Something that is raised every year, both for the RI Rotaract Committee / RI Board to consider and on RotaractNET and even ROTI, is the issue of the upper age limit of Rotaract. So it was little surprise that the very first item someone asked Marcos to raise with the RI Rotaract Committee, before this new year had even started, was to raise the age limit...
The issue is usually brought up by the older members of Rotaract facing the prospect of having to leave. They aren't ready to go, so they suggest, wouldn't it be better to raise the age limit, to 35, or even 40? That way, we would have more members in Rotaract, right?
Wrong!
There is a very good reason why raising the age limit is always rejected by the RI Board. Quite simply, it will cripple the Rotaract program. Let's take a look at the reasons for this, as discussed on RotaractNET last year:
Problems with having mostly older members in a club:
The difficulty with younger members relating to older members
The age gap between 18 and 30 is huge, particularly if you are at the younger end of the scale. 18 year olds can have immense difficulty relating to 20 year olds, let alone 25 year olds, 30 year olds, and god forbid, 35 year olds. :p
(On a personal note, a couple of years ago one of our 21 year old members was complaining how she disliked a particular pub because the main people who go there were so *old*, because they were all 25!! I was 25 years old at the time, so that made me feel very old!)
There is a world of difference between younger members - generally uni students who are living at home and don't have much in the way of disposable income - and members in their mid-late 20s who generally have jobs, have moved out of home, and a larger income; they are even starting to settle down, get married, maybe even start families. Without a balance of members throughout that age range, you run the risk of alienating younger members by organising events that don't interest them or that are out of their price range. Once you start allowing members in their 30s, they may have children etc, totally different interests and income levels again, and that risk of alienation increases even more.
Another thing to think about, excluding Rotaract, as an 18 year old, how many of your friends were 25? 30? 35? 40? And vice versa... how many 30 year olds generally hang out with 18 year olds? What about 35 year olds hanging out with 18 year olds? As you can see, the bigger the age gap, the less likelihood of "naturally" associating with people of those ages, because the differences in maturity, interests, and financial status is staggering. Having members aged 30+ in a club are a big turn off for any 18 - 24 year olds considering joining, especially if there aren't many younger members for them to associate with.
If you aren't convinced, take a look at your local Rotary clubs. In Australia, Rotary is still very much seen as an "old boys club". Most of the Rotarians are aged 50 or above, though of course you have the exceptions. How many Rotaractors here join Rotary? Practically none. The primary reason they give? The age difference. Rotaractors of 30 don't feel they can relate to Rotarians who are old enough to be their parents or grandparents. Another reason is the cost; the older Rotarians generally have much larger incomes, which generally prohibits young people from being able to participate as Rotary fees and events generally cost more than younger people can afford.
Lack of opportunities for younger members to take on leadership roles
If you keep older members around, they tend to stay in the leadership positions, which tends to deny younger members the ability to assume responsibility. That can make them lose interest, if they feel they have to wait many years before getting the opportunity to participate on the board at least, let alone assuming a leadership role at the district level. Rotaract is all about providing leadership opportunities for all members, and if young people aren't getting those opportunities within a year or two of joining, you run a very high risk of losing them as members.
A wide age range does not guarantee a larger membership base
While you would expect a club with a larger age range to have a larger membership, you may find that it would actually stay the same, or decrease.
The Rotary clubs in my district, with no age limits, are generally no bigger than my own Rotaract club. My Rotaract club is currently bigger than 1/5 of the Rotary Clubs in my district, and are only a member or two smaller than the majority of the remaining Rotary clubs.
The same problem can be seen in organisations like Junior Chamber or Apex, which are also service organisations, but with an upper age limit of 40. The clubs here in Australia generally have similar membership numbers as our Rotaract clubs - the large age range certainly does not see them have a larger membership. And most of their members are in the 30 - 40 age range, for the reasons given above... younger members cannot relate to people that age, and cannot afford the activities.
Some other benefits of the current age limit
The age limit the the only was of getting rid of some "undesirables". It may be hard to get members at times, but it is also hard to get rid of them - if they are bad for
the club - eg if they are a deterent for new members to come along.
Some personal observations from Rotaractors (who are actually at the upper end of the age scale!):
"I have watched all the other clubs in my district fold because the ages of club members were all between 26 - 30, and they could NOT attract any younger members as they could not relate to people this age. Once they all turned 30, that was the end of each club... If you allow these members to remain until they turn 35, you only prolong the agony of the club folding, as it would be even harder still to recruit young members."
"I think that at best extending the age bracket will just delay things if anything. If we extended it to say 32(in line with the previous jump from 28 to 30) - you would still be facing the exact same issues in 2 years."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Raising the age limit would be a bad idea. By 30 somebody ought to be looking towards moving on.
Its unlikely that they will be learning anymore professional and leadership skills.
The clubs of similar backgrounds is a great idea - I believe using that model is what seeded Rotaract's revival in New Zealand.
The first Rotaract club re-established there was of past RYLArians. Then they formed another club of past Youth Exchange students, and so on. It appears to have worked well, as Rotaract has just exploded in New Zealand. So wonderful, wonderful idea Bron!
I agree with Lisa's observation that the problem is actually not with the Rotaract program, but with Rotaractors not being able to go on and join Rotary clubs. That is the reason why Rotaractors in Germany allow overage Rotaractors to stay on - because they cannot jon Rotary.
Rotaractors who turn 30 and are not invited to join Rotary should seriously consider trying to form their own New Generations Rotary Club. Track down other past Rotaractors, and anyone else who may be interested, and give it a go! That way, you aren't locked into the traditions of a particular Rotary club - you can put into place all the things you enjoyed about Rotaract (providing you do cover the things a Rotary club is supposed to), and a financial level that suits your members. It's a great way to be able continue the things that fun about being a Rotaractor, without remaining in Rotaract.
I agree, BUT, there is one problem that arrises with University-Based Rotaract Clubs. At least in the United States, many of our institutions of higher education have "non-traditional" students, or students over the age of 25 who are coming back to study. Most institutions also have rules and regulations that govern membership regulations of affiliated student organizations. Limiting membership by age is considered age discrimination and is illegal in public universities. Rotaract clubs or the university could actually be sued because they denied membership to someone because of their age. I do not know how these regulations work in other countries. I believe that there could be some sort of clause in the Rotaract guidelines for university-based clubs that states "members must be between ages 18-30 OR in the case of a university-based club, a student at the institution."
We have a new club this year in our district at a community college, and another at a college that is not a traditional college. Both of them have many students who are older than 30 and want to be involved. It has been a real challenge for those clubs. I know that Dr. Charles Grant is the advisor for a club at a community college, and I believe they have experienced the same problem.
Other than in this instance, I think the 18-30 age restriction is appropriate.
An alumni is a great idea - it's a great way to allow past members to perhaps attend some projects and social events, without allowing them an active role in the club. I keep in touch with some past members of my club, including some charter members and members from the 80s I've tracked down, but we don't have an active alumni yet. Hopefully that's something we can build with time.
I have just raised with the RI Rotaract Committee that I would like us to explore the issue of age limit not being observed (which is slightly different to the issue of the repeated requests to raise the age limit, but related).
It is common knowledge that many clubs ignore the upper age limit, with Rotaract in Germany going as far as publishing that in Germany, they have "raised" the age limit to 32, though they commonly allow Rotaractors to stay on until 35 (they also allow a Rotaractor to have membership of multiple clubs, so that skews the figures of the actual number of Rotaractors there enormously, but that's another issue)... It's rather disturbing when visiting Rotaractors from other countries who come to my club's meetings ask what the age limit is for our club - I've had to reinforce to my members after some of those meetings that the age limit is 18-30 everywhere, just that some clubs are misguided in thinking that they can change it!
Many other clubs around the world also turn a blind eye to the upper limit, but Germany is the main offender with telling everyone they have "changed" the age limit there. I know the issue in Germany is the elitism in the Rotary clubs, where ex-Rotaractors are not being allowed to join Rotary as they are considered too young and are not CEOs of companies, and that the RI Board are aware of the problem in Germany but don't seem inclined to address it.
I guess the reasons in other countries are most likely similar to those in Australia and UK, where it is usually because struggling clubs have the misguided idea that if they raise the age limit they will attract or retain more members.
But the opposite problem exists in India - I have been shocked at the high number of 16 and 17 year olds in Rotaract in India, since they apparently start college younger there (I started college at 16 too, but that still didn't make me eligible to join Rotaract., nor should it have changed anything.. :P). I take Mary Kathryn's point about it being considered discimination at colleges if not all college students can join, but the fact is, the rules are the rules, and if a club has members who are not between 18 and 30, or chooses to break other rules, then the club is not a Rotaract club. It is our particular set of rules that defines us as Rotaract, as opposed to the variety of similar students clubs or community service organisations that exist.
How we manage to address such a widespread problem, if we can address it at all, remains to be seen. Is it just a matter of education? Is it a matter of rethinking whether college based Rotaract clubs are a good idea, and instead focusing on community based clubs, if that is an easier way of enforcing the age limits? What do you think?
"This means that university rules can override Rotaract rules if there is a conflict such as the Rotaract age limits."
Yes Michael, you are correct. I was shocked with RI confirmed this last week (and my father, a past RI Director, found this interpretation very strange too!)
The reason why I am shocked, is Rotaract clubs are thus NOT all equal. If a University based club is able to have Rotaractors of ANY age, then a Community based club could quite rightly say "if those clubs can do it, why can't we"?
In my opinion, rules should be consistent across an organisation, otherwise why bother having them?
I think some of the "equal rights" / "discrimination" has gone too far (in Australia as well as the USA). Age limits DO apply in many instances - when you can learn to drive, when you can vote, when you can drink alcohol, so what's wrong with applying age limits to an organisation for young people? Most "youth" (and I had using that when referring to Rotaract) community service organisations do have age limits as well, to ensure they retain their youthful focus, rather than drift into something that resembles a Rotary club by everyone just hanging on and getting older, and older, and older...
I don't think that change in the rules was a good one. It changes the whole nature of Rotaract. I'm anti-University based Rotaract clubs in Australia for that reason - the requirements of the student guilds change the face of the University Rotaract Clubs so that they barely resemble the community based clubs everywhere else in the world. Better to keep them Community based, where college students can join just as easily, so that Rotaract can retain a common identity, than to allow different rules for different clubs. No wonder Rotaractors are starting to complain loudly that Rotaract no longer has a clear mission!
(How's that for controversial? :P)
I recently just found out, as well, about item 10 in the Rotaract Statement of Policy. It was a great relief to me to know this.
There are many issues with university-based clubs that community-based clubs do not have. All the clubs in my district are university-based, and they are wonderful clubs. I would never have been a Rotaractor if it were not for university-based clubs. It seems that the vast majority of clubs in the USA are university-based because most Rotarians in the USA a) don't know about Rotaract, and if they do, b) most think it is a club for college students. They are baffled to learn than there is such a thing as a community-based Rotaract. I am currently trying to start a few community-based clubs in my district.
University-based clubs also have to fight the problem of turnover. Every few years your members are gone because they have gradauted, and thus it is very difficult to have continuity.
Even so, diversity in the types of clubs is not a bad thing. Not every Rotary Club is the same, and likewise, not every Rotaract Club is the same.
Furthermore, I see no real problem with those who have reached the age of 30 continuing to participate in Rotaract events. They do not have to be considered actual members for technical purposes. What can it hurt for someone to maintain connection with their Rotaract club, especially if they aren't ready/can't join Rotary yet for whatever reason?
I think there are much larger issues to be tackled in Rotaract, such as communication, statistics on membership, and the level of importance we are given by RI.
I recently just found out, as well, about item 10 in the Rotaract Statement of Policy. It was a great relief to me to know this.
There are many issues with university-based clubs that community-based clubs do not have. All the clubs in my district are university-based, and they are wonderful clubs. I would never have been a Rotaractor if it were not for university-based clubs. It seems that the vast majority of clubs in the USA are university-based because most Rotarians in the USA a) don't know about Rotaract, and if they do, b) most think it is a club for college students. They are baffled to learn than there is such a thing as a community-based Rotaract. I am currently trying to start a few community-based clubs in my district.
University-based clubs also have to fight the problem of turnover. Every few years your members are gone because they have gradauted, and thus it is very difficult to have continuity.
Even so, diversity in the types of clubs is not a bad thing. Not every Rotary Club is the same, and likewise, not every Rotaract Club is the same.
Furthermore, I see no real problem with those who have reached the age of 30 continuing to participate in Rotaract events. They do not have to be considered actual members for technical purposes. What can it hurt for someone to maintain connection with their Rotaract club, especially if they aren't ready/can't join Rotary yet for whatever reason?
I think there are much larger issues to be tackled in Rotaract, such as communication, statistics on membership, and the level of importance we are given by RI.
Mary Kathryn, I agree entirely with your comment that "I think there are much larger issues to be tackled in Rotaract" than the age debate. But for some strange reason, this seems to be the issue that Rotaractors put the most energy into... the debate has come up on RotaractNET practically every year, and it is also submitted to the RI Rotaract Committee every year. No other topic receives so much attention amongst Rotaractors.
I think it would be a much better use of time to discuss (on both RotaractNET and the RI Rotaract Committee) issues that are of more importance to making the program work as best it can. So here is my plea... please, don't submit the request to the RI Rotaract Committee every year to raise the age limit! If it hasn't happened yet, it's not going to happen in the near future, so let's put our energy into something more constructive! ;)
Post a Comment