It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the eating clubs are presently a more popular option for upperclassman dining than the residential college system. But students also tend to have more spirit and loyalty to their clubs than they do (or did) for their residential colleges. My friends and I have been mulling over some of the reasons for this apparent gap and have landed upon what we believe to be the chief reasons for the clubs’ superiority in the social hierarchy on campus.
First, there’s the idea of choice. By and large, incoming freshmen at Princeton are randomly sorted into their colleges by the housing office’s mysterious algorithm (probably a sorting hat), while upperclassmen are allowed to choose their eating club. This is a very important distinction, as I’m sure any psychologist could tell you. People tend to be far more gung ho about organizations or groups which they freely elect to be in. How often do you meet someone who gets more fired up about their high school than their university, for example? Furthermore, within this process of selection, undergraduates can associate with other students with whom they feel more affinity — something that’s less likely when a group is formed at random. Of course, this self-selection does decrease the diversity of the eating clubs while simultaneously increasing their members’ spirit — which is more desirable is up for individual interpretation.
Second, the eating clubs are all smaller than the residential colleges (having an average size of less than 200 compared to about 500), allowing for a more intimate feel. From what anecdotal evidence I’ve gleaned from my upperclassman friends, you can’t help but get to know most of the people in your club when you see them on such a regular basis. Not all of us can be Rockefeller College master Jeff Nunokawa (no matter how much we want to be) and get to know the hundreds of students in our residential college, but most of us could manage in a smaller setting. The necessarily large size of the residential colleges is an impediment to their trying to beat out the eating clubs.
The third factor is the social events. This is a tricky area for the University to try and compete in, owing to college-aged persons’ fascinations with alcohol combined with hot and/or heavy dance floors. Fortunately for the residential colleges, neither of those two things is unconquerable, as their novelty eventually wears off. Once their mystique is broken, they become just another thing to do. And colleges can capitalize on that. Wilson College actually put on quite a good show on a recent Saturday evening with its Casino Night, showing that residential colleges have potential as major social venues.
Finally, for some reason — don’t ask me how, don’t ask me why — people seem to be into joining groups that not everyone can be in. Maybe it has to do with feeling better about themselves or something — I don’t know. What’s important is that it works, and this is something that the residential colleges must take into account. I know that “exclusivity” has become one of the biggest cuss words in the University’s administration, but their commitment to openness could be costing them some of the spirit and “oneness” that characterize many of the eating clubs.
I wouldn’t suggest that the residential colleges ramp up their exclusivity to the level of the eating clubs, but having more college-only events like “Only Forbes” or “Only Wilson” could make freshmen and sophomores feel more a part of their community. Whitman College has already begun such a practice, something that all the Whitman residents who I’ve spoken to enjoy. Though often frowned upon, this is a case where I think closing the party to some could be helpful.
In the end, the psychology that drives the continued social dominance of the eating clubs is complex and difficult to pin down. But maybe these few observations can provide clarity for anyone seeking to enact change to transform the residential colleges into the social centers that they could be. Maybe someday you’ll see a student dressed up and going “out” to Rocky. Maybe.
Nathan Mathabane is a sophomore from Portland, Ore. He can be reached at nmathaba@princeton.edu.
Read More
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
Return Pete Hegseth’s educational ideologies “to sender”
Lily Halbert-AlexanderHegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
Hegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
