The Proliferation of Clubs
Posted on October 27th, 2007 in Uncategorized | 22 Comments »
In the Globe, Linda Wertheimer writes that the number of student groups at Harvard has soared.
Harvard now recognizes nearly 400 clubs, up from 240 a decade ago, while the number at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has doubled to 508 over that period. Dartmouth College has more than 200 groups, a 25 percent jump.
Sounds like a good thing, right? Not necessarily. It’s possible that some kids are starting groups just because they’d rather run something than be just one member of a group. Some of the organizations are redundant, and they all put pressure on the finite amount of funding for student groups.
“The high-achieving students come here and want to run something,” said Judith Kidd, Harvard College’s associate dean of student life. “What I try to tell students is: ‘Most of you will not be Bill Gates. You need to learn how to work within an organization.‘ “
That is just a fascinating quote. I would have thought that a college dean might be sending the message, “You can be whatever you want to be, you’re a Harvard student.” Which is, after all, pretty much the way the college markets itself.
I’m not saying that Kidd is wrong, but it’s curious to hear a dean tell students that not all of them were meant to be leaders, some are supposed to be followers.
Not sure if that argument would really work on your Harvard application essay….
Wertheimer fails to note one stunningly obvious reason for the growth in clubs: the Internet, and, in particular, Facebook, which allows for much easier student communication and cohesion than was possible in the pre- e-mail, pre-social networking days.
22 Responses
10/27/2007 9:59 am
Although I’m not sure Kidd is communicating effectively as an educator in this quotation, I agree with her and not with you. Students in the College DO need to learn to be followers, and work collaboratively. Forming a new group means visibility but not necessarily substance. A good education is not necessarily about becoming more prominent — I’m a pretty decent example of that, actually, though not in this space.
Meanwhile, certain old student groups continue to populate the lives and thoughts of their members in unhealthy and counter-educational ways. I logged on in fact in order to post another installment in the series: Why I (Often) Contemn the IOP and Deplore Its Impact on Students in the College.
Here is a story about the K-School event at which Dana Priest, an important investigative reporter, was awarded a prize for his work in uncovering secret prisons in Eastern Europe.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=520347
Q’s: And who did the audience at this event have inflicted on it? What specific substance was purveyed to those students who came to the grad school in public policy to celebrate the role of the Fourth Estate? And what are the quotations the reporter chose to represent this intellectual exchange?
A’s:
— Maureen Dowd. (The person responsible more than any other columnist for George W. Bush’s election and therefore for the presence of CIA secret prisons in Eastern Europe.)
http://tinyurl.com/389lck
— “Dowdâs speech, filled with incisive one-liners, spanned a wide range of topics, from the current war in Iraq to Shakespeareâs âOthelloâ to the presidential campaign of comedian Stephen Colbert.”
http://tinyurl.com/2krtqy
— “‘âIf Rudy Giuliani can be a Red Sox fan, then anything can happen,’ she concluded with a smile.”
http://tinyurl.com/3dg29u
I mean, ARE YOU KIDDING ME? THIS is the fricking Kennedy School of Government 2007 Theodore H. White Lecture on journalism and politics? This is a woman who stands for frivolity, and SPECIFICALLY for the frivolity that reduced Al Gore to a cartoon and elevated George Bush to a legitimate candidate for the presidency.
What a disgrace.
What an embarrassment to Harvard its treatment of national politics is.
{And yes, I know, technically this wasn’t an IOP event. But this is the spirit of tomfoolery at a time of national crisis that the IOP exemplifies to its members, who are students at what is supposed to be a serious college preparing them for real citizenship.}
Standing Eagle
FUMING
Try this one on: great book:
http://tinyurl.com/3csz93
10/27/2007 11:07 am
Judith Kidd is showing her age. She should have said, “Most of you will not be Mark Zuckerberg.” It’s this specific example, of someone who is exactly their peer (half the senior class are older than him), starting his multi-billion dollar empire in his river house dorm, that has probably done the most to create the effect she’s talking about.
Think of how Facebook started, after all. M-Zuck was working with another group of student programmers, then broke off and formed his own.
10/27/2007 11:09 am
PS Dana Priest is a woman, SE. You’re thinking of my friend Dana Milbank, also of the Post, who is indeed a man and even, one might say, quite manly.
10/27/2007 11:18 am
Actually, eadw, Zuckerberg was hardly working with the Winklevosses at all. They had almost no claim on him and had done no collaboration.
I fully expect them eventually to be laughed out of court when a judge gets a look at the code MZ wrote.
Amazing how much that kid is now worth.
Don’t ask how I know all this stuff.
SE
10/27/2007 11:24 am
Judith Kidd is right on target. Students are doing so many extracurriculars now that it’s hard to see how they find time to study. I had one student who started two different splinter orgnaizations and then became depressed when the members she had recruited dropped out. Her plans for leadership just weren’t working out, and she was miserable. She told me that she was trying to find funding for a conference she was putting together for one of these organizations. What would the conference be on, I asked? She didn’t know, but it would have to have some kind of speaker. I found out about all of this because it was clear she was having trouble getting her work done in my course. It would have been much better if, instead if feeling under pressure to demonstrate leadership, she had simply belonged to a group where she was welcomed and where she could have worked productively.
10/27/2007 11:28 am
Couple things:
I didn’t say JK was wrong, just that it was an interesting note of realism to strike. Just wanted to clarify that.
Second, SE, how do you know that? My impression was that it was pretty murky.
10/27/2007 11:36 am
Now you’ve done it! You asked.
The accounts in the Crimson and on a blog or two are actually pretty clear if you read it with accurate background in mind.
How I got THAT background is the OTHER embarrassing part…. The point was only that I’m pretty confident that MZ was no collaborative type while on campus. (Although one thing he invented was a Web-based review tool for a final exam that lots of people used.)
SE
10/27/2007 1:25 pm
Maureen Dowd is a journalistic “buster” for sure.
Imagine I show my age by being thoroughly unimpressed by Zuckerberg or Facebook. Guess I should only say Facebook since don’t know the kid. To me, the functionality and presentation of these social networking pages reminds me of the low-rent websites of the 90s - cutting edge they ain’t. Perhaps the real reason I’m not a fan is that they encourage the basest pursuits of social networking (he/she with the most friends wins). Not to mention a proliferation of tackiness, never a good thing.
Can somebody explain to me how Facebook isn’t just a refashioning of Myspace. It came first, no?
10/27/2007 6:44 pm
Don’t ask how I know all this stuff.
SE
SE. Some of us know how you know this stuff because we know who you are. All one had to do is piece together a few key comments that you made (who could possible know some of this stuff about disparate areas of the university, particularly the FAS) over the last six months and talk with a few people and bingo, there was SE.
Not that difficult.
10/27/2007 6:58 pm
Just Asking,
I’ve been saying from the get-go that anyone who knows me would recognize me quickly.
I’m not so convinced that you do though…. But no biggie.
Does anyone want to defend the Kennedy School on the charge of venality? It’s pathetic really.
SE
10/27/2007 8:28 pm
So who is SE, Just Asking? Many of us still can’t figure it out.
10/28/2007 12:07 am
8:28
If you’re not very familiar with the University, you probably won’t figure it out. If you are, just go back and read various pieces and see what SE said.I thought it was obvious a few months ago,but in the last several weeks the clues became even more clear.
10/28/2007 10:38 am
8.28 here … actually I’me very familiar with the university; and so are a couple others who read here every day and that includes reading SE over months. And we still can’t figure out who he is.
10/28/2007 11:44 am
Dear Standing Eagle,
Thank you for posting more thoughts on the IOP. I owe you a response to your thoughtful earlier posting and will make one eventually.
Since we’re on the game of your identity, if you’re who I think you are, I owe you many thanks for your patience with me. I may also still owe you a document, but be assured the topic has now become my life’s eventual work.
And to Mr. Bradley: As someone only a few years out of the “crimson bubble,” I enjoy reading your blog.
10/28/2007 12:33 pm
Not ashamed to admit that I read here every day and don’t have a clue about our SITD “deep throat.”
Then again, I’ve never given it any thought. In fact, I sort of like not knowing. But now it’s an itch, so time to put on my gumshoes…
As Michael Douglas said in “The Game” (underrated, imho):
“I’m pulling back the curtain…I want to meet the wizard.”
Question for Richard: Do you think you know?
10/28/2007 12:39 pm
Honestly, no. I have no idea. I’m curious…but I also enjoy SE’s anonymity.
10/28/2007 12:47 pm
Richard, just read your criticism of Kidd’s comment on membership. She may or may not have said it just right, but her point is a very valid one: Harvard and other U.S. institutions need to place a value on committed citizenship and being a cooperative member, not just sort people into “leaders” and “followers.” Organizations work best when everyone pitches in and leadership is a shared function. No one needs to hear that message more than Harvard students. In general, Harvard is a place where everyone organizes things that noone else attends.
10/28/2007 12:52 pm
Folks keep getting this wrong; I didn’t criticize Kidd, just said that it’s an unexpected comment. It feels honest, which is striking-but it’s also not the message that Harvard generally sends to its students and the world, so there’s an interesting tension there.
10/28/2007 1:06 pm
A lot of these clubs are probably on the books but functionally nonexistent … or just clever kids figuring out how to funnel money to themselves for whatever they feel like doing.
10/28/2007 1:17 pm
Furthermore, SE, read the New Yorker article (if you haven’t already), a lot of the current big ideas in the tech industry (as well as in science, paging Dr. Watson …) weren’t exactly stolen but didn’t originate entirely in the minds of their nominal creators either. Case in point: The mouse and the graphical user interface (from Xerox Park), subsequently lifted by Apple, and later by Microsoft.
Zuckerberg was originally hired by a couple of guys (probably bored rich kids) with an idea for something like Facebook, but who couldn’t hack, and since Zuckerberg was the guy with the tools to actually do the job he was able to figure out how to make it better, and after doing so he decided he’d just ignore his previous backers. When he needed money later on he got it from one of his buddies, (reportedly some oil heir in the Phoenix taking forever to graduate, who subsequently got ousted after he started trying to make business decisions with which Zuckerberg and co. didn’t agree, but that’s just innuendo). This will all come out in gory detail someday, but definitely not until Facebook’s legal work gets sorted how. They will probably humiliate their attackers, but the power of money trumps the power of right as far as intellectual property is concerned except in days not ending in ‘y’.
10/28/2007 1:28 pm
Kidd is right on this one. I talk about these clubs on page 88 of “Excellence Without a Soul.” I argue that they are socially beneficial for students because academic work tends to be isolating and competitive. Having taught both Gates and Zuckerberg, I agree that they were not “joiners,” but I give another example of a successful computer startup, one of whose principals specifically credited the skills acquired through an extracurricular activity at Harvard (actually not a club, but one of the House grills).
The tough thing about managing these clubs is getting students to understand that if your ideas are a little different from those of the leaders of an existing club, you ought to join and change the other club rather than starting your own in competitition. David Illingworth, the Dean who preceded Kidd in her current role, considered it one of his greatest achievements tht he had persuaded the two Harvard Republican Clubs to merge!
10/29/2007 12:23 pm
See Rushmore.