Clubs in talks about multi-club Bicker

According to Durkee, the clubs began discussing the possibility of revising the Bicker system last year. In its report released in 2010, the Task Force on the Relationships between the University and the Eating Clubs — which was chaired by Durkee — recommended that the clubs adopt a form of multi-club selection based loosely on the matching system used by medical schools. “From the University’s perspective, I believe there are significant potential benefits to students, the clubs and the University that could be achieved through improvements in the admission process,” Durkee said in an email.

It is unclear how many of the clubs, if any, support the proposal under discussion. In the report, the Task Force noted that the multi-club system would address concerns about the exclusivity of Bicker raised by alumni, current students and prospective students. But others argue that a multi-club system could pose logistical issues by increasing the pool of students bickering each club and could potentially disadvantage students who are truly interested in one club in particular.

The presidents of Cannon Club, Cap & Gown Club, Ivy Club, Tiger Inn and Tower Club declined to comment, deferring to Interclub Council adviser Christopher Merrick ’08. Merrick said the ICC has “nothing to announce at this time.” The president of Cottage Club did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Selective clubs used a multi-club Bicker system to admit new members into the 1980s, but students began to bicker fewer and fewer clubs when it became clear that students who bickered only one club had a better chance of gaining admission.

The Task Force recommended returning to a similar type of system, suggesting that sophomores submit a ranked list of selective and non-selective clubs that they would want to be a part of. The selective clubs would then submit a ranked list of the sophomores they want to accept, while the sign-in clubs would not submit such a list. A computer program would match sophomores with the highest-ranking club on their list that also had space for them.

Similar efforts by the University and the clubs to implement a multi-club Bicker system have fallen through in the past, most recently in 1999. In the report, the task force noted that the system would be more respectful of the privacy of students who were not admitted to their first-choice club. Under the current system, every student who is unsuccessful at Bicker is known to have been rejected from their first-choice club, while in the new system unsuccessful bickerees could be placed in a lower-choice selective club without anyone knowing it was not their first choice.

Furthermore, the report noted that a multi-club Bicker system would be “much easier to describe to potential applicants and admitted students,” because there would be more options for students who are hosed from their first-choice bicker club.