I spent two grueling weekends going through recruitment. I woke up as early as 7:00am on a Saturday to do my hair and makeup and head to a Furman Hall classroom to meet before heading off to up to seven "parties," where strangers would grab me by the arm and start a random conversation. After hours of parties, I went back to decide where I thought I belonged and where I didn't. The next morning, it started all over again, except this time, I went to the Furman Hall classroom to see what sororities had "dropped" me. And let me tell you, each drop hurt.
Now why the hell would anyone want to go through this?
Throughout high school and my first semester of college, though I did have friends, they were never genuine. They never cared about me. And although many believe sorority sisterhoods to be superficial, I wanted to give it a shot. And the room that I walked into on bid day contained some of the most genuine, compassionate girls I have ever met.
It wasn't all for the friends though. I will never explicitly pay for friends. I wanted to go to functions, help with community service, gain a networking system for after college, and of course, get a whole bunch of T-shirts in the process.
Though Greek life can cost a lot of money, my sorority does offer scholarships, which I plan to take full advantage of. Also, my dues are nearly half of the national sorority average (and this average doesn't even include the house that many Greek women have to pay for!).
Additionally, I was never once hazed, which was a concern of both me and my family. Though hazing seems to be more common in fraternities than sororities, it does sometimed happen to Greek women. My sorority, however, has an incredibly strict anti-hazing policy that goes even beyond the policy implemented by Furman Panhellenic. For instance, pledges (referred to as "new members") are not allowed to drive active sisters anywhere, even if it's just a trip to YOMO or to a movie together. Essentially, anything that can be considered bitch work is hazing.
As cost and hazing are some of the biggest factors that can keep people from going through recruitment, I can honestly say that if I could go back, I would do it all over again.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Growing up in Utah, California, and then South Carolina, I've experienced a lot of culture shock, as well as different aspects of racism.
The first thing people ask when I say I was born in Utah is usually "Oh, so are you Mormon?" While I am not, my family is, and I grew up learning a lot of Mormon doctrine and ideology. Something that I find very interesting (and honestly sickening) about the Latter-Day Saints (LDS) Church is that, until 1978, blacks were given a very low-class status. In the Broadway show "The Book of Mormon," it is even jokingly sung that "I believe that in 1978, God changed his mind about black people." This is not the only racism faced in Utah, though. Hispanics are a large part of the Utah population, but some of their white counterparts will make jokes about them being "beaners" or that they are only good for landscaping and house maids. Again, I was very young when I lived in Utah, but when I visit, I've noticed these tendencies and immediately feel uncomfortable.
I'm going to skip over my time in California for now, as my experiences in South Carolina are more closely related to those in Utah. Aiken, South Carolina is split between the predominately white south side and the predominately black north side. It is even said that if a white person and a black person wreck on the north side, the white person will be at fault, but if it happens on the south side, the black person will be at fault. This is absolutely sickening.
In California, I lived near San Francisco, which is largely blends many cultures, from Asian cultures to Hispanic cultures, and beyond. In comparison to Utah, and especially to South Carolina, racism was not as big, at least that I have noticed. Maybe the answer to racism, then, is to include an area for different cultures, as San Francisco has Chinatown and areas for other cultures. Unfortunately, though, this may seem to promote segregation, allotting different areas for different cultures.
The first thing people ask when I say I was born in Utah is usually "Oh, so are you Mormon?" While I am not, my family is, and I grew up learning a lot of Mormon doctrine and ideology. Something that I find very interesting (and honestly sickening) about the Latter-Day Saints (LDS) Church is that, until 1978, blacks were given a very low-class status. In the Broadway show "The Book of Mormon," it is even jokingly sung that "I believe that in 1978, God changed his mind about black people." This is not the only racism faced in Utah, though. Hispanics are a large part of the Utah population, but some of their white counterparts will make jokes about them being "beaners" or that they are only good for landscaping and house maids. Again, I was very young when I lived in Utah, but when I visit, I've noticed these tendencies and immediately feel uncomfortable.
I'm going to skip over my time in California for now, as my experiences in South Carolina are more closely related to those in Utah. Aiken, South Carolina is split between the predominately white south side and the predominately black north side. It is even said that if a white person and a black person wreck on the north side, the white person will be at fault, but if it happens on the south side, the black person will be at fault. This is absolutely sickening.
In California, I lived near San Francisco, which is largely blends many cultures, from Asian cultures to Hispanic cultures, and beyond. In comparison to Utah, and especially to South Carolina, racism was not as big, at least that I have noticed. Maybe the answer to racism, then, is to include an area for different cultures, as San Francisco has Chinatown and areas for other cultures. Unfortunately, though, this may seem to promote segregation, allotting different areas for different cultures.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Abortion
I think Daniel did a fantastic job at discussing the abortion issue while noting the biases he has that naturally come with the topic, and pushing them aside to dig deeper into the issue.
One point that was not raised though, is the quality of life of the child-to-be. For instance, in the very extreme example that the mother and father are crack addicts that are one the road to spending their lives in jail, the child will most likely be put through an orphanage/adoption agency/foster homes or sent to live with other family members, such as grandparents. In the first scenario, the child will grow up with many unanswered questions, most commonly why their parents didn't "want" them, or if their parents are even alive. In the second, the child has too many answers in that they know the fate of their parents and are left to deal with the repercussions left on the rest of the family.
While adoption is absolutely fantastic, there is an alarming number of children in orphanages and foster care. Furthermore, foster care is especially stressful for children because they are moving around and constantly having to get used to different living environments and friends, and often can even be separated from their own sibling(s) eventually.
These experiences are likely to cause children and adolescents to develop mental health problems, and can even lead to suicide. Doesn't this defeat the purpose of saving this life?
My point is that, if we are looking at this issue from an equality standpoint, the equality of life quality must be considered. If a child is going to be miserable because the parents know from the beginning that they will be unable to provide an adequate life for the child, maybe abortion should be an option.
One point that was not raised though, is the quality of life of the child-to-be. For instance, in the very extreme example that the mother and father are crack addicts that are one the road to spending their lives in jail, the child will most likely be put through an orphanage/adoption agency/foster homes or sent to live with other family members, such as grandparents. In the first scenario, the child will grow up with many unanswered questions, most commonly why their parents didn't "want" them, or if their parents are even alive. In the second, the child has too many answers in that they know the fate of their parents and are left to deal with the repercussions left on the rest of the family.
While adoption is absolutely fantastic, there is an alarming number of children in orphanages and foster care. Furthermore, foster care is especially stressful for children because they are moving around and constantly having to get used to different living environments and friends, and often can even be separated from their own sibling(s) eventually.
These experiences are likely to cause children and adolescents to develop mental health problems, and can even lead to suicide. Doesn't this defeat the purpose of saving this life?
My point is that, if we are looking at this issue from an equality standpoint, the equality of life quality must be considered. If a child is going to be miserable because the parents know from the beginning that they will be unable to provide an adequate life for the child, maybe abortion should be an option.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Education
Putting too much of an emphasis on academic courses, no matter the interests of the specific student, is detrimental to education. When children do not enjoy what they are learning, they are less likely to do as well in school. Unfortunately, students generally do not have an opportunity to choose their curriculum until college, and by this point, the idea of education has been tainted, causing students to be less likely to want to continue their education after high school.
Even in college, some majors, though the students may enjoy them, are ridiculed, particularly arts and many social sciences. Since these majors are less likely to lead to a high paying job, students are generally pushed away from these paths. For instance, philosophy has a reputation of being a joke of a major, even in media. In an episode of Archer, the main character comes across a philosophy major. He asks what he can even do with that major, and the philosophy major replies that he can teach philosophy. Archer then ridicules him, saying he's just feeding into the cycle.
This ridicule can be much more personal. When a family member asks someone what they are majoring in, and the answer is not a STEM major, which generally leads to a better job, the ridicule ensues.
From a young age, children are forced to believe that arts aren't important, and that all that matters is Common Core. You focus on English, History, Science, and Math, and nothing else really matters.
The most disturbing fact is that this false belief that non-Common Core studies are "bad" doesn't stop after grade school. Students need to be pushed to enjoy their education, from kindergarten through graduate school.
Even in college, some majors, though the students may enjoy them, are ridiculed, particularly arts and many social sciences. Since these majors are less likely to lead to a high paying job, students are generally pushed away from these paths. For instance, philosophy has a reputation of being a joke of a major, even in media. In an episode of Archer, the main character comes across a philosophy major. He asks what he can even do with that major, and the philosophy major replies that he can teach philosophy. Archer then ridicules him, saying he's just feeding into the cycle.
This ridicule can be much more personal. When a family member asks someone what they are majoring in, and the answer is not a STEM major, which generally leads to a better job, the ridicule ensues.
From a young age, children are forced to believe that arts aren't important, and that all that matters is Common Core. You focus on English, History, Science, and Math, and nothing else really matters.
The most disturbing fact is that this false belief that non-Common Core studies are "bad" doesn't stop after grade school. Students need to be pushed to enjoy their education, from kindergarten through graduate school.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Animal Rights and Human Health
As a former vegetarian, I am completely on board with animal rights. The only reason I began eating meat again was because of health problems. Therefore, I understand the consumption of chicken and other meats for nutrients, but I don't see the point in slaying animals that will only lead to health risks. Why kill dolphins to eat when you are only subjecting yourself to unhealthy mercury levels, and thus producing the exact opposite of health benefits?
I understand that tradition is a big deal, particularly in Eastern countries. But this specific tradition should be minimized, so as not to risk the health of Japanese citizens. If there was a festival each year where people ate the dolphin meat, it would then not only be an isolated occurrence, but dolphin meat consumption, and therefore mercury consumption would decrease because citizens would not be eating it as much or as frequently.
We must also understand that these animals have feelings just as we humans do (yeah, I'm a hippie, I know). It might be a hard idea to grasp, but these animals live and feel and yes--they have emotions. Not only are these fishermen/hunters cruelly killing some of these animals, but they are also subjecting the survivors to emotional trauma. As Hana pointed out, when these animals are separated from their mother, for example, they can suffer from depression. This can often cause animals to lose weight, and eventually decrease the population size as a whole. So, not only are the hunters directly killing a species by spearing dolphins, but they are also indirectly killing a species by inducing emotional trauma.
I understand that tradition is a big deal, particularly in Eastern countries. But this specific tradition should be minimized, so as not to risk the health of Japanese citizens. If there was a festival each year where people ate the dolphin meat, it would then not only be an isolated occurrence, but dolphin meat consumption, and therefore mercury consumption would decrease because citizens would not be eating it as much or as frequently.
We must also understand that these animals have feelings just as we humans do (yeah, I'm a hippie, I know). It might be a hard idea to grasp, but these animals live and feel and yes--they have emotions. Not only are these fishermen/hunters cruelly killing some of these animals, but they are also subjecting the survivors to emotional trauma. As Hana pointed out, when these animals are separated from their mother, for example, they can suffer from depression. This can often cause animals to lose weight, and eventually decrease the population size as a whole. So, not only are the hunters directly killing a species by spearing dolphins, but they are also indirectly killing a species by inducing emotional trauma.
Study Abroad
College is the perfect time to be able to travel, particularly at Furman. Furman-sponsored study away programs are covered by tuition, so why not travel for the cost you would be paying anyway?
Personally, I've never left the country, and that is exactly my motivation to do so. While I have my preferences (somewhere I can speak English and be okay, please...), I am willing to travel anywhere, because I want experiences outside of the United States.
I am aiming to study in Edinburgh, Scotland. This program is not only a chance to study away, but also an opportunity to have an internship in a foreign country. I would hope to intern either with a psychiatrist, or with the Scottish parliament, in order to compare US and Scottish mental health policies.
After college, when most former undergraduate students either venture into the work force or into graduate school, there is not as much of an opportunity to travel, particularly for people who plan on having a family.
College is full of so many opportunities that I believe all students should try to take advantage of. Possibly one of the biggest of these opportunities is the chance to leave the United States, learning not only your curriculum, but also the culture and lifestyle of other countries.
Personally, I've never left the country, and that is exactly my motivation to do so. While I have my preferences (somewhere I can speak English and be okay, please...), I am willing to travel anywhere, because I want experiences outside of the United States.
I am aiming to study in Edinburgh, Scotland. This program is not only a chance to study away, but also an opportunity to have an internship in a foreign country. I would hope to intern either with a psychiatrist, or with the Scottish parliament, in order to compare US and Scottish mental health policies.
After college, when most former undergraduate students either venture into the work force or into graduate school, there is not as much of an opportunity to travel, particularly for people who plan on having a family.
College is full of so many opportunities that I believe all students should try to take advantage of. Possibly one of the biggest of these opportunities is the chance to leave the United States, learning not only your curriculum, but also the culture and lifestyle of other countries.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Sports and Money
Jack raised a very interesting point in his blog post, asking why athletes should be paid millions of dollars for their hobby, while others enjoy their hobby for no salary at all. Personally, I can (grudgingly) admit that I don't have an athletic bone in my body. I tried to play soccer in middle school, only to face a surgery as well as the more athletic boys on my team making fun of me. These two events led to me putting my cleats up for good. Not only will I never make millions kicking a ball around, but my parents paid for me to play as a child. Sure, this failed attempt at athleticism only left my parents with maybe seventy dollars wasted, but honestly, I think that's a much better option than being paid for a hobby.
If you love doing something, such as playing a sport, I don't think it's such a bad idea to have to pay to perform this hobby, even as a professional. This requires professionals to have another job in order to pay for their hobby. It also eliminates athletes who are only in it for the money, while keeping those who play out of passion, making for a much more meaningful game.
Though this has a huge potential to decrease the level of competition, this might be a good thing for our over-competitive country.
I will admit that this proposal has many gaps and potential disadvantages, such as the lack of sports scholarships that may allow students to get a better education than they would originally be able to afford. In this case, while it is important for students to be acknowledged for their talent as well as academic merit, those who rely wholly on sports scholarships, which may have lower academic standards, may not benefit from a more academically-heavy schools. These students may choose one school over another for monetary reasons, but be better off at another school that has lower academic standards.
This is only an idea, and as it stands, it would not work. But I do believe it is something to consider.
If you love doing something, such as playing a sport, I don't think it's such a bad idea to have to pay to perform this hobby, even as a professional. This requires professionals to have another job in order to pay for their hobby. It also eliminates athletes who are only in it for the money, while keeping those who play out of passion, making for a much more meaningful game.
Though this has a huge potential to decrease the level of competition, this might be a good thing for our over-competitive country.
I will admit that this proposal has many gaps and potential disadvantages, such as the lack of sports scholarships that may allow students to get a better education than they would originally be able to afford. In this case, while it is important for students to be acknowledged for their talent as well as academic merit, those who rely wholly on sports scholarships, which may have lower academic standards, may not benefit from a more academically-heavy schools. These students may choose one school over another for monetary reasons, but be better off at another school that has lower academic standards.
This is only an idea, and as it stands, it would not work. But I do believe it is something to consider.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)