<p>There are certainly things that could be improved about the fraternity pledging system, but I still disagree with most, but not all of what collegealum314 says.</p>
<p>One of the biggest problems in my mind is trying to take it all in. If you are looking to join a fraternity, and I want to MIT completely expecting not to, then at the moment that you are offered a place, you are very excited. The instinctive reaction is to say YES! YES! YES! and indeed, I witnessed people accepting offers before the offer has fully been explained. That is human nature, but it is silly. As discussed before, houses vary a lot in terms of even basics like “What is it going to cost?” Some frats are significantly cheaper than dorms, some vastly more expensive. Trying to take in what it is going to cost, how the pledge system works and what that means is a fair amount to deal with while overexcited.</p>
<p>And every house is different. At my house, all underclassmen roomed with upperclassmen. There was a reasonably explicit mentoring programme, and an important part of that was making sure that the younger students did not blow off their classes beyond a certain point. We worked very hard to ensure that none of our members had academic difficulty, and indeed, my personal belief as to why the FSILG GPA is higher is purely that in the ILGs, the students, particularly the underclassmen do have better support. That holds true for faculty and staff advisors as well.</p>
<p>Whereas all of the dorms have resident faculty advisors, a faculty housemaster at Baker or Simmons advises some 350 undergraduates. Whereas the mean size of an MIT fraternity is 40 undergraduates (sororities are larger). So the faculty advisors and resident staff advisors can get to know most of their students very well. Last year one of the Admissions Officers won an award as an outstanding residential advisor in the FSILG system (Kim Hunter, the resident advisor for Alpha Phi sorority).</p>
<p>So I actually agree with collegealum314 when he suggests that one should think carefully about joining a FSILG house. I disagree with his characterisation of Fraternities as hosting the “middle” of MIT academically, I do not think that the independent statistics bear this out.</p>
<p>To his specific points:</p>
<p>1) Yes, at a number of houses (though not all) the pledge system does have an element of stress designed to bring the plege class together. For a number of houses, the pledge classes complete often ambitious community service projects. This can be a pain to manage, and does bring the class together. Collegealum314 is largely right.</p>
<p>2) Collegealum314 is also right in suggesting that people do not think particularly carefully before joining houses. I think that he overeggs the pudding by bringing up the very atypical hazing incident 14 years ago that caused a jock house to be thrown off campus. (a house that has a history across the US of abuse to their new members). When I was on campus, hazing was very, very, very rare. Since that incident 14 years ago, it has gotten even rarer. </p>
<p>3 and 4) While Collegealum314’s statement on depledges may well be correct, it should be noted that at MIT, very few ILG residents choose to move out, a fact that is highly unusual in the national context. I accept that for the few who do, including Collegealum314, it may well be a traumatic experience.</p>
<p>5) Is not born out by any statistic. The fraternities have some exceptionally bright people. As do the dorms. The brightest people that I met while I was on campus all lived in the FSILG system, but that just may be because the brightest that I did not meet never left the labs. I do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that certain strata of students are drawn to the FSILG system. It seemed to me to be largely representative of the school as a whole</p>
<h1>6 In surveys of alumni, the independent living group system is consistently the single most positive social experience that many alumni of MIT reflect back upon. Statistically speaking, Collegealum314’s views are in a small minority.</h1>
<h1>7 The pledge period is longer than most other schools, this is in part to avoid destroying the academics of the students while they go through the process. Most schools offer a short and brutal pledging process. MIT’s tends to be longer, but not nearly as unpleasant.</h1>
<h1>8 Being in a house is like an EC in many ways. The house is run by students, and in many houses, you may wish to seek some form of leadership position. I ran the kitchens in my house for a year, and what I learned there about business and commerce, I still use in my professional life every week. For me, what I learned in my house was an integral part of what I learned at MIT.</h1>
<h1>7 and #8 again) Collegealum314 asks people to consider what they would do if reduced to tears in the pledging process, or being asked to forego test preparation. I do not know the answer to that question apart from saying “Don’t join a house where that will happen.” Certainly whenever we even contemplated arranging a road trip for our pledges, we spent a lot of time studying academic calendars trying to minimise the academic impact of any such a trip, and there was always built in study time.</h1>
<p>I was an FSILG representative to the UA (student government) for a couple of years. As such, I visited a lot of houses, and spoke to a lot of house officers. Of the 35 or so FSILG houses, I could immediately think of 2-3 that I definitely would not have joined for the reasons that Collegealum314 suggests (one of which was the now closed Fiji), twenty five or so or so where none of that would have been a problem and eight or nine which I do not know well enough to take a view.</p>
<p>I can echo Collegealum314’s view that you should pick carefully, but I definitely want to indicate that for the overwhelming majority of FSLILG students, the ILG is a very positive learning experience.</p>