I think his point was more along the lines of "While you are at an elite school you should socialize and build your social network. That social network will become your starting professional network after school. Less opportunity for socialization will reduce the potential size of this network."
> Communal living houses (“co-ops”) encouraged casual nudity, while fraternities threw a raucous annual “Greek Week”
If the access to professional social network requires participation in the above, then I see why people see issue with that. In an ideal world, your professional future would not be dependent on your willingness to walk around naked or your enjoyment of raucous party. (Neither should damage your future, but should not be the key to access either.)
And in particular, I find it completely inconsistent with idea of meritocracy.
If you are extroverted, you DO NOT need a curated or arbitrary system to social network - you are simply going to do it anyway.
If you are introverted, you WILL NEVER take advantage of even a curated system to "create" a social network - it's simply not in you to do that.
So that leaves a tiny domain of people for whom it might help. But the reality
is that it's the peak of the Bell curve but it's also the peak of mediocrity which is antithetical to startups or creativity. Yet unexpected and creative connections are supposed to be the point.
Cheaper to buy a golf club membership quite honestly.
Yeah I never joined one of those bro clubs at university. The hazing humiliation is not my thing. There are 3 people who get to yell at me for no reason and one of them is a cat.
I have to admit that university was a bit of a let down. Supposedly the best young elites society had to offer? Oh boy.
Yeah, hazing is another thing. It sounds like professional social network biased toward people with weak personal boundaries. Also biased AGAINST people who show independent thinking and ability to not go with crowd. People able to resist peer social pressure are more likely to say no to hazing.
This "merious" definition of "fun to hang out with" is exactly the problem. It selects normal and non jerks who are plenty of pleasant and fun to hang around with, but avoid puking after parties and nudity.
Not op, but I interpreted it as the fact that world is not fair. People dont go up purely on merit, skills, talent, you name it. As in, the nepotism described and defended in these threads is not the only kind of merit breaking factors.
Seems reasonable to me.