NYT: Greek Letters at Price
 

An article on the cost of going Greek in today's New York Times. The cover picture is of members of the U. of AL Alpha Phi chapter. However, the article interviews sorority members all over the country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/ed...=top-news&_r=0

I'm sure they got their info wrong, because I'd be surprised if GPhi really required three meetings a week for their new members.

Oh that article was a mess. It even included an Alexandra Robbins quote.

It isn't! We had new member meetings plus regular chapter so I was already like "I'm not gonna like where this article is going!"

I rushed at one of the schools mentioned and they gave us no information about dues and fees. Our rho gammas told us to mention to them during the parties as the week continued.

It was so one-side, I had to read it with my head tilted.

Anyone else notice that the fines listed on the left were for "spirit week", ie the week of prep before recruitment? The journalist neglected to point that out and also did not mention that chapter members are well aware months ahead of time when they must return for work week and when recruitment is. Additionally, members know this is mandatory except for extenuating circumstances which might include illness, death in the family, overseas study or an internship.

I wish the author had been able to include dollar amounts, what dues and fees cover, and so on for small chapters in small Greek systems. While it's fascinating, and somewhat frightening, to read about costly dues / incidentals / fines and whatnot, we might want to remember that there are many chapters where costs are lower than most of the ones mentioned in the story.

Not every chapter has a big ol' mansion to maintain, or a long tradition of elaborate venues and decorations for "formals,'" "semi-formals," and other parties and celebrations.

I don't get why this is news. No one is forced to join a sorority so who really cares what they charge. And the people who care don't need the NYT to explain it to them.

Slow news day I guess.

What the hell happened to objective journalism and source checking? Alexandra Robbins is NOT a reliable source. Jeez freaking Louise.

Not to mention that the authors mention Rodgers at the beginning of the article and then talk about Robbins in the last few sentences before going back to what Rodgers said. I was confused and had to go back and read that there was a Rodgers in the story and they didn't mistaken Robbins for Rodgers.

I also noticed that it talked about a lot of people who left Greek Life. Ummm...Could we have gotten people who LOVE Greek Life to talk about the great aspects of it?

There are already 3 corrections at the bottom of the story.
It's hardly a balanced piece. Surprised the NYT published it.
The comments are interesting to read - either for or against, no middle ground!

It's almost as if the author wants to be entitled to feel offended that people from higher socioeconomic strata choose to associate with one another and in essence have created a barrier for people of lower means. It is what it is. Go picket a Country Club.

People are always going to group themselves. Witness the "literary/study clubs" at Christian schools, dining groups at Ivy Leagues, and various other groups that function as de facto sororities and fraternities. The school can even outlaw them, but it will still happen, either underground or with a politically correct title.

In fairness, country clubs don't present themselves as values-based organizations. That's apples and oranges to me.

We present as values based organizations and to a degree, that is exactly what we are because that is something which serves our members well and also encourages us to seek the right sort of member. But we aren't "values-based." We are social fraternities and sororities, it costs money to make our groups run and we do not operate for a profit. We should not be embarrassed to have membership selected from certain socioeconomic strata. It's what we are, it's what we've always been. We have become more diverse by choice and by opening up chapters at less selective schools. We've done a good job of staying relevant and responding to cultural changes.

This sort of message, however, really irks me. It's basically asking us to apologize or be ashamed that not everyone can afford to be a member. Should I be ashamed because I drive a nice car, live in a nice home, etc.? This author seems to be suggesting I should.