<p>The east coast lacrosse mafia has more hedge fund punch than just Dartmouth alone. Up and down the coast. </p>
<p>At the college age, it’s a biological imperative to group up and then pair off. We can only argue about it so much and then human nature takes over. </p>
<p>What happens at schools with no Greek life? The same thing with other groups. We see this even on the streets. It’s not something we can eliminate. I’m not sure it’s even preferable to eliminate it </p>
<p>I’ve never known a woman who was in a sorrority who was closely guarding her recs. they seem to write them for anyone they meet over coffee who isn’t a felon. IME </p>
<p>What does increased social status translate into? Ok, maybe you get to hang with the “better” houses of the opposite sex (I’ll be heteronormative here for a moment), but beyond that? It’s not like any non-Greek cares if you’re a Theta or a Pi Phi. And even within Greeks, you need to get a life if you seriously think about that stuff other than in passing. If you have your friends and you’re content with your experience, it’s not as though it matters. </p>
<p>It only matters to me in recognizing the fact those outside the group don’t have the same access as those inside the group. I like how poetgrl expands the idea.</p>
<p>adding: oh yeah. I “need to get a life” ; ) I like to think about these things.</p>
<p>“I was reading both you and Sally as saying one advantage of sororities is the networking. Am I incorrect? If the networking is available to “any friend from any walk of my life” then maybe that isn’t a sorority advantage? Except maybe you wouldn’t have known those particular women except through sorority membership?”</p>
<p>I wouldn’t have known these women otherwise. I was / am an introvert, was intense about my studies, and didn’t have a particular club / sport to join (can’t act, can’t sing, didn’t play a sport, etc.). Joining a house gave me a broader network than I would have had if left to my own devices. It broadened my range of friends; it didn’t narrow them. </p>
<p>Alh -true, but that’s true of any friendship / affinity group in general, regardless of how it occurred – right? People help their friends. Whether they were friends through Greek life, residential colleges, the same major, the same sports league, knowing one another from a shared extracurricular, etc. </p>
<p>Joining a sorority was a positive for you and gave you a sort of network and access you didn’t have otherwise. Some young women, who were left out, for whatever reason (including perhaps financial) didn’t have the access to the same benefits you did. Can we agree you were advantaged by your sorority and also that others might have been similarly advantaged if they had also been members?</p>
<p>But as with college choices (and many other things in life) we don’t know what would have happened on the path not taken. The 70% of the kids at Northwestern (or any school) who are not in the Greek system are still creating relationships and networks that will help them in the future. It could be through their freshman dorm, a club sport, theater troupe, part-time job or whatever. </p>
<p>True. And some women who had dyslexia back in the day, or even last week, couldn’t apply reasonably to a top school, regardless of iq or aptitude. I think everyone is up against something. The key is to take advantage of all advantages, IMHO. </p>
<p>Nobody is going to be accepted into every in group. And those who are positioned so they can have everything they want, the Bush kids, Obama kids, etc… They always wonder if anybody really likes them for themselves. </p>
<p>“The east coast lacrosse mafia has more hedge fund punch than just Dartmouth alone. Up and down the coast.”</p>
<p>I have never worked at a hedge fund but close colleagues of mine from I-banking days are now heads of Talent Management at a couple of the largest hedge funds in the country. They reject more lacrosse players every recruiting season than you can imagine.</p>
<p>This is a myth. Firms like DE Shaw, Bridgewater, etc. don’t need lacrosse players. They need people who can pass their quant tests. If someone who played lacrosse gets a passing score on the pre-screen, they get an interview. Just like the chess geek or the fantasy baseball nerd or the homecoming queen.</p>
<p>“Joining a sorority was a positive for you and gave you a sort of network and access you didn’t have otherwise. Some young women, who were left out, for whatever reason (including perhaps financial) didn’t have the access to the same benefits you did. Can we agree you were advantaged by your sorority and also that others might have been similarly advantaged if they had also been members?” </p>
<p>Sure, but I would say those advantages were social / friendship-based, not “access to corridors of power.” I do have a sorority sister whose husband owns a Major League Baseball team and they just donated $40mm to the university, but to paraphrase Janet Jackson, what has she done for me lately </p>
<p>I also distinguish between networking and access to power. </p>
<p>To me, networking implies - I’ll open the door (make an intro) but then you rise or fall on your own merit. With the situation I mentioned, I opened a door - but she had to walk through it, if she had done poorly in an interview then that would have been the end of it. </p>
<p>To me, access to corridors of power implies - access whether deserved or undeserved. That’s when the boss’ idiot nephew gets the job or the promotion. </p>
<p>Poet- is it your contention that an otherwise unqualified lacrosse player gets hired over a qualified non-lacrosse player at a major hedge fund? Just trying to understand what “pull” lacrosse is providing. Especially since so many of the funds have actual prescreening tests-- math, logic, analytical ability and writing-- which cut the applicant pool down to a manageable size. A fund I know has survived a legal challenge that its test was discriminatory- they were able to demonstrate that yes- it was discriminatory- it discriminates against those who cannot perform high level mathematical calculations and otherwise perform the requirements of the job.</p>
<p>Nope. I might even go so far as to say that playing a competitive sport at that level is actually a good test of who is going to be good at the job. There are huge psychological issues with being a great trader and some of them are tested by sport, regardless of whether people “like” this or not. I’m not calling anything anything. But look at the pictures in that list I cited and tell me there’s no lacrosse mafia. Everyone on the street knows there is.</p>
<p>I like it fine. I am happy to develop shortcuts in any hiring role I’ve been in. When I worked in aerospace, it was no secret that certain branches of the military were better preparation for particular roles (these were civilian, commercial roles) than others. That didn’t mean there was a “Navy Seals” mafia or a “nuke sub” mafia. Those candidates needed to be qualified. But it did mean that rather than interview 500 random people for a role, we could interview 10 former military officers from one of these branches, and be pretty sure we’d get a strong hire for the job.</p>
<p>PG: I agree with the “foot in the door idea and then you have to prove yourself.” My point is the sorority contact can be the “foot in the door” not available to every young woman. That another woman didn’t have the opportunities you did, doesn’t mean you didn’t work hard and deserve every reward you’ve earned. I’m not dyslexic. That doesn’t mean I didn’t work for my college degree. It probably does mean poetgrl’s daughter worked a lot harder. It seems useful to me to recognize that fact. </p>
<p>True. And some women who had dyslexia back in the day, or even last week, couldn’t apply reasonably to a top school, regardless of iq or aptitude. I think everyone is up against something. The key is to take advantage of all advantages, IMHO.</p>
<p>so was it all about just getting the foot in the door?</p>
</p>