVa’s faculty doesn’t have 3-day weekends, even if they aren’t teaching on Friday’s.</p>
<p>Post #44- White sofas and class display cases- really?</p>
<p>My son was in a frat- the place was decorated in “early refugee”.
My last college reunion housed us in a frat (which I had never been inside during my college years) and the place was comprised of old sofas dragged from Goodwill punctuated by mis-matched throw rugs and ancient shower curtains.</p>
<p>this is the most ludicrous argument I have heard yet. I don’t think preserving the decor is a good enough reason!</p>
<p>I think perhaps that poster was thinking of sorority houses, which (IME) are well decorated, with good furnishings such as baby grand pianos, nice upholstered sofas and chairs, nice wood tables, wood carvings and cabinetry, draperies, and so forth. Depending on how the house / lease is structured, those furnishings may or may not be "part of the house and would need replacing. I agree that the frats I’m familiar with are decorated in early refugee!</p>
<p>“Seatbelts aren’t 100% protection. I think states should ban cars, not just require seatbelts. Think of the money we’d save on highway repairs, prosecuting speeders, DUIs, etc. There is a downside, of course, but we’d all be safe and that’s the goal, no risk, total safety.” </p>
<p>Not a good idea. We’ll need the cars to get around after we ban all those dangerous planes, trains and buses.</p>
<p>Seriously, I do wonder why universities (and insurers) put up with frats. The rewards (charity car washes and 10K runs) seem to greatly outweigh the risks. </p>
<p>If I were a university president, I probably wouldn’t ban them. I’d just regulate them into the no-fun zone and therefore oblivion. Co-ed, non-residential, no booze, no parties after dark, gobs of mandatory awareness/sensitivity/risk management training, etc. Death by a thousand cuts. </p>
<p>So, since universities do not police fraternities associated with their universities, the fraternities should end?</p>
<p>Universities are not doing their jobs, and the frats are the problem. Really.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the case of public universities, that may result in the fraternities going completely off-campus to avoid the restrictions, as has happened at the University of Colorado (though in response to much lesser requirements for recognition than described above – see [CU’s</a> policy](<a href=“http://www.colorado.edu/policies/fraternal-organization-policy]CU’s”>Fraternal Organization Policy | Campus Policies | University of Colorado Boulder) and the [fraternities</a>’ current position](<a href=“http://www.coloradoifc.org/system/documents/1814/original/Belief_Statement__Fraternity_Community_Jan_2013.pdf?1358957744]fraternities”>http://www.coloradoifc.org/system/documents/1814/original/Belief_Statement__Fraternity_Community_Jan_2013.pdf?1358957744) on the matter). Only 11% of men participate in fraternities, but the large size of the school means those 1,500 students still fills a lot of fraternity houses. A total ban on student participation in off-campus fraternities might be legally more dicey for a public university than for a private university, so leaving them as unrecognized off-campus groups may be the biggest distance a public university can put between itself and fraternities.</p>