All clubs have consented to the first two components, but only Cap & Gown Club, Tiger Inn, Cottage Club and Cannon Dial Elm Club have agreed to participate in the dual-club bicker system. Their reasoning is twofold. First, they believe the dual-club system will encourage students to look at more options when bickering. A common complaint about the bicker process is that students become attached to a club and their Princeton experience suffers if they are not admitted. Allowing students to bicker two clubs simultaneously will encourage students to diversify their interest in clubs and not become overly attached to one club.
Second, some argue that the bicker system harms students who cannot gain admission to a bicker club. If these students are not admitted, they continue to bicker until they are admitted. These students will likely have better odds of gaining admission in a dual-club system, because they will be able to bicker twice as many clubs during each season.
Though we understand this reasoning, we believe the arguments made by the two bicker clubs choosing not to participate in the dual-club system, Tower and Ivy, make very good points. Both cited distinctive features of their bicker processes as their reason for not participating. Their concerns both centered on the possibility that the dual-club system would standardize the bicker process for all clubs, harming all involved.
Tower was concerned that the five-hour maximum given for bickering would significantly alter its bicker process and that discussions would also be constrained, hindering its goal of giving each bickeree as much time as possible to get to know the club and be given a fair chance during discussions. Ivy also indicated that it was concerned about the implications of dual-club Bicker for its traditional “10 interview” bicker process and was not prepared to enter into the new system until it knew what the ramifications would be for its members and bickerees.
Though there are certainly benefits to allowing students to bicker two clubs, not putting all their eggs in one basket, there are also real concerns that should have been addressed before choosing to go forward with the new system. The dual-club system could actually undermine the goals of the ICC, creating an unfair advantage for students with affiliation instead of opening up the process. It is also possible that the time constraints of the new process will mean bickerees will not get to know a club and its members, harming both the bickerees and the club. We wish the ICC would have considered the actual effects of the new plan, instead of the theoretical benefits.
Read More
Princeton should incorporate well-being days into the academic calendar
Isaac BarsoumPrinceton must commit to ending its mental health crisis by making long-term care accessible, appointing a zero-suicide czar –– and yes, incorporating well-being days into the academic calendar –– to make the Princeton experience happier, healthier, and safer.
Princeton, why don’t you care about the working class?
Raf Basas“Princeton is an engine that currently transforms a few thousand people per year, using incredible academic, career, and financial resources, into influential decision-makers. It should turn them into compassionate and public-minded ones, too. Princeton students can and should become allies of the working class.”
“Princeton is an engine that currently transforms a few thousand people per year, using incredible academic, career, and financial resources, into influential decision-makers. It should turn them into compassionate and public-minded ones, too. Princeton students can and should become allies of the working class.”
Princeton, break up with BP
Alex Norbrook and Ryan Divan“BP cannot be considered a credible climate partner for Princeton’s research, and its relationship cannot continue.”
“BP cannot be considered a credible climate partner for Princeton’s research, and its relationship cannot continue.”
