Talk:Golden Key International Honour Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Golden Key International Honour Society article.

Contents

[edit] Stuff at the top

From a objective critique standpoint, I feel this article must clarify the term "honorary members" - how does GK create honorary members and how does the selected person accept honorary membership?

I also feel that a reference needs to be presented supporting the statement "most members of Golden Key's board are university professors and presidents." And besides, the word 'most' should not be used as it is vague - how bout a percentage here?

--CmdrGuard 16:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Honorary Members are outstanding citizens/professors who are invited to join by the staff of a University's Golden Key chapter. The Honorary member can either accept that invitation and become involved with the organization.

Bebedebroadway 20:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems just like a puff piece... could someone add NPOV? I thought Golden Key was just a "take your money and give you a little worthless cord" thing?

It is. However, if you look at the history, Exploding Dog keeps deleating anything negative about these guys as 'unsourced'(while leaving in unsourced comments claiming it's nearly as prestegious as phi betta kappa).

This article is a joke, and should not be trusted.

Note the famous members are 'honorary' (they wern't actually members) and that this is a for-profit company.

Golden Key is little more than a scam to get money out of college students. I think it's irresponsible to allow this article to suggest that they're a genuinely respected society comparable to Phi Beta Kappa. There is also no reason to list honorary members if there is no list of actual members. CKarnstein 17:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It may be that the society is a scam, but I see no reason to remove the list of honorary members, which was identified as such. I'm restoring it. Exploding Boy 17:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that the list of members would be far too long for one page. Bebedebroadway 20:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)bebedebroadway

[edit] NPOV

This article is in serious need for some balance. Therefore I am adding {{POV}} until it is sorted out.

The current sections are:

  1. Honorary members
  2. Controversies
  3. References
  4. External links

What about the community service that is one of the focus' of Golden Key? As a suggestion, take a look at some of the individual chapter websites.

I will point out here that I am a Committee member of the University of Canterbury chapter of Golden Key, so I will be limiting myself.

Lee Begg 12:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa is also a , "take your money and give you a little worthless cord" thing... it has a $55 USD membership fee itself...

The article which states that the society is a 'scam' is completely biased. It assumes that total expenditure is financed by membership fees. To inculde it in the article without noting its shortfalls is extremely biased and undermines the neutrality of the artilce. Amonthemerciful 08:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And I'm removing the tag. The correct procedure here is to improve the article, not to slap a POV tag on it (and I disagree with your assessment in any case). Exploding Boy 03:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Exploding Boy, what, in particular in the 'assessment' do you not agree with?
The Ubyssey article completely biased; the article cannot show that the society is intentionally dishonest, it cannot show financial irregularities or corruption, it states nothing about the sources of total expenditure, it says nothing about what proportion of membership fees are returned to members as scholarships - the article says that as total expenditure exceeds scholarships that not all membership fees are returned to members, which is highly fallacious as ALL membership fees may be returned to members, and the society may use 'other' sources of income for its other expenditures - take an accounting course and you'll realise that the Ubyssey article's reasoning is a joke.
secondly, lets say a particular university has 1 000 students acheiving in the top 15%. Then 1 000 students are invited to join the society. But 200 of the students cannot afford the $50 membership fee, then the society will only extend membership to the 800 students that pay the memebrship fee. THERE IS NO SECOND ROUND OFFER TO GOLDEN KEY - hence, NO ONE will take the place of the 200 students who cannot afford, theior places will just be left empty.
For the above reasons, the Ubyssey article is a laughable attack on a reputable organisation, and the article attempts to suggest a 'scam' based on unreasonable and false premises. The Ubyssey article should NOT be included in the page as it is biased and clearly stupid in its reasoning. Amonthemerciful 08:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there is more than one article referenced. Second, you seem to have misunderstood the remarks regarding the membership fee. Third, those issues are discussed in the "controversies" section, which includes other points of view as well. As I said above, feel free to improve the article. Exploding Boy 15:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Two articles or not... the wording in the page does imply it - the articles states that:
""Although the society claims to "return 75 per cent of each membership as benefits and services to local chapters and their members [while the] other 25 per cent is used for administrative expenses," the Ubyssey found that in 1997 salaries, management and general expenses totalled $2,997,827, almost 47 per cent of the $6,430,054 in total expenditures.""
The above implies that the Honour Society's policy to, "return 75 per cent of each membership as benefits and services to local chapters and their members [while the] other 25 per cent is used for administrative expenses" is not carried out, merely because the 'administrative expenses' total almost 47% of total expenditure!!

Let us say that the total membership fees is $1,000,000 and that, as above, total 'administrative expenses' is $2,997,827... then the Honour Society's policy is to use 25% of membership fees, $250,000, towards that $2,997,827 total 'administrative expenses'... Hence, the other 'administrative expenses' may be paid for by other non-mebership income. The mere fact that the total 'administrative expenses' is 47% of total expenditure says nothing about whether the policy is being carried out. The Ubysses article attempts to imply that total expenditure is paid for SOLEY by membership fees, and as 47% of total expenditure is used for 'administrative expenses' this is higher than the 25% limit in the policy... but the 25% limit is about membership fees, not total expenditure, and total expenditure IS FINANCED BY OTHER NON-MEMBERSHIP INCOME!! Amonthemerciful 05:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


On the "NO SECOND ROUND" thing, the point isn't that more people (with lower grades) are asked in to fill some sort of quota, but that a large net (top 15% of students) is cast right away, so that students who can pay that are in the top 14% of students can get in, while students that are in the top 1% of students who can't pay aren't allowed in. So, in that sense, lower achieving students do get in over higher achieving students who can't pay. -Posted by a guy who doesn't really know how to use Wikipedia

it is completely IMMATERIAL... is the premise that the 1% of students is poor... it may be a handful here and there in the 1% that are poor, but in its essence it is immaterail to the acheivement of the society's members... in the example above - there is nothing that says that the 200 studnets who cannot pay the membership fee are necessarily also in the top 1% - think about it, it is highly unlikely... also, i can post links to other articles which show that membership in Phi Betta Kappa are not taken up by students as they recive all sorts of offers and invitations but cannot differentiate because of lack of education about which societies are highly regarded and not... but, it does not mean that it is all the top 1% of studnets who are not paying the Phi Betta Kappa membership fee, it is likely a even distribution... AMONTHEMERCIFUL

The point is the principle. Sure a good number of the top 1% can pay, but if any of them can't, then the organization's mandate is put into question. If it's about rewarding the top achievers, then the top achievers should be allowed membership in the organization regardless of financial status. Otherwise, it's about the money, not the level of achievement. And it should be noted that in Canada, where both the cited articles originate from, there are few other (if any) "honours societies" competing with the Golden Key, so all the comparisons to "Phi Betta Kappa" mean very little in the Canadian context. -Same guy

I think I have sat on the sideline for long enough. I am going to add some text soon, mostly about the education and community service aspects of Golden Key, unless someone beats me to it. --Lee Begg 11:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Membership

Inside information...

Fact: The invitation for new members to join officially remains open for 12 months after the initial letter to do so has been sent.

Also, nearly all decent universities will provide interest free loans to their students.

Golden Key does not favour wealthy students anymore than any other honour society.

Also, please remove all claims that cannot be proven. I look forward to posting more about GK in the near future.

[edit] I've found GK a useless scam

On a personal note, I joined GK after my FRESHMAN year at McGill University. I paid my fee, and never got anything useful for it. Maybe part of the reason is that I didn't care to involve myself as a volunteer, but the connections and job networking that were advertised never materialized for me. I tend to agree with those who call GK a scam started for the financial benefit of its directors, employees, investors, etc.

For people who do not participate in any events, of course they won't get any connections and job networking opportunities.... If you buy something from a store and not use it, you won't say the store scammed you, would you? -vwchu Sept,2006.


vwchu, your argument is flawed. Nowhere in the GKS invitation does it say that membership benefits are conditional upon volunteer work. Benefits ARE conditional upon being a member. -jd

[edit] I too have found GK to be a scam

I was invited to join Golden Key after the first semester of my first year at UMass Dartmouth. This was probably because I had transferred from a community college. I joined thinking that it would provide me with some opportunities, but the local chapter doesn't do anything that a traditional student organization doesn't already do (food drives, local activism, etc). The meetings are always scheduled when I have class, and the only things I have received thus far from Golden Key are credit card offers in the mail. I don't even receive a newsletter from them. I vote scam.

[edit] College is also a useless money making scam (if you have the same attitude as some gk members that is)

I downloaded hundreds of dollars worth of 'Vault' career guides completely FREE!! I participated in many ledership symposiums exclusive to members where sucessful big name people from investment banks, industry, media etc gave talks - my employer had participated in golden key events and was impressed that I was a member - my friend was active in organising events and attended meetings and now has enormous network of contacts - i think i got something out of it... but had i sat at home and expected golden key to arrive at my house and motivate me to do something active, then i dont expect i would have gained anything from membership either...
University/college is a complete money making scam also - i enrolled and paid hundreds of thousand of dollars in fees, but didnt attend lectures or classes, and now i have nothing from it at all - i have no gain.. just a monetary loss - yes, college was a complete money making scam also... BUT had i actually been proactive, then it may have been different - same-same for you golden key members i suppose... it is not some magical society that provides something to you for nothing... it is an OPPORTUNITY for you to extract some benefit... good luck in your career if you failed to take advantage of that opportunity... and good luck in life if you seriously expected that you would have some benefit without doing a f#@ken thing!!!!!!!!!!! your attitudes make you losers!!!!!!!


Clearly, Golden Key has made no error in identifying you as one of the most brilliant and professional students at your university; your diction, grammar, and forensic technique are impeccable. You indeed portray a clear and impressive image of the professionalism imbued upon a student by the Golden Key culture.
However, I can’t help but notice that you have mistaken the price of your access to Vault.com. It seems as though you would not be able to access said media through Golden Key hadn’t you paid for this exclusive membership in the first place—a membership which was not free and in fact cost you $70.
It is probably appropriate at this time to point out that my access to Vault.com was funded entirely by my university’s library. Also, it is worth noting that the multitude of job fairs and company seminars on campus, albeit tiresome, were facilitated and scheduled by companies interested in the students at my university.
Call me pompous, call me arrogant, feel free to call me whatever you wish, but don't call college a scam. Private and state schools are audited, accredited, and thoroughly monitored by government officials, benefactors, alumni, and dedicated members of associated academic and industrial organizations--all of whom work very hard to make sure that college is indeed a fair transaction, and not a scam.
The only organization watching over Golden Key is the IRS.
Bmunden 21:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

the point is, Bmunden, that unless you take part in golden key events or take part in college lectures and classes, then you waste your money and "get nothing out of it" - but that in itself does not make either golden key or college a "scam" (I suppose the concept of irony is too much for you to comprehend). Also, to attack the valididty of what I posted by pointing out spelling and grammer is in effect an "argumentum ad hominem" fallacy... please F83k off [AmonTheMerciful] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.158.111 (talk • contribs).

AND - at the end of the day - i have a membership - even be it that I "get nothing out of it" - and that membership says, if nothing else, that I am in the top 15% of students - even if thats all that it is - let us assume you are correct and that i paid 70USD to a corrupt director - it STILL certifies that I am in the top 15% of students - that is soemthing that you will NEVER acheive - you will NEVER have the chance to choose to take up the membership or not, and thats what its all about anyway - that is why it is prestigious because people like you are kept away - i paid for the RIGHT to certify that i am in the top 15% off studnets - and you'll never be able to make such claim... so please f84k off :)[AmonTheMerciful] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.158.111 (talk • contribs).

There are cheaper ways to verify that you are in the top 15% of your class than paying $70 to an outside organization. Not to mention that being in the top 15% of your class does not really matter if you have nothing on your resume and/or transcript for leadership skills, research experience, etc. I would much rather have a "prestigious" faculty member that I can trust to spend time on a recommendation for me (which highlights more than just my grades) than to be part of a "prestigious" organization that merely verifies my class standing.129.186.185.52 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Golden Key itself provides a plethora of resume building opportunities! From leadership seminars to community service events, in my two years of Golden Key, I have kept incredibly busy. I'm sorry if you don't find Golden Key to be for you, but I love the time I've spent in the organization and serving my community through it. Golden Key is about more than just the honors attached. It's about taking leadership roles in the community and the plethora of civic opportunities that arise through participation. Then again, people who join just to put "Golden Key" on their resumes would never find out the full benefits of the organization. I whole heartedly agree that you must seize the opportunities presented in Golden Key, and not expect things to be handed to you. For what I've received from my participation, it was well worth the $80. For that matter, my university has a program to help reimburse students for their GK membership. Our Golden Key Chapter just came up with it this year.
Bebedebroadway 04:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Bebedebroadway

[edit] GK is a useless scam

i was a gk member and i have no idea why. i simply recieved their letter and suddenly i was in this society. later they asked me about becoming a lifetime member for the 70 bucks or what have you. why? i was never invited to a single event speech fancy ball or dinner. at least the phi betta kappa kids got drunk. gk is a money making scam.

[edit] GK is not a scam

If Golden Key is run poorly at someone's university it is not a fault of the organization as a whole. I have no idea why someone would be invited as a freshman that is a problem with that particular University's exec board. The global organization cannot set up EVERY even or meeting for local groups. With in the past two years, two different young women from my university’s chapter have won $10,000 scholarships for graduate school (as in 10k EACH). I've been able to attend SEVERAL leadership conferences from Golden Key, and all Golden Key members have access to exclusive Scholarship and Job Search sites. Golden Key has done great things for me, but you can't sit around and wait for things to be handed to you. No proper honors society will just hand you things for paying your dues. All you have to do is go to the Golden Key Website and take advantage of the opportunities presented to you.

Bebedebroadway 04:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)bebedebroadway

[edit] use of the term 'prestigious'

It is not 'sepeculation' to state that it is held by "some" to be the most pretigious... I and others here are that "some" - the sentence is not "speculation" as much as it is inward reflection... ;)

'Prestige' may be defined as, "the level of respect at which one is regarded by others" - it is cleary a subjective thing - whether that level of respect is deserved or not is immaterial. In any case, there are enough people on this thread arguing for the term 'prestige' to make it so regarded by them, even if it is not deserved in whatever other standard...

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, we can discuss the reasons that it may or may not be deserved, but as I noted above, it is completely immaterail to the definion and, hence, the use of the term 'prestige' on the page. We must be precise when using terms in an encyclopedia, and your emotive response to an undeserved use of the term does not make it any less true of it fitting the definition above. It is subjective, deserved or not, hence, it is used on the page - talk to the forefathers of the english lanuguage or the publishers of the english dictionary if you don't like the meaning... It seems that it is your mis-comprehension of the menaing of the term which leads to your emotive opposition to its use on the page. 'Pretige' of an institution relates solely to the sentiment of the public to that institution - that sentiment is dynamic and may be influenced by other standards such as history, assosciation, etc, and the factor influencing that sentiment will change as the important standards of society change... It is a cultural holding in the minds of the populace and not an outcome measured by standards. It is in the minds of the people, and not in the thing itself - it is, as so defined, "the level of respect at which [an institution] is regarded by others" and the institution may be regarded a high level of respect for no particular reason at all, but it will have the defined 'prestige' nonetheless. [AmonTheMerciful]


Without getting involved in the debate about Golden Key, I feel it is my duty to completely disagree with your analysis of the way "prestigious" is used in this article. Wikipedia guidelines clearly advise against exactly this type of sentence - see Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words for more details. The sentence in question is one of the worst parts about this article. Arathon 19:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
"Held by some" to be "prestigious" without sources is clear use of weasel words and original research. It has no place in an encylopedic article. Also, please sign your statements with four tildes: ~~~~ Neurophyre(talk) 04:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

please outline explicitly what it is that you disagree with - do not merely post links - please discuss it in a reasoned fashion. adress the content or concede it...

in particular the sentence expresses a setiment - it cannot by definition be 'biased' - "i like coke" cannot be biased, it is simply an expression of sentiment - a sentence "coke is the best drink" needs to be sourced - but how can one source one's own sentiments... and if those sentiments are held by a majority but not sourced, does it make them biased--- NO!! please use reson and logic and do not post links to clearly unnecessary policies that were not intended for the particular example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.158.111 (talk • contribs).

See my above comment. The burden of demonstrating sources is on those adding unsourced information and using weasel words, not on those maintaining Wikipedia policies and guidelines in the field. Read the policies. They are not "unnecessary" and they are "intended for" every article, not just the ones that people aren't debating. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~ --Neurophyre(talk) 04:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Mr Neurophure - as it pleases you to delete unsourced sentences I will take apart every f#@ken sentence that is not sourced, in the interests of a consistent application of Wikipedia policy :) thank you and regards, [AmonTheMerciful] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.158.111 (talk • contribs).

This, along with your other recent edit to this talk page, make it very difficult to assume good faith on your part. I've reverted your unproductive edits to the article; kindly read WP:CITE and WP:CIVIL and participate in a more civil and productive manner in the future. --Neurophyre(talk) 10:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Bmunden's post was sarcastic and unpleasant and it completely missed the point - i think my response was true and fair to say the least - in other words completely just. [AmonTheMerciful] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.158.111 (talk • contribs).
Well, you're wrong. Please read the policies (particularly WP:CIVIL before telling people to "f off") and please sign your comments with four tildes like so: ~~~~ --Neurophyre(talk) 21:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

hahaha - I'm "wrong" - thank you for the delicate use of reason to come to that...I have posted for your benefit an extract which you need to think about:

""Take any action allowed to be vicious: Wilful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. In which-ever way you take it you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no other matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object. You never can find it, till you turn your reflexion into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action. Here is a matter of fact; but 'tis the object of feeling, not of reason."[HUME]

Neurophyre - you must not assume what you take to be improper is concrete at all... but I thank you for your interest in the finer points of my posts - it pleases me taht someone takes the time... [AmonTheMerciful] (AND, your constant talks about the "four tidels" thing is becoming tiresome...)

[edit] ----A GOOD SUPPLY OF INFORMATION----

HI,

I've discovered what may be a more unbiased source for this discussion. Please see the article entitled "Honor Lite" in the Students Section of the March 22, 2002 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education. If you are a student at a university, chances are pretty good that your library subscribes to it (both the health science and regular library subscribe to it at mine). Very enlightening article. I trust this source more than The Ubyssey and e.Peak (I don't trust those sources at all). Good luck finding the article.

For those who have no way of accessing the Chronicle article, you can read a different, but similar, article at [1]. This is how I discovered the Chronicle article.

(You can't access the Chronicle article on their website without a membership www.chronicle.com)216.160.225.153 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)216.160.225.153 21:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)C

Thanks for the heads up, I'll try to access it when I next have time. --Neurophyre(talk) 04:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Very useful article. Thanks.Nilvyn 19:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Nilvyn 19:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thus far, GK seems to be a scam to me.

I don't know how useful GK accolades will be when I apply for a job. But thus far it has been useless.

Th GK Job Board lured me in, but it really doesn't have very much, it's definitely not exclusive. It seems to be limited to those CIA recruitments you see everywhere, ads for programs at the Washington Center (which I believe you have to pay for), and a few volunteer posts at Teach For America which you can access directly.

The Vault guides seem interesting, but you can probably get them free through your school without paying for a membership fee.

I can't comment on their scholarships, I haven't received one, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Their discounts are simple advertisements. The offer the same deals you get in the mail everyday.

For example: Sallie Mae Student Loan Consolidation Golden Key is pleased to partner with Sallie Mae in making student loan consolidation services available to members of Golden Key.

Golden Key MasterCard ® Credit Card from Bank of America Show your pride and support the Golden Key Scholarship Program each time you use your card. No annual fee, and one of the most competitive annual percentage rates available.

The best offer I saw was 8% off of car insurance through Geico.

I wish I had done my research a little better before I joined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nilvyn (talk • contribs).

you seriously regret membership so much that you "wish you had done your research a little better before you joined" - you are talking about a few dollars idiot!! its maginal and immaterial to a recognised certification that you acheived highly amongst your peers - if that alone - i cannot beleive you wont a refund for $50 which you would likely piss up against the wall at a frat party Template:Usigned
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/o/l/Talk%7EGolden_Key_International_Honour_Society_75e4.html"