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.