Campus student groups must consider their exclusivity

This is a graphic design of the word “opinion” in a speech bubble. The background is purple and there are various shapes surrounding the speech bubble.

When it comes to higher education, exclusivity is the name of the game. Students are encouraged to work hard to get into the “best” schools. The schools that are considered the best are the ones that are hardest to get into; that is, the most selective and the most exclusive. The difference between quality and accessibility becomes blurred, and this has become increasingly true at USC.

At the outset, students are ingrained with the idea that “exclusive” means “best.” This attitude pervades not only academia but how we live our social lives. It’s not enough just to want the people that want us; we want to be surrounded by people we are proud to be wanted by. It’s human nature. The hottest clubs aren’t letting everyone in, and neither is the best law firm or fellowship. The ideal is not simply to get in — it’s to be let in. It can be sad, but it’s true that a door means nothing if everyone can get through it.

This premium on exclusivity is not always a bad thing. It trims the fat and keeps organizations running effectively. It motivates students to be their best so as not to lose out on access. On the surface, exclusivity makes sense when it comes to academic organizations or business groups, where the focus is primarily on performance statistics. This reasoning becomes more flimsy when applied to service organizations.

The process of joining many of the service groups on campus is arduous and exacting. Many service organizations have acceptance rates lower than 30%, which doesn’t make a great deal of sense for groups whose primary objective is bettering the community. Wouldn’t higher acceptance rates be of service to that goal? The pursuit of being the “best” often gets in the way of the real mission.

As student organizations pursue lower numbers, they also become vulnerable to homogeneity in
membership. Entirely student-run clubs at USC thus do not have regulations or specific guidelines when it comes to who they let in. Even when they do, there is little to no entity holding them accountable to whatever standard has been put in place. 

Acceptance doesn’t always come down to who has the best numbers. Sometimes a rejection simply comes down to personality differences. If an applicant doesn’t mesh well with their interviewer on a personal level, their application could be denied in favor of someone they vibe better with. As recruitment becomes more selective, the perception of a “culture fit” becomes a primary factor in whether or not an applicant is rejected.

In a lot of ways, this mirrors the professional landscape. Many
workspaces are homogeneous. When we think of a group of engineers or stockbrokers, there’s an immediate schema that comes to mind: an archetype. This doesn’t come from
anywhere; many work environments do look the same. Conscious or not, hiring may be a matter of who an interviewer is most “comfortable” with, and that often comes down to a question of “Who is the most like me?”

What’s special about student-run groups is that this doesn’t have to be the case. USC’s student organizations don’t need to be a pure reflection of the current workspace — they can be a picture of the ideal. There doesn’t need to be a dominating viewpoint or personality type in any space on campus. Students have the freedom to create spaces where difference is celebrated, under the like-minded pursuit of a common goal. Exclusivity is not the bridge to that difference, but the barrier.

In truth, there is no escaping exclusivity. The door will always have to close on someone, and we will always value the threat of being told “no.” Without it, a “yes” is worth nothing. There is not much that’s immediately enticing about a group that lets
everyone in. It is a lesson most people learn in middle school. Additionally, there might not be much that is immediately worthwhile about letting
everyone in. But, by widening the margins of acceptance, student organizations — and students individually — expose themselves to new perspectives and move away from the groupthink that threatens to deter progress.

Student organizations would do well to reevaluate their selection process to determine if low acceptance stats are really consistent with their goals. Perhaps students would all be better off if they stop viewing acceptance as something that must always be earned. Sometimes, it’s okay not to be so choosy.