Is the Gold Key Society screwing you over?
Rob Taylor
Here's a story about something we can all agree is a scam:
Out in cyberspace there are a number of "poetry" websites, such as Poetry.com, which are pretty damn cool. They offer you lots of neat services, under headings such as "Need help rhyming?" and "Test your Poetry IQ." Best of all, they offer contests. Lots of them. Free ones, with large cash prizes. You think, "What the hell," and submit a poem. A really, really special poem. And what do you know! They love it! They send you an e-mail informing you that they are crazy about your poem. That everyone on the editing board tinkled their pants in delight and satisfaction when they read your poem. They are so pleased with it that they are going to print your poem in their upcoming anthology entitled Clocks of the Season or Chasing the Wind or Forever and a Day (all real titles, by the way). You are so excited you don't know what to do with yourself. But then you keep reading: you aren't going to get a royalty check, or a free copy. But, you will be allowed to buy a copy for the low, low price of $80. And remember . . . it has your poem in it.
People buy these books, and buy them in droves. Of course, when they get them, they realise that all the publisher has done is collect the first five thousand poems submitted to them (regardless of quality) and thrown them into a hastily produced "anthology" whose only purpose is to suck $80 out of the wallet of some poor, unsuspecting poet.
It's a mean-spirited scam, bad enough because it tricks people out of their money, but even worse because it takes advantage of something very personal and significant for the person being scammed.
When it comes to scams, however, the Golden Key Society is not such a black and white case. In the past, many people have asked me if I believe the Golden Key is a scam, and I myself have wondered about this on more than one occasion. Finally, I decided to look into the organisation, and I've written this article to share my results:
The Golden Key Society (GKS) is an "International Honour Society" whose membership is made up of "academic achievers" (anyone within the top 15 per cent of their faculty at their particular university). The GKS operates around the world, with over 330 chapters, and has had a chapter at SFU since 2000. In the past five years, the GKS has sent out well over 10,000 "invitations" for membership to SFU students, from which they have attained a membership of 2,600, with the number of new sign-ups each year ranging between 300 and 500 students. Each of these students pays an $80 membership fee.
The GKS is not a registered student club, but instead operates through a direct relationship with the SFU administration. More specifically, Ron Heath, as SFU's dean of student services, manages the mailing of "invitations" to students. The latest round of "invitation" packages was mailed to students in late August. It was sent in an SFU envelope and contained two letters from Ron Heath and one from the GKS itself. It also included letters from Scotiabank and IBM lauding the recipient's academic achievement. All of the letters begin rather similarly: congratulating the recipient on their astounding academic achievement and noting how they've been given this valuable opportunity to join this elite group. One of the letters from Ron Heath makes the point of noting: "Membership is by invitation only." Overall, the letters usually leave the "invitees" feeling quite special. The letters then move on to discussing the benefits one can expect from membership.
Beyond feeling good about yourself, and getting to put on your resume that you are a member of this fantastic organisation (or as they put it, "Highlight[ing] your achievements"), the main thrust of all of the letters is scholarships. In one of Ron Heath's letters, he refers to scholarships multiple times and in more than one paragraph. In the letter from the GKS, it is noted on three separate occasions that large scholarships are available, twice referring to the fact that "in 2004-05, $500,000 was awarded internationally." Once the point is driven home that you can make a lot of money, the letters move on to talk about the other benefits of membership: a job bank, networking opportunities, guest speakers, volunteer opportunities, etc.
Nowhere on any of the letters does it directly state that a one-time $80 fee must be paid in order to join. Only the membership form itself makes note of the fee (it also offers you the chance to buy a $25 lapel pin or pendant, which I'm certain is quite nice).
Of course, it's at the point where they start asking for money that alarms start going off. It seems many people's mommas are like my momma, who taught me that if someone really thinks you are great, they'd give you something for free. If they start asking for money, be careful. Nonetheless, what the Golden Key offers does appear to be a wide variety of services, and if one were to receive a large scholarship, the $80 membership fee would be more than covered. In order to truly understand whether the $80 is money well spent, I feel it's important to look at the numbers:
As mentioned earlier, the SFU GKS has 2,600 members, which equates to $208,000 in membership fees. Considering that their executive is entirely run by students, one could consider them far and away the richest "club" on campus. According to the SFU GKS website, 25 per cent of their money, or $52,000, goes to "Administration." This rate is alarmingly high. Oxfam Canada, one of the country's largest non-profits, working all around the world on development and relief projects has a combined "Fundraising and Administration" rate of 20 per cent. The SFU GKS, on the other hand, is run by volunteers, with no staff persons (Ron Heath's salary is paid through the university). Granted, the international administration of the GKS would require some money, and they do have to cover the cost of thousands of glossy mail-outs, but spending over $50,000 on these things over the past five years seems unrealistic.
The other 75 per cent of the GKS' funds goes to the general "benefits" of the club, such as a speaker series and an online job board. Primarily, it's touted that this money goes into scholarships. In other words, members are paying into a pool from which some people will draw "scholarships": a lottery of sorts in which those with the highest GPAs get more tickets (basically the bottom 14 per cent fund scholarships for the top 1 per cent). But how, exactly, does the money for scholarships break down?
Within the "invitation" letter, the figure of "$500,000 a year" is noted repeatedly. Though this is a significant amount of money, it is only a small fraction of the total amount raised through membership fees. Internationally, the Golden Key has 1.2 million members, translating to $92,000,000 in membership fees. In other words, they are working with a staggering amount of money. $500,000 would most likely be only a portion of the interest generated from that large a sum. At SFU, the picture is much the same. Though SFU has raised over $200,000 in membership fees, it has only given out $33,500 dollars in international and "chapter" scholarships. This means only 16 per cent of the money the SFU GKS has raised has been returned to its members in scholarships. Also, those scholarships have gone to a mere handful of the chapter's 2,600 members, with more than half of the total ($20,000) going to two individuals. Over 99 per cent of SFU GKS members have never received scholarships as a result of their membership.
If 25 per cent of monies raised go to administration and 16 per cent to scholarships, that leave 59 per cent ($122,250) to be spent on various other member benefits. It certainly costs money to operate a job board, organise networking sessions and award banquets, and bring in guest speakers. It's important to note that events are held on campus (through the organisation of Ron Heath and the SFU administration), and almost all guest speakers in recent memory are themselves SFU professors (with slightly smaller appearance fees than the big names of the public speaking world). In other words, it does not seem that the operations of the SFU GKS entail any major expenses, beyond possibly the New Members Induction Ceremony. One should also consider the fact that most SFU clubs operate on a budget of around $500 a year, yet still manage to provide a variety of services to their members.
While the finances of the GKS seem questionable at times, the genuine commitment of the membership is undeniable. Through the leadership of their volunteer executive, the SFU GKS has undertaken a number of commendable projects, most notably a string of fundraisers for the YMCA Nanook Child Care Centre. Their commitment to doing good work in the community should not be pushed aside, or clouded, by the "scam or not a scam" debate. Likewise, having spoken with Ron Heath, I do not believe the SFU administration is out to take advantage of the student body. At worst, they are misguided in their belief that, when all factors are weighed, the SFU GKS plays a positive role on campus.
What, then, does all this mean? Is the GKS a scam, or isn't it? That decision is up to us, the campus community, to make. The conclusion we arrive at will determine our next steps. Whether or not the GKS is a scam, a number of actions must be taken:
If the GKS is not a scam, it is still an organisation riddled with a number of problems. Most fundamentally, the GKS refuses to subsidise students unable to pay the $80 membership fee, sighting the difficulties inherent in trying to prove who is "in need" and who is not. Regardless of their reasoning, this condition means that the student with the highest GPA in the university could be denied access to an Honours Society whose goal is to recognise "academic achievers," while a student with a B+ average in a weak program (who has $80 burning a whole in their pocket), would be allowed entry. This policy also brings into question the broader intentions of the organisation: Are they trying to aid "academic achievers," or are they trying to make a profit?
Other problems also exist. For instance, the SFU GKS works hard to raise money for charities. Would it not be more productive (and beneficial for the charities) if the GKS had an open membership that allowed anyone who wanted to volunteer for these causes to be able to do so? Also, considering the concern the SFU GKS shows for these charities, wouldn't it be a better use of member dollars if they were directly donated to these causes?
Finally, if the GKS is not a scam and is instead, in fact, a responsible organisation whose primary concern is the well-being of its members, then it must reconsider the way it markets itself to its "invitees." If less than 1 per cent of all members are going to receive scholarships, the availability of them should not be touted so frequently and with such force. If an overwhelming percentage of a new member's membership fee is going to their Induction Ceremony, they should be made aware of this. Students should be able to look at all the facts, and make an informed decision. If the GKS is not a scam, then these changes should be put into action to allay any concerns.
If, on the other hand, we determine that the GKS is, in fact, a scam, far more drastic action needs to be taken. Consider my opening example of Poetry.com. Why was that such a morally-bankrupt swindle? Because it prayed on people's hopes and aspirations. If the reality is that the GKS is attempting first and foremost to make money, and is misleading SFU students in order to gain access to their wallets, then what it is doing is no less malevolent than the poetry scams. The letters from Ron Heath, the GKS International, Scotiabank, and IBM all attempt to boost student ego. As the IBM letter states, "To be recognized in the top 15 [per cent] of your class is a great honour and speaks volumes to your commitment to perform at the top of your discipline." If students are being built up falsely for profit, then all people knowingly associated with this practice should be ashamed of themselves. Moreover, the SFU administration should be ashamed of itself for allowing this kind of operation into our school, and for supporting it with both staff time and other resources. If this is a scam, SFU's association with the GKS must end immediately.
Over the coming months I hope everyone will watch to see if changes take place within the operation of the GKS which will make it a more inclusive and more transparent society. I also hope those of you who received letters in the mail this August think long and hard before joining. There are many benefits from this organisation, and many good reasons to join, but ultimately you must ask yourself: are you being scammed?