When it comes to sophomores’ hurt feelings, picking up new members is not the problem; rejection is the problem. Yes, pick-ups are awkward for rejected sophomores, but that awkwardness is fairly minor in comparison to the pain of being rejected. Hosed sophomores are fixated on their rejection for days after Bicker, regardless of whether pick-ups do or do not occur.
A hosee walking by a Bicker pick-up group is mildly awkward. That experience passes fairly quickly. Going to a Thursday night party at a bicker club after one has been hosed there — now that’s awkward. Having a group of close friends suddenly stop talking when joined by a hosee because they were discussing Bicker — that’s awkward. Having friends treat the entire topic of Bicker as awkward — even more awkward. Now, watching bicker clubs be happy for the new members they are taking? That’s not as awkward by comparison.
The editorial board completely ignored all other groups that pick up new members. Will we need to end pick-ups for a cappella groups and dance groups and Triangle and sign-in clubs if we adhere to the board’s advice? The same logic applies: people are rejected, and seeing others celebrate acceptance will hurt. If pick-ups were to be stopped for one of these groups, the fair course of action would be to stop pick-ups for all groups. At the very least, forcing an end of pick-ups for bicker clubs would require ending pick-ups for all eating clubs, if fairness matters. But is it justified to end pick-ups for sign-in clubs, for a problem solely related to Bicker? After all, the board’s main argument, that pick-ups are awkward for hosed sophomores, holds neither for non-selective clubs nor for the small talent-based groups.
If we tabulate the numbers given in The Daily Princetonian for the number of individuals who bickered or first-round signed-in with the numbers of individuals eventually accepted into clubs, we find that roughly 260 people were hosed this year, of which 150 were placed in another club and 110 could not be placed in a club of their choice. Because 1,050 sophomores participated in either bickering or signing-in, only one of four individuals who wanted to be in eating clubs would potentially benefit from removing pick-ups. Looking at eating clubs alone, I find it extremely hard to believe that pick-ups are so incredibly awkward that the sum feelings of a fourth of bickerees outweigh the sum feelings of the other three quarters. The 150 who join another club after being hosed were clearly not so attached to their club of choice that it was the be-all-end-all which the editorial board implies, so are the remaining 110 really so significant in number as to merit ending pick-ups, not just for bicker clubs, but for the aforementioned groups as well?
Pick-ups provide a personal touch, an area in which initiations sometimes fall short. Pick-ups are about that warm feeling inside, that feeling of being wanted by 150 to 200 fellow undergraduates. That feeling is not easily replicable by any other single event. One cannot tell sophomores to come to the club and get the same effect: it’s all about the club coming to sophomores.
Indeed, getting a large group to move together leads to problems, but they are entirely surmountable. Pick-ups occur when it’s cold and icy, increasing the risk that someone may fall and get hurt. They may leave a mess, which is unfair for Princeton’s custodial staff. But the eating clubs already cooperate with the the University in ensuring clean, safe pick-ups. The essential concept of pick-ups, an entire club coming to one’s front door to personally pick them up, would continue to exist without spraying anything on anyone or anywhere.
We ought to focus on the positive message of pick-ups — welcoming new members — instead of acting as if Princetonians cannot handle any rejection whatsoever. We ought to treat sophomores as if they are emotionally mature enough to handle rejection, because honestly, they are. If we want to fix something, we should focus on creating a less painful and more sensitive Bicker system. We should focus on making pick-ups safer. But to demand that we abolish pick-ups in order to provide only a small benefit to a small minority, to the detriment of of everyone else, is absurd.
Christopher Troein is an economics major from Windsor, UK. He can be reached at ctroein@princeton.edu
Read More
Princeton, it’s time to implement media literacy training
Chloe CresswellSocial media platforms have failed to curb the exponential rise of online disinformation. To counter this, institutions like Princeton must increase public resilience through mandated media literacy training for its students.
Social media platforms have failed to curb the exponential rise of online disinformation. To counter this, institutions like Princeton must increase public resilience through mandated media literacy training for its students.
It’s time for a civic education requirement at Princeton
Kenneth ChanIvy League graduates have lost the trust and confidence of the American people. Princeton should renew its commitment to democratic values through a new civic education requirement.
Ivy League graduates have lost the trust and confidence of the American people. Princeton should renew its commitment to democratic values through a new civic education requirement.
Princeton should make Opening Exercises secular
Sasha Malena Johnson"Prayers and blessings are not relevant to a mandatory introductory event at a non-religious university. We should focus less on our Latin motto, “Under God’s Power She Flourishes,” and more on our unofficial motto, “In the Service of Humanity.”
"Prayers and blessings are not relevant to a mandatory introductory event at a non-religious university. We should focus less on our Latin motto, “Under God’s Power She Flourishes,” and more on our unofficial motto, “In the Service of Humanity.”
