Comment by Steko | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Steko | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Kevin Drum notes it's a weak result but if true, wonders if the authors draw the right conclusions:

suppose it’s true. Here’s what the authors say:

Our results indicate that college administrators face an important trade-off when they consider policies designed to limit fraternity life on campus: while such policies may significantly raise academic performance, these gains may come at a significant cost in terms of expected future income for their graduates.

I’d argue exactly the opposite: ... Allow me to reframe the authors’ conclusion:

Our results provide empirical evidence that fraternities are just another way for social elites to keep themselves at the top regardless of actual performance. Those rejected by fraternities, even though they have higher GPAs, earn 36 percent less than those accepted by fraternities. This is further evidence, if any were needed, that college administrators face few trade-offs when they consider policies designed to limit fraternity life on campus.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/09/new-report-fra...

Just an anecdote, but joining a fraternity drastically improved my social skills...and I personally believe these skills are fundamental when it comes to being successful in the work force. Not because being in a fraternity made me a member of a elite alumni group that excludes others, but because it allows me to be a more effective team member.

I have not doubt that I would be far less successful if I was as socially self-isolating as I was in high school. Not just successful as far as career trajectory, but just a less effective contributor. Most jobs require team efforts...which require social skills to navigate politely and effectively.

It is from this perspective I find the original conclusion more reserved and purely based on observed correlations, while the second infers much (regarding causation).

I'm pretty sure most people develop social skills in university regardless of whether they join a fraternity. Having a group of adult friends, freedom, roommates, etc, all prepare you for the real world.

Fraternities also prepare you for the ugly parts of the real world, though. The real world is full of elite clubs without meritocratic entrance criteria, and learning how to join one and function within one is certainly an advantage.

I would argue that removing this advantage from as many people as possible would make the system of society as a whole run better, though.

> I'm pretty sure most people develop social skills in university regardless of whether they join a fraternity

Being in a frat isn’t the only way to develop these skills. But lots of people coast through college without any non-academic social extracurricular exposure.

And lots of people don't. For the student, it sounds like a useful venue to learn social skills.

Not to mention your brothers will often push you into situations out of your comfort zone. OF COURSE this means you sometimes get peer pressured into making mistakes, that's part of growing up. However, my social skills went through the roof by constantly being "forced" to socialize and my own self-confidence grew immensely. Net positive for sure

Fraternities also prepare you for the ugly parts of the real world, though.

Nice stereotype.

Maybe you are not a "more effective team member" but only a "more team member."

Or, maybe, there's a difference between getting a good grade in the class, inside strictly controlled academic environment shaped by the college administration, and the real world where one has to deal with chaotic conditions of real life and social environments rarely covered by academic curriculum. And fraternity life improves social skills, and gives people tools that can make them successful outside of the strict conformance to the rules prescribed by the academy. And limiting access to those tools would only make future graduates less fit to meet the challenges of the open market.

>Those rejected by fraternities, even though they have higher GPAs, earn 36 percent less than those accepted by fraternities.

This is not a correct statement based on the abstract of the paper.

The group of people that did not join fraternities does not consist entirely of "those rejected by fraternities", but those who are rejected and those who didn't bother applying in the first place.

You want to watch out for when trains of thought become unscientific.

This part is science: "After carefully controlling for all variables, we can conclude that the choice to join a fraternity has these quantifiable downstream impacts, on average."

This part is just-so stories: "That happens because . . . "

I know it's aggravating, but to insist on a high degree of caution in demonstrating a truth and then to insist on none when it comes to interpreting it lends reckless thinking an undeserved veneer of respectability.

You had me at "social elites".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com