"Clubs are competitive"

[Anonymous]

Note to the person who asked about UVA clubs— the student government is in large part responsible for distributing the funds for clubs. So not a bad idea to run for or get to know your rep. That person will be valued in most clubs, I would imagine. They are in a position to ensure funding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In recent posts about UF and Georgetown, posters have lamented that getting into clubs is competitive. I've seen that about other schools, as well. When we've gone on tours, every school has talked about their variety of clubs and made them sound like they were open to anyone who wanted to join. "I signed up for 50 clubs!" "If there isn't a club for what you want, you can start one." Can someone provide some insight into these "competitive" clubs? No one is talking about this on tours.

Freshman at large public
Tried out and made club sports team;
Applied and not accepted to major related social/educational club.

Will your child apply to the club next year? Maybe it is harder to get accepted to the clubs as a freshman?

You are EXACTLY right and yes he will. Thank you.

I’m glad he will. Good for him!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have heard these types of stories at several schools that my DD and her friends attend (including but not limited to Northwestern, Michigan, Northeastern, Harvard, U Chicago, University of Illinois-CI). Her friends that do not seem to have these experiences (i.e., the clubs are more inclusive) are the ones at SLACs, including top tier ones (Swarthmore, Haverford, Bates). Note, I'm not talking about club sports or "business" fraternities, but regular old student-run clubs (think newspapers/magazines, affinity groups).

SIGH. People hate to look at themselves in the mirror. LC and MC people especially, as well as first-generation UMCs do not understand that having your kid get into a college means ZERO if your kid can't figure out how to flourish. So you need to know your kid's place.

Yale has to admit some high-achieving kids who are minorities or lower/middle income. Those kids are the "exception that proves the rule" of how difficult it is to get into Yale. Those kids are there to sink or swim in their classes, all while providing the dining hall labor.

But there is ZERO reason for the generally UC kids running a club to accept these lower or middle-class kids unless they REALLY benefit PERSONALLY from including them. These are the kids that have no connections, nothing interesting in their experiences and background, and nothing but their brains to push them forward. They can't function in an executive room where people give lip service to diversity, but laugh about the diversity hire's latest fumble during cocktails after a round. Oh, was your kid not invited to play that round of golf? Exactly.

So look at your kid. Is she gorgeous? Then maybe she can get hint to the club President that she'll date him, or maybe she can look good on stage with the members of the a cappella group.

Does your kid have a hookup for really good drugs? Then maybe he can trade on that to get into an investment club.

But if your kid is the average "successful" entrant to Yale, their already WAY ahead of the game. They got admitted, and surely are getting all sorts of "need"-based financial aid. So they really don't need to be given any more perks that would let them rise ahead of the kids who actually FUND the university. it's just the way it is.

This makes no sense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is still true. The investment banks, PE and consulting firms prefer the students with strong math skills and high GPAs. The athletes and frat boys go into sales roles at these places; they are not the intellectual capital of these firms. Physics majors who know 6-12 programming languages are much hotter commodities than the garden variety Econ major who “studied” his frat’s file on cases from McKinsey or Goldman or Blackstone.

This person ^^ still thinks it is a meritocracy. They must have some intellectual or emotional investment in that myth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have heard these types of stories at several schools that my DD and her friends attend (including but not limited to Northwestern, Michigan, Northeastern, Harvard, U Chicago, University of Illinois-CI). Her friends that do not seem to have these experiences (i.e., the clubs are more inclusive) are the ones at SLACs, including top tier ones (Swarthmore, Haverford, Bates). Note, I'm not talking about club sports or "business" fraternities, but regular old student-run clubs (think newspapers/magazines, affinity groups).

SIGH. People hate to look at themselves in the mirror. LC and MC people especially, as well as first-generation UMCs do not understand that having your kid get into a college means ZERO if your kid can't figure out how to flourish. So you need to know your kid's place.

Yale has to admit some high-achieving kids who are minorities or lower/middle income. Those kids are the "exception that proves the rule" of how difficult it is to get into Yale. Those kids are there to sink or swim in their classes, all while providing the dining hall labor.

But there is ZERO reason for the generally UC kids running a club to accept these lower or middle-class kids unless they REALLY benefit PERSONALLY from including them. These are the kids that have no connections, nothing interesting in their experiences and background, and nothing but their brains to push them forward. They can't function in an executive room where people give lip service to diversity, but laugh about the diversity hire's latest fumble during cocktails after a round. Oh, was your kid not invited to play that round of golf? Exactly.

So look at your kid. Is she gorgeous? Then maybe she can get hint to the club President that she'll date him, or maybe she can look good on stage with the members of the a cappella group.

Does your kid have a hookup for really good drugs? Then maybe he can trade on that to get into an investment club.

But if your kid is the average "successful" entrant to Yale, their already WAY ahead of the game. They got admitted, and surely are getting all sorts of "need"-based financial aid. So they really don't need to be given any more perks that would let them rise ahead of the kids who actually FUND the university. it's just the way it is.

Who are these UC kids?

+1. Another post from a parent who is too concerned with what "those on the other side of the tracks" are or are not doing.

This is all wildly inaccurate speculation. Fraternity and Sorority members have far worse behaviors than any legitimate club.

Lol. No it isn't. It is precisely how things are. You just have no familiarity with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have heard these types of stories at several schools that my DD and her friends attend (including but not limited to Northwestern, Michigan, Northeastern, Harvard, U Chicago, University of Illinois-CI). Her friends that do not seem to have these experiences (i.e., the clubs are more inclusive) are the ones at SLACs, including top tier ones (Swarthmore, Haverford, Bates). Note, I'm not talking about club sports or "business" fraternities, but regular old student-run clubs (think newspapers/magazines, affinity groups).

SIGH. People hate to look at themselves in the mirror. LC and MC people especially, as well as first-generation UMCs do not understand that having your kid get into a college means ZERO if your kid can't figure out how to flourish. So you need to know your kid's place.

Yale has to admit some high-achieving kids who are minorities or lower/middle income. Those kids are the "exception that proves the rule" of how difficult it is to get into Yale. Those kids are there to sink or swim in their classes, all while providing the dining hall labor.

But there is ZERO reason for the generally UC kids running a club to accept these lower or middle-class kids unless they REALLY benefit PERSONALLY from including them. These are the kids that have no connections, nothing interesting in their experiences and background, and nothing but their brains to push them forward. They can't function in an executive room where people give lip service to diversity, but laugh about the diversity hire's latest fumble during cocktails after a round. Oh, was your kid not invited to play that round of golf? Exactly.

So look at your kid. Is she gorgeous? Then maybe she can get hint to the club President that she'll date him, or maybe she can look good on stage with the members of the a cappella group.

Does your kid have a hookup for really good drugs? Then maybe he can trade on that to get into an investment club.

But if your kid is the average "successful" entrant to Yale, their already WAY ahead of the game. They got admitted, and surely are getting all sorts of "need"-based financial aid. So they really don't need to be given any more perks that would let them rise ahead of the kids who actually FUND the university. it's just the way it is.

This makes no sense

It makes all the sense in the world. This is exactly how it works. And I'm not PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a whole article about this in the Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/yale-college-undergrad-clubs-competitive/675219/)....what was upsetting was the exclusiveness of clubs that had no reason to be exclusive.

I have found this to be true at my DC's school and her friends at other schools say similar things. In an age where kids have a hard enough time connecting with one another, I found it quite disheartening.

My DD graduated from Yale the year before this article was published and she cried when she read it. She tried to join many activities- some which she had excelled at in HS, and others which represented new interests. She was shut out of everything after multiple years' of attempts. The gatekeeping was insane. At one point she attempted intramural sports, which is totally casual competition representing each dorm, not even close to the level of club sports. She was rejected by the captains of multiple teams because "they had enough experienced players and women already." She played for a strong varsity softball program in HS and was recruited for D3, but she only managed to get a chance to join intramural softball games 2-3 times and only for headcount because another woman was sick.

She ended up working out at the gym a lot, writing for a minor publication at school and focusing most of her time on school, friends, and her on-campus job. In her experience, there were a few kids picking up multiple activities and everyone else was scrambling for scraps. It was disheartening.

The one thing about the article that she criticized was that the woman in the story (I haven't re-read it) who shared her perspective was talking about how hard it was to join an activity when she was actually accepted into one of the most selective ones (the Carillonneurs). That gave my DD a good laugh because if someone is complaining about selection to a very elite group, they have no idea how hard it is for the more average student.

This is so sad. I wish more people told these stories. Where is she now?

She's working in NYC (not a dream job but she is squeaking by on her own without help from us) and is a volunteer coach for a youth sports team. She didn't have the recruiting opportunities she had hoped for but it sounds like she is saving up to hopefully start post-bac courses this summer and thinking about applying to MBA programs in a couple of years.

It's been hard because she's had friends from college who were varsity athletes or in those competitive clubs who had really great job opportunities through those groups. She is dating a former athlete who graduated the same year who was basically given his job by an older teammate and alumni. He is a great guy and I don't think she begrudges him that opportunity, but I know she envies the ease with which he's accessed a lot of things.

I feel sorry for your DD. She probably would've been happier and better set up for success at a less competitive, more nurturing school like a laid-back state school or a SLAC .

I wouldn't pity her, but yes, she does regret not taking the offer from Williams. At the time, it was hard to say no to the prestige offered by Yale and the opportunities she perceived she would have. In reality, the opportunities are most open to those who would probably have similar opportunities anywhere. She also came from a very large high school (3000 students) and had trouble imagining herself in a smaller environment.

I think the lesson that she's taken away from the experience and that we took away as a family is that most kids will do fine literally anywhere, but it takes courage to choose "anywhere" over a very competitive, highly ranked school. I'm sure she will take that lesson into her graduate school planning. And we definitely were naive about the background of her fellow students. It was humbling to realize how many of her fellow students were truly brilliant or incredibly privileged. But you don't know what you don't know.

Williams is majority athlete. There is nothing to say that the opportunities available to Yale grads because of athletics wouldn't apply to Williams grads now. If anything, those connections seem to be stronger at SLACs

I'm the PP you are responding to- I mentioned in a previous post that DD had been recruited as a D3 athlete. Williams was one of the schools which recruited her. Maybe Williams itself would have been better for her, maybe being a college athlete would have been better, or maybe it would have been a bust anyway. That's the thing about life- you don't know how it's going to work out until after you've made your choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have heard these types of stories at several schools that my DD and her friends attend (including but not limited to Northwestern, Michigan, Northeastern, Harvard, U Chicago, University of Illinois-CI). Her friends that do not seem to have these experiences (i.e., the clubs are more inclusive) are the ones at SLACs, including top tier ones (Swarthmore, Haverford, Bates). Note, I'm not talking about club sports or "business" fraternities, but regular old student-run clubs (think newspapers/magazines, affinity groups).

SIGH. People hate to look at themselves in the mirror. LC and MC people especially, as well as first-generation UMCs do not understand that having your kid get into a college means ZERO if your kid can't figure out how to flourish. So you need to know your kid's place.

Yale has to admit some high-achieving kids who are minorities or lower/middle income. Those kids are the "exception that proves the rule" of how difficult it is to get into Yale. Those kids are there to sink or swim in their classes, all while providing the dining hall labor.

But there is ZERO reason for the generally UC kids running a club to accept these lower or middle-class kids unless they REALLY benefit PERSONALLY from including them. These are the kids that have no connections, nothing interesting in their experiences and background, and nothing but their brains to push them forward. They can't function in an executive room where people give lip service to diversity, but laugh about the diversity hire's latest fumble during cocktails after a round. Oh, was your kid not invited to play that round of golf? Exactly.

So look at your kid. Is she gorgeous? Then maybe she can get hint to the club President that she'll date him, or maybe she can look good on stage with the members of the a cappella group.

Does your kid have a hookup for really good drugs? Then maybe he can trade on that to get into an investment club.

But if your kid is the average "successful" entrant to Yale, their already WAY ahead of the game. They got admitted, and surely are getting all sorts of "need"-based financial aid. So they really don't need to be given any more perks that would let them rise ahead of the kids who actually FUND the university. it's just the way it is.

Ouch. That’s harsh.
But explains so much.

I feel like our prep school’s kids actually have hard time keeping up with the social pecking order in the Ivies, run by the boarding school/WASP/7th generation kid. At least that’s what I’ve been hearing from last year’s senior parents…”hard adjustment”, “interesting social dynamics”, “competitive culture”, etc.
Maybe you are explaining why.

I'm the Yale alumna mom who posted. That's the vibe I get from my DD, and while I hate to give credence to the PP you're replying to, I agree that there are very few things that help someone escape their spot in the pecking order. My DD's "regular people" friends who broke into more rarefied circles or found opportunities at Yale were from basic places looked and acted MC when they arrived but were crazy new rich and could follow alongside the other rich kids (fancy trips, NYC weekends, etc.), were athletes, or they were women who were gorgeous. I have a younger DD whose friends' parents are totally consumed by college sports recruiting, and I don't blame them. Being on a varsity team seems to afford students more social mobility and opportunities at elite colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have heard these types of stories at several schools that my DD and her friends attend (including but not limited to Northwestern, Michigan, Northeastern, Harvard, U Chicago, University of Illinois-CI). Her friends that do not seem to have these experiences (i.e., the clubs are more inclusive) are the ones at SLACs, including top tier ones (Swarthmore, Haverford, Bates). Note, I'm not talking about club sports or "business" fraternities, but regular old student-run clubs (think newspapers/magazines, affinity groups).

SIGH. People hate to look at themselves in the mirror. LC and MC people especially, as well as first-generation UMCs do not understand that having your kid get into a college means ZERO if your kid can't figure out how to flourish. So you need to know your kid's place.

Yale has to admit some high-achieving kids who are minorities or lower/middle income. Those kids are the "exception that proves the rule" of how difficult it is to get into Yale. Those kids are there to sink or swim in their classes, all while providing the dining hall labor.

But there is ZERO reason for the generally UC kids running a club to accept these lower or middle-class kids unless they REALLY benefit PERSONALLY from including them. These are the kids that have no connections, nothing interesting in their experiences and background, and nothing but their brains to push them forward. They can't function in an executive room where people give lip service to diversity, but laugh about the diversity hire's latest fumble during cocktails after a round. Oh, was your kid not invited to play that round of golf? Exactly.

So look at your kid. Is she gorgeous? Then maybe she can get hint to the club President that she'll date him, or maybe she can look good on stage with the members of the a cappella group.

Does your kid have a hookup for really good drugs? Then maybe he can trade on that to get into an investment club.

But if your kid is the average "successful" entrant to Yale, their already WAY ahead of the game. They got admitted, and surely are getting all sorts of "need"-based financial aid. So they really don't need to be given any more perks that would let them rise ahead of the kids who actually FUND the university. it's just the way it is.

Ouch. That’s harsh.
But explains so much.

I feel like our prep school’s kids actually have hard time keeping up with the social pecking order in the Ivies, run by the boarding school/WASP/7th generation kid. At least that’s what I’ve been hearing from last year’s senior parents…”hard adjustment”, “interesting social dynamics”, “competitive culture”, etc.
Maybe you are explaining why.

I'm the Yale alumna mom who posted. That's the vibe I get from my DD, and while I hate to give credence to the PP you're replying to, I agree that there are very few things that help someone escape their spot in the pecking order. My DD's "regular people" friends who broke into more rarefied circles or found opportunities at Yale were from basic places looked and acted MC when they arrived but were crazy new rich and could follow alongside the other rich kids (fancy trips, NYC weekends, etc.), were athletes, or they were women who were gorgeous. I have a younger DD whose friends' parents are totally consumed by college sports recruiting, and I don't blame them. Being on a varsity team seems to afford students more social mobility and opportunities at elite colleges.

It all sounds so intimidating to me. I’m sure this is the way it is, it’s just disheartening. I could never live up to that lifestyle! My kid goes to a large OOS university, but was interested in a few smaller colleges that had reputations of wealthy, cliquey students. I don’t know how it would have worked out socially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ll selfishly ask for any experiences at UVA?

There are 850+ clubs. Other than club sports which are very competitive (and often national champs) there are maybe 50 that are competitive (probably less).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My son joined the Jefferson Society at UVA first semester of first year. Wildly competitive. He also joined [b]Madison House—- open to all, community volunteering. [url]

He left Jeff Soc after two years, informally and quietly. It was a little too smug for him. But he volunteered with Madison right up to graduation.

UVA has both types of clubs. I imagine most schools do? Kids find their people.

Madison House is not open to all. I’ve heard of a few kids who were not able to participate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son joined the Jefferson Society at UVA first semester of first year. Wildly competitive. He also joined [b]Madison House—- open to all, community volunteering. [url]

He left Jeff Soc after two years, informally and quietly. It was a little too smug for him. But he volunteered with Madison right up to graduation.

UVA has both types of clubs. I imagine most schools do? Kids find their people.

Madison House is not open to all. I’ve heard of a few kids who were not able to participate

That’s too bad. I’m the poster that asked about UVA. We were told club swim is open to all but obviously not all attend some of the big meets. This might be a deal breaker if it’s not really open to all just for practices.

[Anonymous]

Not a thing at CTCL's.

Snooty posters can make fun of them all they want.

My kid wanted a welcoming community and that is what she found at her SLAC t. from that list.

I don't think clubs that receive school funding are even allowed to exclude anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have heard these types of stories at several schools that my DD and her friends attend (including but not limited to Northwestern, Michigan, Northeastern, Harvard, U Chicago, University of Illinois-CI). Her friends that do not seem to have these experiences (i.e., the clubs are more inclusive) are the ones at SLACs, including top tier ones (Swarthmore, Haverford, Bates). Note, I'm not talking about club sports or "business" fraternities, but regular old student-run clubs (think newspapers/magazines, affinity groups).

SIGH. People hate to look at themselves in the mirror. LC and MC people especially, as well as first-generation UMCs do not understand that having your kid get into a college means ZERO if your kid can't figure out how to flourish. So you need to know your kid's place.

Yale has to admit some high-achieving kids who are minorities or lower/middle income. Those kids are the "exception that proves the rule" of how difficult it is to get into Yale. Those kids are there to sink or swim in their classes, all while providing the dining hall labor.

But there is ZERO reason for the generally UC kids running a club to accept these lower or middle-class kids unless they REALLY benefit PERSONALLY from including them. These are the kids that have no connections, nothing interesting in their experiences and background, and nothing but their brains to push them forward. They can't function in an executive room where people give lip service to diversity, but laugh about the diversity hire's latest fumble during cocktails after a round. Oh, was your kid not invited to play that round of golf? Exactly.

So look at your kid. Is she gorgeous? Then maybe she can get hint to the club President that she'll date him, or maybe she can look good on stage with the members of the a cappella group.

Does your kid have a hookup for really good drugs? Then maybe he can trade on that to get into an investment club.

But if your kid is the average "successful" entrant to Yale, their already WAY ahead of the game. They got admitted, and surely are getting all sorts of "need"-based financial aid. So they really don't need to be given any more perks that would let them rise ahead of the kids who actually FUND the university. it's just the way it is.

Do you realize what an ugly, inhumane, transactional society people like this yield?

Thank God they are in the minority.

Let them rub elbows with each other, and always wonder why their "friends" and romantic partners are with them.

ROI is really the way some people make all life decisions, I guess, which is capitalism taken to a pathological level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have heard these types of stories at several schools that my DD and her friends attend (including but not limited to Northwestern, Michigan, Northeastern, Harvard, U Chicago, University of Illinois-CI). Her friends that do not seem to have these experiences (i.e., the clubs are more inclusive) are the ones at SLACs, including top tier ones (Swarthmore, Haverford, Bates). Note, I'm not talking about club sports or "business" fraternities, but regular old student-run clubs (think newspapers/magazines, affinity groups).

SIGH. People hate to look at themselves in the mirror. LC and MC people especially, as well as first-generation UMCs do not understand that having your kid get into a college means ZERO if your kid can't figure out how to flourish. So you need to know your kid's place.

Yale has to admit some high-achieving kids who are minorities or lower/middle income. Those kids are the "exception that proves the rule" of how difficult it is to get into Yale. Those kids are there to sink or swim in their classes, all while providing the dining hall labor.

But there is ZERO reason for the generally UC kids running a club to accept these lower or middle-class kids unless they REALLY benefit PERSONALLY from including them. These are the kids that have no connections, nothing interesting in their experiences and background, and nothing but their brains to push them forward. They can't function in an executive room where people give lip service to diversity, but laugh about the diversity hire's latest fumble during cocktails after a round. Oh, was your kid not invited to play that round of golf? Exactly.

So look at your kid. Is she gorgeous? Then maybe she can get hint to the club President that she'll date him, or maybe she can look good on stage with the members of the a cappella group.

Does your kid have a hookup for really good drugs? Then maybe he can trade on that to get into an investment club.

But if your kid is the average "successful" entrant to Yale, their already WAY ahead of the game. They got admitted, and surely are getting all sorts of "need"-based financial aid. So they really don't need to be given any more perks that would let them rise ahead of the kids who actually FUND the university. it's just the way it is.

This is crazy. I was low income at a top university and the vast majortiy of kids were not like this.