Fix Bicker, not wording

Under Durkee’s plan, sophomores would hear: “Congrats, welcome to your second-choice club,” which is only a weak disguise for, “You didn’t get into your first-choice club.” Princetonians will see through this clearly and plainly. Princeton sophomores are smart enough to recognize that being hosed directly by a bicker club or indirectly via acceptance to a sign-in club are equivalent. Consider that those hosed represent only a small fraction of new members in sign-in clubs and that moving the date for being accepted into a sign-in club will, invariably, result in the loss of sign-in week. How can one celebrate the acceptance of new members without new members? Altering the date of being accepted into a sign-in club would therefore affect a large number of people with a negligible benefit to a relatively small number of hosed students.

The Durkee plan misses that being hosed hurts partially because successfully bickering a club requires a heavy investment. Sophomores have to seek support from their member friends, invest time and energy in meeting and greeting new people, and muster stamina to have fun while seeming fun yourself. Bicker is an intense process that gets worse when starting new classes is thrown into the mix. The people who are willing to make that investment are clearly much more deeply committed to their club of choice than the average Princetonian. This kind of committed membership makes for a healthier, more engaged club community; however, it also makes for more depressed hosed students, because this kind of person wants membership more.

Compounding that investment of time and energy is the staking of one’s reputation on Bicker. A sophomore who is not being seen at Bicker is bickering wrong. For a one-week period at the start of the spring semester, the events during Bicker and sign-in week dominate campus conversations. In this environment, it is difficult to keep one’s choice of bicker club secret. Rejection normally hurts, but public rejection stings even more.

Changing how one finds out about being hosed does not affect the embarrassment and the sunk cost of time and effort. By preventing sophomores from bickering more than one club, the current structure of Bicker encourages sophomores to unnecessarily put all their eggs in one basket, so to speak. Only a multi-club system for joining clubs can reduce how dependent sophomores are on any singular club for acceptance.

Charter’s new sign-in system points to a way in which multi-club Bicker may work without upending the Street. Charter’s system prioritizes sophomores who come to Charter events during the months prior to signing in, so sophomores are free to pursue Charter and other clubs simultaneously. Since sophomores are picked-up by their new clubs the day after they have submitted their preferences to the Princeton Prospect Foundation, sophomores can easily disguise their preferences and can easily prevent embarrassment by claiming they got into their top choice club. While Charter’s system will need change to suit the needs of Bicker, the system is evidence that some sort of multi-club system is entirely feasible if the Princeton community is willing to accept it.

Bicker will never be completely pain-free, but the pain of being hosed can be ameliorated. Changing the process of joining eating clubs should focus on reducing the overall negative feelings of all, rather than making the many sacrifice for a negligible benefit for the few. Reducing the pain of getting hosed is a fine idea, but the Durkee plan hurts members of sign-in clubs without fixing the problems at hand. At least in regards to getting hosed, multi-club Bicker is the solution the Street needs, not the Durkee Plan.

Christopher Troein is an economics major from Windsor, England. He can be reached at ctroein@princeton.edu.