This is a different twist on the freshman vs. juniors debate. Why are freshman considered a better "financial investment"? (I'm not trying to be callous in refering to rushees like that, I'm simply curious) Freshman rotate through every 4 years, while a junior holds a spot of only two. So hypothetically, a house of juniors pays one-time/initiation fees every 2 years, twice as often and a house of freshman. So if a pledge class had a few juniors, it seems it would almost be a better monetary investment. Even though this really only applies to houses at or near quota, those houses tend to be more diffucult for older rushees. Of course, this in no way addresses other aspects of the arguement, such as freshman have 4 years to devote to the house. If I'm completely off base, please feel free to tell me. It was just a thought I had.
freshman vs juniors
Threaded Mode