Quote:
Originally Posted by msl2008
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.
|
Apples and oranges.
Quote:
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
|
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?