Survey for my English class.

[PedroSteckecilo]

Whoa man, I've been out of Highschool for nearly 7 years...

Though my school didn't have Cliques... it was too damn big, the only real "cliques" were Bandgeeks, Leadership Students and Mormons, mostly because those groups needed to spend so much time together.

I went to school in Canada though, things are different here, Football Team don't get you no respect and if you take it too seriously people think you're an idiot trying to immitate american movies.

 

[9NineBreaker9]

1.) Are you currently in school? Yes or No.
Last I checked, I am.

2.)If so, what grade?
10th, high school sophomore, yada yada...

3.)Do you feel as if you are apart of a clique, and if so which clique?
Thankfully, our school is extremely small and of one common interest, as it is a tech school - even so, I don't belong to any one group, though I hang out with the more geeky element.

4.)Has anyone else ever seen you as part of a clique?
Previously, yes, and they still might do so - I try and not pay attention XD

5.)Do you ever associate with people outside of you clique?
Yup. People are people, and so long as I can find one common interest between themselves and myself, they're associates.

6.)Have you ever treated someone outside of your clique differently, and if so how?
No, as any clique that I do or did belong to is at the bottom of the food chain (at least here), so us making fun of, say, the "prep" or "jock" group would be a little odd.

7.)Do different cliques hang out in different areas?
No established spots, just away from other groups.

8.)Do you ever use the name of another clique as a put down?
Nope - refuse to.

9.)Do you get along better with people of the same clique as you?
I would say yes, if only because they're more like me, and I find myself to be an extremely personable person.

10.)Do you use name of cliques to identify yourself? (i.e. I am a Jock,Geek,Prep,etc.)
Nerd school FTW (that actually uses "FTW" in normal conversation).

11.)Has anyone ever treated you differently because of a clique you identified yourself as or were seen as being apart of?
Maybe, but, then again, I don't pay much attention.

12.)Do you feel that having cliques is a good thing why or why not?
While I don't like it, I think it's ultimately inevitable on some aspect - groups are always going to form, one way or another, so, while I detest that cliques of certain people pick on others, I've stopped caring, mostly because of my posh little charter school life =3

Hopefully we're some sort of help, and I hope you do well on your assignment~!

 

[Amnestic]

Cliques promote hierarchies Please read the label beneath any users name on this forum.

Gonzo's for life!

Oh, I just got into this elite club. Screw you Pulitzer Laureates!

So did I! Sorry, Pulitzers.

I wonder what would happen if I got to 999 posts, and just disappeared forever? (Or until the Cockney thread re-emerges, either way.)

Then we'd miss you! The Gonzo's eagerly await your entry into our ranks. Robots are good allies to have after all.

I dunno, I think I'm a good addition to the Pultizers. Besides, what future do I have to look forward to without the Cockney thread?

Today...the Escapist. Tomorrow...probably still the Escapist, but one day possibly soon (probably not though) the world! And we all know how much we love world domination.

By the way, has anyone noticed how I've assisted in steering no less than two active threads completely off topic?

It's not completely de-railing, as we are demonstrating perfect examples of clique-ish behavior, and the sort of divisions they cause. It's artistic demonstration. Mono-rail'd [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.72805.790112]. All aboard, bzzt bzzt!

[sup]Also, I think I'm going to make a thread to discuss this, since I'm de-railing the hell out of blaze69's subject data.[/sup]

Man, the quote tower is buggered. You're Virgil and I'm wilson. Well, unless you did that deliberatly like some crazy mod immitator.

as for the subject data, he's likely got everything he needed after the first 5 posts and the little debate that went down. Everything after that is just gravy. Sweet onion gravy.

Naw, I never screw with the names in the quote towers, you're just seeing things.

True enough, and I do like gravy. Dunno about that onion gravy, though...

On Topic, yo.
Oddly enough, that whole little discussion does a lot more to speak about on cliques than I ever could, especially considering how I didn't do any of that deliberately. Amazing what I can see about myself through introspection after the fact... Maybe I should redo that survey...

Is it about time for me to pull out my Objection! picture again? Now I'm Larenxis!

I think the hardest part of the survey is how one defines 'clique'. Dictionary.com, source of all knowledge that it is, states that it is: "a small, exclusive group of people; coterie; set. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/clique]"

However, I'm not so sure. The use of the term "exclusive" in that definition somewhat rubs wrong with me, and may change a number of people's answers. The 'clique' I was supposed to be a part of was not exclusive to my knowledge, though again, it depends how far you take the idea of exclusivity.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

Cliques promote hierarchies Please read the label beneath any users name on this forum.

Gonzo's for life!

Oh, I just got into this elite club. Screw you Pulitzer Laureates!

So did I! Sorry, Pulitzers.

I wonder what would happen if I got to 999 posts, and just disappeared forever? (Or until the Cockney thread re-emerges, either way.)

Then we'd miss you! The Gonzo's eagerly await your entry into our ranks. Robots are good allies to have after all.

I dunno, I think I'm a good addition to the Pultizers. Besides, what future do I have to look forward to without the Cockney thread?

Today...the Escapist. Tomorrow...probably still the Escapist, but one day possibly soon (probably not though) the world! And we all know how much we love world domination.

By the way, has anyone noticed how I've assisted in steering no less than two active threads completely off topic?

It's not completely de-railing, as we are demonstrating perfect examples of clique-ish behavior, and the sort of divisions they cause. It's artistic demonstration. Mono-rail'd [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.72805.790112]. All aboard, bzzt bzzt!

[sup]Also, I think I'm going to make a thread to discuss this, since I'm de-railing the hell out of blaze69's subject data.[/sup]

Man, the quote tower is buggered. You're Virgil and I'm wilson. Well, unless you did that deliberatly like some crazy mod immitator.

as for the subject data, he's likely got everything he needed after the first 5 posts and the little debate that went down. Everything after that is just gravy. Sweet onion gravy.

Naw, I never screw with the names in the quote towers, you're just seeing things.

True enough, and I do like gravy. Dunno about that onion gravy, though...

On Topic, yo.
Oddly enough, that whole little discussion does a lot more to speak about on cliques than I ever could, especially considering how I didn't do any of that deliberately. Amazing what I can see about myself through introspection after the fact... Maybe I should redo that survey...

Is it about time for me to pull out my Objection! picture again? Now I'm Larenxis!

I think the hardest part of the survey is how one defines 'clique'. Dictionary.com, source of all knowledge that it is, states that it is: "a small, exclusive group of people; coterie; set. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/clique]"

However, I'm not so sure. The use of the term "exclusive" in that definition somewhat rubs wrong with me, and may change a number of people's answers. The 'clique' I was supposed to be a part of was not exclusive to my knowledge, though again, it depends how far you take the idea of exclusivity.

It's odd, though, because I approach the word "exclusive" in the sense that being involved has some requirements. As such, I find that cliques usually do call for some kind of "you need to fit in if you want to join up," which is a form of exclusivity, and certainly one that is very present in cliques and groups.

 

[Amnestic]

Cliques promote hierarchies Please read the label beneath any users name on this forum.

Gonzo's for life!

Oh, I just got into this elite club. Screw you Pulitzer Laureates!

So did I! Sorry, Pulitzers.

I wonder what would happen if I got to 999 posts, and just disappeared forever? (Or until the Cockney thread re-emerges, either way.)

Then we'd miss you! The Gonzo's eagerly await your entry into our ranks. Robots are good allies to have after all.

I dunno, I think I'm a good addition to the Pultizers. Besides, what future do I have to look forward to without the Cockney thread?

Today...the Escapist. Tomorrow...probably still the Escapist, but one day possibly soon (probably not though) the world! And we all know how much we love world domination.

By the way, has anyone noticed how I've assisted in steering no less than two active threads completely off topic?

It's not completely de-railing, as we are demonstrating perfect examples of clique-ish behavior, and the sort of divisions they cause. It's artistic demonstration. Mono-rail'd [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.72805.790112]. All aboard, bzzt bzzt!

[sup]Also, I think I'm going to make a thread to discuss this, since I'm de-railing the hell out of blaze69's subject data.[/sup]

Man, the quote tower is buggered. You're Virgil and I'm wilson. Well, unless you did that deliberatly like some crazy mod immitator.

as for the subject data, he's likely got everything he needed after the first 5 posts and the little debate that went down. Everything after that is just gravy. Sweet onion gravy.

Naw, I never screw with the names in the quote towers, you're just seeing things.

True enough, and I do like gravy. Dunno about that onion gravy, though...

On Topic, yo.
Oddly enough, that whole little discussion does a lot more to speak about on cliques than I ever could, especially considering how I didn't do any of that deliberately. Amazing what I can see about myself through introspection after the fact... Maybe I should redo that survey...

Is it about time for me to pull out my Objection! picture again? Now I'm Larenxis!

I think the hardest part of the survey is how one defines 'clique'. Dictionary.com, source of all knowledge that it is, states that it is: "a small, exclusive group of people; coterie; set. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/clique]"

However, I'm not so sure. The use of the term "exclusive" in that definition somewhat rubs wrong with me, and may change a number of people's answers. The 'clique' I was supposed to be a part of was not exclusive to my knowledge, though again, it depends how far you take the idea of exclusivity.

It's odd, though, because I approach the word "exclusive" in the sense that being involved has some requirements. As such, I find that cliques usually do call for some kind of "you need to fit in if you want to join up," which is a form of exclusivity, and certainly one that is very present in cliques and groups.

My "clique's" only requirement was that you could contribute to intelligent discourse and make it five minutes without hurling an insult over the room. I'm not sure if that counts as exclusivity, because it technically is a set of criteria that person has to meet to be accepted, I personally don't think it's too difficult to reach. Criteria only become exclusive when it's difficult for the majority to reach, don't they?

There were other cliques around my school though, especially in my year. There were the Cool Kids (also referred to as the Rich Kids, the Stoners and the Douchebags), the Slightly Less Cool Kids, the Guys Who Flitted About Between The Two Aforementioned Groups, and the Nerds/Moshers/Goths/Junkies/Psychos/Loners/Crazies/Metal Heads/Anyone Else (that'd be my group, we were very accomodating actually).

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

Cliques promote hierarchies Please read the label beneath any users name on this forum.

Gonzo's for life!

Oh, I just got into this elite club. Screw you Pulitzer Laureates!

So did I! Sorry, Pulitzers.

I wonder what would happen if I got to 999 posts, and just disappeared forever? (Or until the Cockney thread re-emerges, either way.)

Then we'd miss you! The Gonzo's eagerly await your entry into our ranks. Robots are good allies to have after all.

I dunno, I think I'm a good addition to the Pultizers. Besides, what future do I have to look forward to without the Cockney thread?

Today...the Escapist. Tomorrow...probably still the Escapist, but one day possibly soon (probably not though) the world! And we all know how much we love world domination.

By the way, has anyone noticed how I've assisted in steering no less than two active threads completely off topic?

It's not completely de-railing, as we are demonstrating perfect examples of clique-ish behavior, and the sort of divisions they cause. It's artistic demonstration. Mono-rail'd [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.72805.790112]. All aboard, bzzt bzzt!

[sup]Also, I think I'm going to make a thread to discuss this, since I'm de-railing the hell out of blaze69's subject data.[/sup]

Man, the quote tower is buggered. You're Virgil and I'm wilson. Well, unless you did that deliberatly like some crazy mod immitator.

as for the subject data, he's likely got everything he needed after the first 5 posts and the little debate that went down. Everything after that is just gravy. Sweet onion gravy.

Naw, I never screw with the names in the quote towers, you're just seeing things.

True enough, and I do like gravy. Dunno about that onion gravy, though...

On Topic, yo.
Oddly enough, that whole little discussion does a lot more to speak about on cliques than I ever could, especially considering how I didn't do any of that deliberately. Amazing what I can see about myself through introspection after the fact... Maybe I should redo that survey...

Is it about time for me to pull out my Objection! picture again? Now I'm Larenxis!

I think the hardest part of the survey is how one defines 'clique'. Dictionary.com, source of all knowledge that it is, states that it is: "a small, exclusive group of people; coterie; set. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/clique]"

However, I'm not so sure. The use of the term "exclusive" in that definition somewhat rubs wrong with me, and may change a number of people's answers. The 'clique' I was supposed to be a part of was not exclusive to my knowledge, though again, it depends how far you take the idea of exclusivity.

It's odd, though, because I approach the word "exclusive" in the sense that being involved has some requirements. As such, I find that cliques usually do call for some kind of "you need to fit in if you want to join up," which is a form of exclusivity, and certainly one that is very present in cliques and groups.

My "clique's" only requirement was that you could contribute to intelligent discourse and make it five minutes without hurling an insult over the room. I'm not sure if that counts as exclusivity, because it technically is a set of criteria that person has to meet to be accepted, I personally don't think it's too difficult to reach. Criteria only become exclusive when it's difficult for the majority to reach, don't they?

I'm not sure. Let's look that word up...
Exclusive [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exclusive] adj.
    10. Admitting only members of a socially restricted or very carefully selected group

Hrm, so both of our definitions fit into this. It can be either careful, or just socially restrictive. Huh...

EDIT
This is the post that got me Gonzo. I'll miss you, Pulitzer...

 

[klakkat]

I think this was more aimed at grade school kids, but, what the hell.

1) Yes.

2) College Senior

3) Technically, yes. People of the same major tend to form tightly knit groups much like cliques. I'm a physics major, so that's my group.

4) Yes. We see all the majors as distinctive groups. Our group is even split a bit between Experimentalists and Theorists (naturally, all undergraduates fall into the experimentalist group, which is further split between juniors and seniors. Sophomores and Freshmen are not a part yet)

5) Yes.

6) Yes. Normally, it's practical, we assume others have had a different base of knowledge than us. We sometimes go overboard, however, and assume they don't know something they do. There isn't much affect other than that.

7) Yes. We each have our own building (though some share buildings)

8) Yes. Though it has to be worded properly, since we name our groups after our majors. "Math Major" for example is synonymous to an impractical geek with no bearing on reality, though admittedly a very intelligent one.

9) Yes.

10) Yes. Though I also fall under the label 'nerd' that's too big a group here to be a practical clique on its own.

11) Yes. Physics guys are stereotyped as "Mad Scientists" on the friendly side, and often referred to as being masochistic nutjobs who are to nerds what nerds are to normal people. I've actually been told once by a friend of mine (non-physics major) that I was the only physics major he could stand to talk to. We've certainly got a weird reputation on campus.

12) Yes. It gives people a group to belong to, and a way of making new friends in a new area by ascribing to that group. If you're a nerd at one school, you look for nerds at other schools to be friends with. And, for the college case, we keep each other sane and help out with homework and projects, since we're all doing similar things.

 

[Amnestic]

Cliques promote hierarchies Please read the label beneath any users name on this forum.

Gonzo's for life!

Oh, I just got into this elite club. Screw you Pulitzer Laureates!

So did I! Sorry, Pulitzers.

I wonder what would happen if I got to 999 posts, and just disappeared forever? (Or until the Cockney thread re-emerges, either way.)

Then we'd miss you! The Gonzo's eagerly await your entry into our ranks. Robots are good allies to have after all.

I dunno, I think I'm a good addition to the Pultizers. Besides, what future do I have to look forward to without the Cockney thread?

Today...the Escapist. Tomorrow...probably still the Escapist, but one day possibly soon (probably not though) the world! And we all know how much we love world domination.

By the way, has anyone noticed how I've assisted in steering no less than two active threads completely off topic?

It's not completely de-railing, as we are demonstrating perfect examples of clique-ish behavior, and the sort of divisions they cause. It's artistic demonstration. Mono-rail'd [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.72805.790112]. All aboard, bzzt bzzt!

[sup]Also, I think I'm going to make a thread to discuss this, since I'm de-railing the hell out of blaze69's subject data.[/sup]

Man, the quote tower is buggered. You're Virgil and I'm wilson. Well, unless you did that deliberatly like some crazy mod immitator.

as for the subject data, he's likely got everything he needed after the first 5 posts and the little debate that went down. Everything after that is just gravy. Sweet onion gravy.

Naw, I never screw with the names in the quote towers, you're just seeing things.

True enough, and I do like gravy. Dunno about that onion gravy, though...

On Topic, yo.
Oddly enough, that whole little discussion does a lot more to speak about on cliques than I ever could, especially considering how I didn't do any of that deliberately. Amazing what I can see about myself through introspection after the fact... Maybe I should redo that survey...

Is it about time for me to pull out my Objection! picture again? Now I'm Larenxis!

I think the hardest part of the survey is how one defines 'clique'. Dictionary.com, source of all knowledge that it is, states that it is: "a small, exclusive group of people; coterie; set. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/clique]"

However, I'm not so sure. The use of the term "exclusive" in that definition somewhat rubs wrong with me, and may change a number of people's answers. The 'clique' I was supposed to be a part of was not exclusive to my knowledge, though again, it depends how far you take the idea of exclusivity.

It's odd, though, because I approach the word "exclusive" in the sense that being involved has some requirements. As such, I find that cliques usually do call for some kind of "you need to fit in if you want to join up," which is a form of exclusivity, and certainly one that is very present in cliques and groups.

My "clique's" only requirement was that you could contribute to intelligent discourse and make it five minutes without hurling an insult over the room. I'm not sure if that counts as exclusivity, because it technically is a set of criteria that person has to meet to be accepted, I personally don't think it's too difficult to reach. Criteria only become exclusive when it's difficult for the majority to reach, don't they?

I'm not sure. Let's look that word up...
Exclusive [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exclusive] adj.
    10. Admitting only members of a socially restricted or very carefully selected group

Hrm, so both of our definitions fit into this. It can be either careful, or just socially restrictive. Huh...

Which is why I find the term clique so ridiculous. The fact that it's still up to debate what does and does not fall under the term of clique-dom means that most people will never really be sure of whether they did or didn't. I find it hard to believe that people would instinctively choose to turn away someone who greeted them in a friendly manner and engaged them in an interesting conversation.

 

[blaze96]

[/quote]Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I have read The Jungle and it had nothing to do with "cliques". If I am wrong let me know.[/quote]

No you are right the jungle was not about cliques. Though originally it was done as a series of editorials meant to highlight the lives of immigrants in America. The editorial style is what this paper is meant as, and an editorial tackles societal issues of which "cliques" can be included.

 

[blaze96]

Oh man, Cali, there's clique-heaven in the form of modern society. You aren't Hollywood, are you?

Lol so very true, but luckily no I am a northern Californian (San Fransisco is our well known major city).

 

[mr mcshiznit]

1.) Are you currently in school? Yes or No.
Yep

2.)If so, what grade?
Soph. @ uni of North Texas

3.)Do you feel as if you are apart of a clique, and if so which clique?
Sure, Jocks, Gamers
4.)Has anyone else ever seen you as part of a clique?
IDk? i dont ask.
5.)Do you ever associate with people outside of you clique?
Yeah nothing wrong ith that
6.)Have you ever treated someone outside of your clique differently, and if so how?
Not based on there "clique" afilliation
7.)Do different cliques hang out in different areas?
Yes
8.)Do you ever use the name of another clique as a put down?
Yes
9.)Do you get along better with people of the same clique as you?
Yes
10.)Do you use name of cliques to identify yourself? (i.e. I am a Jock,Geek,Prep,etc.)
sometimes.. such as this
11.)Has anyone ever treated you differently because of a clique you identified yourself as or were seen as being apart of?
Yes
12.)Do you feel that having cliques is a good thing why or why not?
can be good, much easyer to make freinds but as a gamer i'm seen as a nerd and a jock i'm seen as a jerk and stupid. So there are my pro/con for each.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

Oh man, Cali, there's clique-heaven in the form of modern society. You aren't Hollywood, are you?

Lol so very true, but luckily no I am a northern Californian (San Fransisco is our well known major city).

Ah, you're a NoCaler. More flamboyants up there, but still clique-ish when compared to the rest of the U.S. of A.