ICC survey indicates interest in informational website
Based on a recent survey of sophomores who participated in the eating club admission process this year, the Interclub Council will work in conjunction with the Graduate Interclub Council — a committee consisting of the presidents of each eating club’s graduate board — to create a new website that will aggregate certain information about each eating club. This information will reflect what survey respondents felt would prove most useful for future participants in the process. The club presidents discussed the results in a meeting on April 3.
A hundred and ninety-five of the 1,096 sophomores who registered on the new ICC website took the survey. Of this number, 78 percent responded that a website would function as the most useful forum to learn more about the eating clubs, according to the press release.
“We thought the most important takeaway from the survey was definitely the request for a central website that has all of the information,” ICC president Connor Clegg ’14 noted. “We’ll definitely be moving towards that. Other than that, we have not planned any other reforms as of yet.”
The ICC plans to complete the website before rising sophomores begin the eating club admission process, according to Clegg. The new site will include updated information on the six areas that respondents most frequently marked when asked what additional information they would have found helpful about the clubs, Clegg said. The site will also provide a history of the eating clubs and general information on the process of joining, Clegg said.
Respondents most frequently indicated that they would have found information regarding each club’s policies on shared meal plans, details about meals, cost of membership dues, membership size, social activities and facilities most relevant to their decision to join a club.
Fewer than 20 percent of respondents requested more information regarding music events, community service opportunities, computer facilities or intramural sports sponsored by each eating club.
Students could previously use the Princeton Prospect Foundation website as a resource to learn more about each eating club, but some of the information listed on the site was outdated, according to Clegg. The new informational website will remain separate from the ICC website that students use to indicate which club they would like to join during the actual selection process, Clegg said.
The ICC has not yet discussed whether the eating clubs will individually choose what information to share on the website or whether the ICC would take a more central role in compiling each club’s information, Clegg added.
Forty-five percent of the survey’s respondents reported they would be more likely to participate in multi-club Bicker if all of the selective clubs joined the new system. However, the ICC has not discussed instituting any changes besides creating the new website at this time, Clegg said.
“As we move forward, it will be each individual club’s choice to decide if they would like to participate [in multi-club Bicker],” Clegg said. “With that said, all of the clubs are definitely behind the broader ideal of distributing more information to the sophomores to make it a more welcoming atmosphere.”
Currently, of the six bicker clubs, only Tower Club and Ivy Club do not participate in multi-club Bicker. Tower president Doug Stuart ’14 declined to comment on the results of the survey, and Ivy president Thatcher Foster ’14 did not respond to a request for a comment.
Thirteen percent of survey respondents replied that the new eating club admission process made them more interested in joining a club. Seventy-nine percent reported that their attitude remained unchanged by the new process.
Of the respondents who reported they decided to bicker only one selective club, 56 percent said they did not participate in the multi-club Bicker process because they did not feel comfortable joining another club. Although those surveyed could select the response that they chose not to bicker two clubs under the new system because they were afraid it would hurt their chances of gaining admission to either — a belief that Clegg said is misguided — the ICC did not provide statistics on how many students chose this answer.
“The response was actually negligible. I’m not positive about the actual percentages off of the top of my head, but it wasn’t enough to raise a horrible concern,” Clegg explained. “That said, we’re going to continue to get accurate information out there. That’s what the website is for.”
The survey also asked students if the possibility of bickering more than two clubs would make them more likely to participate in the multi-club Bicker process; however, the ICC did not provide information regarding their responses either.
“We included that out of interest,” Clegg said. “All avenues of change are open, but right now, the most concrete way is the website.”
Reader Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to post your opinion on this article.