Just saw this, but I can't believe you'd try to defend hazing with MLK's words.

You have shitty friends if they'll leave you drunk somewhere for some ass.

LOL @ "out pledging one Friday night." Maybe I'm confused, but are you saying parts of your pledge class are pledging while others are out partying, or your pledge class is pledging while your non-Greek friends are out partying? If it's the former, there are some bigger issues in the GLO. If it's the latter, why would random outsiders come in to pick up your slack?

A drill sergeant, if you're in the military, and a football coach, if you play on a football team, are not your peers.

A fraternity brother is your peer, even if they're active and you're a pledge.

I'm not allowing someone who's less than a year older than me and in no position of true authority to get in my face.

I guess I can see why you might think that, but even under stophazing.org's definition, it doesn't seem to me like these things aren't hazing. I've said a little more below.
Wow, our troop moves fast, but not that fast. Even so, I don't think I've ever heard of a troop where the invitation to OA is almost that automatic. I've known plenty of guys who go through Scouts for years without getting tapped out.

BTW, good luck to him on his BoR. My 11-year-old will get his Scout badge Monday night.

It's not really that alone in a remote area. We would go out into the woods as a group. We'd stop every 5-10 steps, and then the guide would say the guy next in line "go 20 steps that way." It's more like being scattered around the woods, far enough apart to feel like you're on your own, but close enough together (and with people in charge close by) to be safe (and to hear other guys snoring :D).

As for the not-speaking, I think there is a difference between what was often done in fraternities and what is done in OA. Traditionally, many fraternities forbade pledges from speaking to anyone during Hell Week or some similar period, except as necessary in class or with professors. That did isolate the pledge on campus. With OA, what we're talking about is not speaking to anyone during the Ordeal itself, when the only people you will encounter are those participating in the Ordeal. Those leading will also not speak except as necessary to give direction. I particularly remember stopping the work at various points during the day and being given something (short) to read and ponder. Through the day, these readings built on each other and prepared you for the initiation ceremony. It really makes for a service day where there is a chance to think about what matters.

LOL, that would have irked me, too. But it just goes to show that they know what a lot of people will assume.

I admit that I don't know the crux of the issue in this thread...LOL
 

The bolded part highlights how these are very socially constructed categories. A drill sergeant would be a nobody if everyone treated him/her like a nobody.

Pledges are sometimes older than the ones pledging them. That means nothing. The "authority" comes in the fact that the member is where the pledge wants to be.

Whether the "big sisters" are telling that person she HAS to wear a dress to a ritual ceremony or she HAS to (insert activity that would be considered hazing), the person feels obligated for reasons beyond official titles. Deference and authority matter if the people create those power relationships.

i agree with drphil. drill sargeants and football coaches are only treated differently b/c that is how you look at and respect them right? and if you don't do what they say they can kick you off the team or military. yes they are older but does age really make you that much wiser? if this is the case then why would you ever listen to your boss at work who is younger than you? why would you ever be someone's coffee runner at work unless you wanted to move up the ranks?

i think when it comes down to it, it's all about what the individual is willing to do and we should hold that individual responsible. we are talking about 18+ year olds who are technically adults right? if they want to join an organization no matter what kind it is, they have to accomplish whatever the tasks are that they're assigned. if they don't want to, find another organization to join simple as that. what i don't understand is why the us govt has to hold people's hands all the time and intervene for things that people should have the right to do and not do themselves. this is not like someone is forcing you to do something. you can always walk away if you want.

Your theory is flawed. You listen to your boss because s/he has been given explicit power by the organization. Listening to a mentor would have made for a better argument.

When the government didn't "hold our hands" people got out of control. Again, if college students were more careful and didn't let things go to far, there would be no need for the laws.

That's an interesting distinction. I have to agree with the others in that a football coach and drill sergeant are on a different level than your Pledge Educator.

You are right that adults have the right to make their own decisions and deal with the consequences, good or bad. The problem lies in levels of responsibility. All fraternities/sororities are student organizations. Although they may not all be recognized by their university/school, they are still composed of students. Therefore, it is incumbant upon the host academic institution to ensure their safety and well-being. Moreover, if a student organization does something questionable that results in a death, injury, and/or lawsuit, the local organization, national organization, university/school, and state could all be named in the lawsuit. Clearly they will want to protect there interest/investment in you as a student. Therefore, rules/laws have been established to do so.

mls2008 - What organizational goals are you attempting to reach by yelling at, humiliating, and forcing your pledges into pushups, etc? You have yet to really address the point that I have been making over the past four pages - that different organizations require different management methods to obtain different goals. Football coaches need to make their players run laps because it is a physical task essential to winning games. Pleadge educators should not follow the same management approach because they should be attempting to achieve fraternal goals such as academic excellence, philanthropic good, and betterment of brothers. When an organization's goal is to create and foster "brotherhood", it will not happen if you have a strict heiarchy of supervisor/subordinate but will more likely come about through mutual respect between brothers instead of forcing a pledge to do curls while being yelled at. You asked what the alternatives are to "hazing" in your OP and you have been given many of them yet you choose to argue with human rights and the laws that have been established to protect these basic liberties. Good luck with your chapter while it lasts.

Well actually kansas city i'm an alumni and i'm not really involved with my chapter as much anymore. i just always found these types of discussions very interesting from when i was active so i would just like to hear differing opinions and see if i can find any good enough to make me change my mind regarding certain things about pledging.

to answer some of your questions as best as i can, i believe that humans have untapped potential that can only be reached when you hit a certain threshhold and you're pushed to the limit. we always hear about stories about extraordinary things humans do in times of danger or peril or when they are confronted with obstacles. these things are what i want to base a pledging process on.

yelling: the way i see it yelling is a good way for someone to learn to perform under pressure. it's always easy to do things when in a controlled environment but think about how much better you can be if you learn to get rid of your nerves and perform things when someone is in your face.

humiliation: i think that being humiliated can be an eye opening experience. if you go thru life and you're always worshipped and everyone always says you're right and you always get positive reinforcement, eventually you begin to believe that you're all that. just look at all the athletes and movie stars. b/c we idolize them they all think they're above the law and are special or something. what makes them any better than you or me? that's why i think humiliation can sometimes can be an equalizer b/c it shows that you're not really all you think you are and it can be a humbling experience.

physical exercises: when you mess up and nothing happens, how are you supposed to learn from your mistakes? if you're punished or better yet, if someone in your pledge class is punished for your mistake, i think you are more unlikely to make the same mistake twice b/c you know the consequences. if you put your hand over a fire and burn your hand, you won't do that again right? same concept. if you don't like this you can always quit too right?

now obviously all of these things need to be controlled and i realize that with all the deaths etc things have gotten out of hand. however, for govts to completely define every little thing as hazing, i just think that is going a little extreme. obviously we don't want anyone to die and stuff like that. but to call everything hazing is just making things worse b/c now i don't see much challenge in the pledging process.

for those of you who werent hazed and were even showered with gifts the entire time, i'm curious as to if you really improved much as a person. what did you learn in pledging that helped you become a different person after pledging and before pledging? for me, i learned how to push myself to the limit and perform under pressure and learned to be humble. i gained lots of confidence in myself and my grades improved b/c i learned how to manage my time since you always had to be ready for actives calling you up so i learned to do things in advance.

and kansas city, it's not like the hierarchy is always going to be supervisor/subordinate for the whole entire time. it's only at most like 8-10 weeks for the pledges to prove themselves. after that then everyone is on equal footing.

Herein lies the problem. "You can always walk away if you want." That's sad. I have seen some amazing people walk away from great fraternities. Students with 3.8 GPAs, who are president of student government, who are on sports teams, who help with the community... they all walked away because someone decided that making them do pushups, throwing food on them, yelling at them, and degrading them was a good way of measuring their worth as a person. One of my friends who attended another school was very excited about joining a fraternity. He knew I was in a sorority, so he came to me for specific questions. He did his research online. He asked numerous questions of brothers, including, "Do you haze?" and he was lied to when he asked. He pledged for 3 days before he decided it wasn't for him, and he wasn't extremely disappointed. I hear a ridiculous amount of fraternity (and some sorority) members say, "They obviously couldn't handle it." No, they just didn't want to be degraded and humiliated in front of a bunch of people with whom they're trying to become friends.

Untapped potential: I had some before I joined the sorority. And what do you know... it came out when I joined. And I was never yelled at or forced to do pushups. Sometimes, when you present an opportunity to good people who are willing to work hard, they rise above.

Yelling: Why does someone have to learn the Greek alphabet under pressure? I actually learned this right after I received my bid, knowing that I'd probably want to know what the other Greek organization's names are. And I knew I'd probably have to learn it, anyway. Why not choose people who don't need to be yelled at to motivate them?

Humiliation: Your example of movie stars and athletes is ridiculous. I'd think I was "all that" too if I was watched by millions of people, making millions of dollars. Who wouldn't be excited about that?! You're making it sound as if that's what we're getting as new members. I wasn't showered with gifts every time I answered a question correctly. The amazing thing is, when you're in a new member meeting, and you can't answer any of the questions correctly, while your fellow new members are answering all of them, sometimes, that's humiliation enough. Knowing that you're behind the curve can motivate people. And if you're choosing the right new members, then it should.

Physical exercises: You ask, "When you mess up, how are you supposed to learn from your mistakes?" If I ask a new member, "Name the 8 founders," and they can only name 6, making them drop to the floor to give me 20 is ridiculous. Why not, oh, I don't know... ask them to study more?! The ultimate goal is initiation. If they mess up enough, they don't get initiated. It's that easy.

The thing that I find funny is that you think becoming a better person all happens during pledging. If that's the case, I feel bad for you. Pledging is maybe 2 months long. If you think those two months completely define you as a fraternity/sorority member, you obviously don't get it.

I equate this whole discussion to shaking a baby to make it conform to your will (stop crying) verses feeding, diapering, cuddling, etc. to ensure the child's safety and comfort. There may be vastly different methods to achieve the end result but only the latter is socially (and legally) acceptable. I too am an alumnae of 15 years and actively involved with my collegiate chapter as an adviser. As an alumn, I would encourage you to do the same and get back in touch with your chapter if the whole yelling and physical demands are still occuring. It is not acceptable (in my opinion) and does not create the type of men that are desirable to work and live with later in life.

i think in both instances whether you haze or do not haze you will get good members and you will get bad members. i just think that something more difficult then learning history or doing philanthropies should be incorporated into a pledging process. i guess it's with the fact that i always saw greeks as being beyond the fact of who you are or who you know or what your gpa is but it could be something where people from various backgrounds can all start with a clean slate and go thru the same process and not have it matter who you were before pledging. picking and choosing members is good and all but i think then you will tend to choose people like yourself. i believe that everyone should be given a fair chance and the only way for that is to have them all go through the same process.

maybe that's what gets at me is the fact that i look at a lot of greek organizations with the same types of people and think, "oh, these guys or girls got in b/c of who they knew or how high their gpa was." giving an equal chance by going thru a physical and psychological pledge process would be fair imo. people will say that's a disadvantage to fat people or whatnot but in those cases you would structure the program to meet their needs. the whole point is pushing people to a higher level that they previously thought was impossible and in that regard, i think physical pledging would be beneficial as a confidence booster.

I totally agree that membership should be based on the merits of the individual and not who they know/who their parents are/how much money they have, etc. ... BUT ... proving someone's worth during pledgeship through physical and mental anguish only encourages an organization to retain the tough members that can take punishment and abuse instead of the members that have the ability to elevate the entire chapter in philanthropic activities/GPA/etc. I've contended all along that it is the military and football teams that need these tough guys while fraternities need brothers who are more than just muscles (sorry to any jocks - I do not intend to offend :)). Fraternities should seek complete individuals (muscles or not) who respect and actively contribute to a lifelong brotherhood.

well my whole point is that physical pledging would be subjective. i would not expect a fat guy to do 50 pushups at once or run 3 miles but at the first event i would probably give him 10 pushups and have him run half a mile and try to build him up eventually to the 50 level goal. thus, even though it's a "punishment" for not knowing information or not completing a task, it can definitely serve as a confidence booster when at the end of the process he sees how far he's come. on the same token, when a football player starts pledging, first event i would tell him to do 50 and work him to 100 by the end of his process. the whole point i'm trying to make is push people to their limits. i'm not sure if you guys can understand what i'm thinking but i think the ideal pledge process would involve both mental and physical tasks so that way you get a vast # of different types of people. and i know what you're thinking kansas city when you say that physical would only let the "strong, fit" pledges survive but that's why i think it's important to incorporate other aspects. having philanthropies, study sessions, w/e is great, but i think it should be supplemented by something more physical. any ideas on a hybrid system to challenge all aspects of a persons being?

I guess what I'm not understanding is why pledging has to be physical? Why can't your chapter push members "to their limits" through commuinity service hours worked or # of A's achieved academically during a week. By establishing physical challenges in a non-physical organization, you immediately set different standards for the individuals whereas if you establish (for example) philanthropic challenges for your membership, you can get all types to push towards a same goal no matter their physical abilities. Also by achieving philanthropic or academic goals you strengthen your brotherhood instead of your brawn.

People achieve extraordinary things in these settings because they HAVE to. These skills aren't necessary in a Greek organization.

Celebrities are put on a pedestal because the general public puts them there. It's not because of a lack of humiliation on their part. A singer doesn't suddenly become a true artist because of a humiliating situation.

Physical excersise is not (and should not) be punishment. There are other ways to "punish" someone for not performing. I do well in class because I want an A, not because I'm scared that the teacher will kick my ass. Teachers are able to "punish" those who aren't performing by withholding a reward (in this case, a higher grade).

I think you're hitting two different issues here. I agree that several things that are classified as hazing shouldn't be. However, as I stated previously,
the government wouldn't have had to get involved and institute these rules if things hadn't gotten out of hand already.

I had to endure some questionable activity when I came into my organization, but honestly, the events just led to interesting stories. I've proven myself by living up to my organization's ideals and working for and on behalf of my organization. Several people that I know who have gone through rough pledge programs have gone ghost, so how do you explain that? Being subjected to hazing is not an automatic ticket to good brotherhood.

Part 2 LOL
 

This doesn't make sense. If both hazing and non-hazing activities have the same results, there's no justification to haze. Also, everyone can go through the same process without it including hazing.

If you structure the program to fit the needs of certain individuals, how is that holding everyone to the same standards? And when did it become a bad thing to be known as the organization that has several members with high GPAs?

How does someone pushing himself to do more pushups prove how he will perform as a brother? It doesn't.

From your definitive stance, I would think your chapter has already implemented a hybrid program. Why would you need ideas? Why not tell us what works instead of giving hypotheticals?

You said whether you haze or not, you'll have good members and bad members. So what's the point in hazing if everything will end up the same anyway?

You said you basically dismiss who people were before they joined your organization. Everyone can start with a "clean slate," as you've so clearly stated a few times. You then say that you look at Greek organizations with similar members and think that they only got in because of who they know. I don't really see the difference between a Greek organization with similar members who were only accepted because of who their friends are, and an organization that plans to strip away any individuality the pledges had before they joined the fraternity. And by hazing, you're eliminating all of the guys who joined for the academic, philanthropic and social advancements, and you're left with the people who have no sense of self worth by subjecting themselves to these ridiculous physical requirements. THAT is a Greek organization that is made up of similar members.

And please read the last sentence of the first post, and the beginning of the second. You said that physical pledging is a confidence booster. You then say that you wouldn't have a larger new member do as much as a new member who is more fit. What a GREAT confidence booster. For a guy who already knows he has physical limits, you're then going to point it out to all of his peers. And PLEASE don't argue that will motivate him to do more and maybe lose weight.

astalumna, how exactly am i pointing out the larger member to his peers? just b/c i give him a lower number doesn't mean anything. it's not like i'm going to tell him "oh you're fat so you only have to do 30". i'm just going to say, "drop and give me 30." and also, you forget on when this is. if it's at the beginning of the night and he's fresh, then i'll have him do more and by the end do less (same goes for everyone else). even a fit person who could do 100 at the beginning will be tired at the end and wont be able to do 30. the whole point is to push yourself and look back on it later and be like,"wow, i accomplished this." and how do i know this? b/c i was the fat guy during pledging. i was pushed to my limit. i've been fat since i was 7. during pledging my confidence soared a ton as the brothers kept on pushing me to my limits. the first day i had trouble doing 20 pushups and by the end i could do about 50 at a time. a few months after pledging i took what i learned and lossed 50 lbs with my newfound "anything is possible" attitude. my grades were better after pledging then beforehand. my time management and work ethic improved too. now i might be one example but i'm sure lots of people can learn something from physical pledging if done properly (as i believe most of my program was b/c it was based on a military format). does it work for everyone? no of course not.

also, i believe i am able to compare hazing vs non hazing also b/c i joined an 2 honor fraternities also. the requirements for one of them was to do 10 hours of philanthropy, have 1 on 1 talks with 10 professors, attend 10 social functions, and maintain a 3.0 gpa. i thought that was a joke compared to my fraternity hazing.

now i've been thinking over all the comments and my own thoughts and here is my conclusion: i believe hazing is good b/c it weeds out people so the remaining members can feel like they accomplished something. now that may or may not be a stupid argument but for me i'm proud of joining my fraternity b/c lots of people who start do not finish and become brothers. to me, that makes me feel good that i accomplished something that others couldn't. it's like getting admitted to harvard, passing the cfa/cpa exam, getting promoted, or something like that. now if hazing were eliminated, i think the only way i would still be "proud" of being in my fraternity is if 30-40% of pledges never become brothers and so we maintain our "high standards." however, the thing i noticed with fraternities is that i would say 90%+ of pledges who begin become brothers and to me that just dilutes the program. maybe that's where i'm going with this....

just a thought

Apples and oranges.

Going through hazing is nothing like getting into Harvard. You prove yourself to the admissions counselors by maintaining a high GPA, being involved, and striving for community service. Are people that went to Harvard "not good enough" because they didn't have to do pushups as part of their admissions process?

:(

my whole point is that i want to be part of an exclusive club. hazing (at least from what i've seen), has made lots of people quit and thus has made the club exclusive. if there was a non hazing program where we turn 60% of pledges into active members, i think that would be good enuogh for me because then it's not like everyone gets in.

harvard has a tough admissions process where only 20% of applicants get in or even lower. thus it is exclusive. if there was a non hazing program that could do this, then i would definitely consider it. in the abscence of that, the only way i see to make people quit is hazing. it might be wrong but i find a problem when everyone is accepted into an organization b/c it dilutes the quality. what if everyone was a doctor or everyone was a CFA/CPA or any licensed thing. no one would want that rite? thus we need something that can weed out people. hazing does that. also, a non hazing program that automatically dropped 40-50% of pledges could also do that and i'd probably be ok with that too.

Your selection process should be what makes it exclusive, not making people quit through hazing.

If university admission is used as an example, it makes more sense to use programs with cohort effects. Undergraduates tend not to have extensive bonds with their cohort, especially when there may be hundreds or thousands of them.

Graduate programs that emphasize cohorts (not all of them do) and cohort bonding do have processes of exclusion and inclusion beyond the basic admissions requirements. Applicant weeks where applicants interact with faculty and graduate students are encouraged to attend programs that they may not want to attend and interact beyond their comfort level. Many faculty members consider themselves gatekeepers who have the last word on whether you remain in the program or flunk out because of their course. This sometimes includes being a complete asshole to some students and not helping students who need help. Yes, these faculty members are sometimes reported to the graduate schools and reprimanded if there are enough reports.

I have heard faculty and students refer to these as legal hazing rituals. Jokingly and seriously. So this is seen as a difficult but necessary part of the process by many people. They think that if you can handle it, you will be ready for anything when you finish your graduate degree.

(I am not typing in support of hazing, just providing the different contexts since folks want to use examples.)

I still don't believe this has too much to do with gender. Right or wrong, females engage in hazing at various physical levels.

Also, I frown whenever I hear women refer to themselves as/be referred to as a "girl."

Well i have yet to see a fraternity or sorority make their selection process exclusive. when i see 90% of pledges become brothers/sisters that doesn't scream exclusivity to me. what makes it even worse is when i talk to my friends in different fraternities and we discuss what we did during pledging and they all say they would've quit if they had my process. i feel very accomplished when they tell me that.

so now the hard part is coming up with a non hazing program that can effectively eliminate 40% of a pledge class so that only the strong survive and the ratios would be similar as if we had hazed which would keep the exclusivity but not break any laws.

This is true. Maybe I was thinking along that line because in terms of GC like 90% of the hazing incidents we hear about are with fraternities. This doesn't mean that hazing is committed exclusively by males.

Oh and you are right on about grad school. Sometimes it feels like hazing, lol.

Instead of eliminating 40% of a pledge class, why not pledge 40% fewer people? That's what I'm getting at.

Your MEMBERSHIP SELECTION (handing out a bid, extending an invite through intake, whatever you call it or whatever system you use) IS WHAT MAKES YOU EXCLUSIVE, NOT your new member program/pledge program/line program. You should initiate all the people you pledge.

Is it possible that you don't really know what you are talking about?

Take those stories to other people and you will get laughed at.

There's nothing impressive about someone who sits around boasting about their "accomplishments" as a "pledge." Have you done anything for your organization since then?

Yeah my perception isn't based on GC.

It's funny how your stance went from "I know the physical stuff is wrong" to "physical stuff is what makes us exclusive." Which is it?

The examples that you are giving don't make sense. Going to Harvard, becoming a doctor, and becoming a certified CPA/CFA are things that are achieved by working hard academically, not physically. In these examples, exclusivity is reached from the start. Harvard doesn't admit everyone only to weed out the bad seeds -- they take care of it from the beginning.

Like DrPhil said earlier, why does having the hardest pledge process matter? Show your dedication to your organization as a member.

Again, if your "hybrid" program works so well, why are you concerned with coming up with something else?

Yea, it's like talking to a brick wall.

msl2008, first of all, like KSUviolet, your posts make my head hurt. Based on things you've said, it makes me think that you don't understand what Greek life is about at all.

No hazing = not proud of being in your organization? That's sad.

Unless of course... you got rid of 30-40% of pledges just because. Again, confused.

You say you'd maintain your "high standards" by just getting rid of this 30-40%. So... are you saying that 30-40% of the people you invite to join your organization are people that you don't even want in the first place? And if you're hazing, and you're weeding out 30-40%, you're saying that doing more pushups are the high standards you're trying to reach. I don't know about you, but when I would send in reports to nationals on the status and accomplishments of the chapter, I never said, "Each of our girls can do 50 pushups! It's a good thing we got rid of those other new members who couldn't even do 10. We're doing great now!"

Guess what... fraternities and sororities are exclusive clubs. Without hazing. If you want a pushup club, go to the gym and try to get some guys to attend some meetings with you. You can be the president of the whole thing. You can list your goals each week, and the person who does the most pushups gets a prize.

And I'm still unsure of why you want people to quit. I have seen some amazing people quit fraternities that haze heavily. Even the brotherhood is sad to see them go. So... why let them leave? Don't haze. How simple.

The reason that a lot of fraternities and sororities have 90% of their new members going through initiation is because they weeded out the people they didn't want before giving out bids. How can you not be exclusive when you hand out 50 bids on a campus of 25,000 people?

Fraternities and sororities are definitely not exclusive. You cannot take a population of 25000 people and say you only handed out 50 bids. why? because you only had 52 interviews.

why can't physical stuff be right and wrong at the same time? it's wrong b/c it's against the law but it works b/c it allows people to quit thus making it a barrier to entry for prospective members and that is my whole point. i am on here looking for an alternative to hazing that will give me the same exclusivity that we have now ie 40% of a pledge class failing.

astalum, maybe you're right. maybe i don't understand what greek life is about. so why don't you tell me what it's supposed to be? is it supposed to truly be based upon brotherhood, philanthropy, and gpa? b/c if that's true then why is the stereotype that greeks only drink and party? maybe the real greeks who follow the ideologies that you mention are the honor societies? and what kind of brotherhood do you have? i've realized that brothers in my fraternity who have gone thru hazing actually are a lot closer then brothers at other fraternities who don't haze. case in point: before i pledged i used to go to a lot of fraternity parties. i went to this one house and one brother came in and was like, "hey i know you, aren't you in my fraternity?" now you tell me what kind of brotherhood that is. when i went to rush for my fraternity, every brother there knew every other brother's name/age/where they were from and knew even more about their own pledge brothers.

why do i get rid of 30-40% of pledges? b/c i want to give everyone an equal chance that's why. everyone who wants to pledge a fraternity should be able to pledge in my opinion and i want to see who comes out alive. if i only gave bids to those i thought would be good brothers, i could be easily missing a diamond in the rough. this is why i encourage everyone to come out and then we see who can hack it. and this is for hazing or non hazing i want to eliminate some people.

Uhm, getting a doctor degree or a CFA does not required anybody to be hazed. I like to ask you this, if you want exclusivity, why in the world would you accept as many people as you can, then weed them out? Why not be exclusive from the beginning? Why not except as little people as possible? Be like the Skulls, be extremely exclusive.

because i think that everyone deserves a chance to prove their worth and don't care about who your parents are, how rich you are, what your gpa is, how fat you are, who you were in hs, etc. everyone starts over with a clean slate, undergo the same program, and whoever makes it makes it. by doing this, everyone has a fair shot at the prize and the only person who determines if you make it is YOU. that's why i want to weed people out. CFA exam allows anyone to take it (with certain restrictions) and if you pass all three parts you can get the CFA. if not, you fail. thus exclusive. but it's a fair shot for everyone to take it and pass rite?