Lit. Review #1: Paying for the Party

Paying for the Party is the accumulation of over four years worth of observation from the watchful and thorough eyes of Elizabeth Armstrong and Laura Hamilton. They took in a group of researchers, set up camp in a freshman girl party dorm, and proceeded to follow the girls on that floor throughout and beyond their undergraduate years. There's a large focus on Greek life, particularly "elite" sororities, and how they affect the girls' self-perception, social and financial status, and where it leads them academically.

Elizabeth Armstrong is an Assistant Professor of Sociology and Organizational Studies at the University of Michigan and has a PhD in Sociology from the University of California-Berkeley.

Laura Hamilton is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of California-Merced and has a PhD in sociology from Indiana University.

Even though Hamilton and Armstrong don't address the four types of sororities/fraternities, they do label and explain what they've come to see as three main types of students and their choice of "college pathways": "The party pathway is provisioned to support the affluent and socially oriented; the mobility pathway is designed for the pragmatic and vocationally oriented; and the professional pathway fits ambitious students from privileged families" (Armstrong 15). They have taken away half of my work because not only do they consider personality but financial, social, and class background. This fits in with my idea to assign a certain type of student into a certain type of fraternity. For example, those in the party pathway tend to swat towards social fraternities while those in professional or mobility pathways may prefer academic or professional fraternities.

However, one thing I will have to consider is that these interviews and observations were made strictly in terms of the female population. From what I've read so far, very little is mentioned of fraternity brothers other than describing social interactions with the project's girls. Armstrong and Hamilton conducted their research with the mindset that "women are well represented among those oriented to achievement" (Armstrong 14). They expect the women they interview to want to achieve some modicum of success, whether it be in a social, academic, or professional setting. They also rely on the idea that "monetary and career success... have traditionally been in competition [for women]" (Armstrong 14). While both statements are true, it means that the goal for these researchers wasn't about identifying groups of people but rather how each group of women tend to go about searching for a method to success. I am in pursuit of a more unisex observation.

Citation:
Armstrong, Elizabeth and Laura Hamilton. Paying for the Party: How College                 Maintains Inequality. Harvard 2013.

Greek Life costs money, yo

There're all sorts of Greek life. I mean, Armstrong and Hamilton tended to focus more on the "exclusive" houses but other groups aren't as high maintenance. Which leads the conversation into monetary spending.

Colleges and "elite" Greek groups do support privatization because colleges need money to run, well, the college and the higher-up-the-totem-pole a frat or sorority is, the more money it's occupants tend to spend even if they can't strictly afford it. For instance, Blair, a middle class girl in a house full of upper class girls, said that the careless spending of her pledge mates "'boggles her mind... how much people spend on clothes or jewelry or things... on dad's credit card and just swipe it and you'll be fine'" (Armstrong 125). From personal experience, I know for a fact that some houses require its members to pay up to three grand a semester to stay. That's a ridiculous amount of money for a social club and it's practically shutting out people from lower economic backgrounds. 

But there are other types of Greek life too. Other Greeks, especially smaller, newer chapters, ask anywhere from around 800 to 250 as a one time fee, a huge drop from the long bill that racks up from being part of an older fraternity. These tend to be specialized houses, such as those targeted for a specific ethnicity, religion, profession, or hobby. They are targeting a type of student not based on financial situation but on social terms. If they added financial restrictions as well, such as expensive dues, then they would have a harder time finding members. 

Ok I got this now.

Right, so apparently there're four, not three, types of fraternities/sororities: social, professional, community and ACADEMIC. My goodness. Honestly, I'm still not one hundred percent clear on the subtle differences between the types but here's what I've made of it so far.

Social: They're here to mingle, socialize, and in general be a huge club with Greek letters; take in all majors but may be picky when it comes to internal standards
Community: Service, a lot of philanthropy which they take seriously; also open to all majors
Academic: Based on GPA and school; get in touch with more academic organizations; more restrictive when it comes to majors but not as much as professional
Professional: usually limited to specific majors; about getting to know the landscape in specific areas

And ALL of them are about getting connections and being part of a group.

via: http://fraternityhq.com/the-4-different-types-of-fraternities/
http://classroom.synonym.com/types-fraternities-4750.html

But besides those four, there're other ways to label a frat, as so Total Frat Movie and its butt munch author "Bacon" has informed me. Their standards for what makes a house "respectable" is exactly why I had wanted to avoid Greek life in the first place.
http://totalfratmove.com/four-types-of-top-tier-fraternities/
http://totalfratmove.com/types-of-bottom-tier-fraternities/
http://theblacksheeponline.com/article/top-10-different-types-of-fraternities

But those aside, I think I'm going to have to get a full copy of Paying for the Party by Armstrong and Hamilton. As helpful random, informal college articles are in helping me get a broad idea of my topic, actual research results would add more security to my stance.

Right, I'm also going to be examining the Rutgers Greek life in particular. It's convenient because it's close to home and I could get interviews from brothers, sisters, and pledges.

RU Greek Homepage: http://getinvolved.rutgers.edu/fraternities-and-sororities

So in simpler terms, my project will revolve around the differences between the four types of fraternities and what influences each of their members to go for that particular house.

This is getting serious (kind of maybe ok not really)

For the next three months or so this particular blog will be dedicated to analyzing the motivations of rushees, college students who decide to "try out" for various Greek houses. There are three main divisions in Greek life: professional, social, and community. Who tries for which type? Why choose to rush at all? As much as some are drawn to fraternities and sororities, why are others repelled? In what terms do they view the rush process?

Granted, right now my thoughts are a bit scattered willy nilly but I plan to have a much more concrete idea down by next week.