Quote:
Originally Posted by Sciencewoman
I'm not sure when recs became formalized/institutionalized...that would be a good question to ask nyapbp. I do believe they perpetuate the status quo. Women don't even know to get them if they're not "hip" to the expectation. However, I think it's like having 2 recs to join a country club, or having members nominate new members for other organizations. "Recs" for any organization are not geared toward helping the "upwardly mobile" or diversifying the membership -- generally, they're geared toward recruiting those who will "fit in" with the existing expectations.
May I ask if there is some of this within NPHC groups? I've had the perception that there are very high standards for membership, legacies are valued, and those who are new to the intake expectations probably aren't going to fare as well...being clueless could ruin someone's chances.
|
There are some parallels but I don't think they are rooted in class.
For example:
While being a legacy, in some sense, can only help you if all parties are playing by the book, flaunting your legacy status is such a grave faux pas that you could be blackballed.
I think that aside from the cost, the various NPHC selection processes are fairly blind to social status. Service and achievement are transcendent.
And again, for those orgs where a recommendation is necessary, it's more likely that a black student from an underresourced school system had one teacher at some point who was a member of their org of interest. Remember that there are far less NPHC orgs than the others.
Hybrid Mode
