That's unfortunate that people decide to just go their own route with reference to recruitment. But if they go their own route, they have no authority as to who can and cannot be involved in recruitment, ie deciding who can and cannot be talking to women.

It really is unfortunate. As alphagamugaalum said, I'd love to be on a campus like yours where it seems that every chapter can really go its own way.

I am so picturing Stork from "Animal House".

http://media.npr.org/programs/mornin...se/dkenney.jpg

Oh, yeah, totally, they don't officially have any power to tell other people what to do, but they get the same voting in membership about cuts as anyone and if they aren't on the same page. . .

And just to be absolutely clear, I'm not advocating going renegade against the official goals for your chapter; I'm just pointing out why the particular "discuss as a chapter strategies to improve" doesn't end up being as empowering to the chapter as you and I would like it to be.

It's disheartening that so many campuses are not like the one where I initiated. However, I do have to point out that there were definitely a fair share of negative stereotypes that many (if not all) of the groups had to overcome, and it was difficult for all of them.

Earlier I was imagining using Bluto as the guy who probably didn't mind being told not to talk to rushees.

DramaDawg and I are from the same campus (although separated by ten+ years and not from the same chapter) so it may not really be as many campuses as you fear.

But it doesn't change the situation for the groups where it is true and it doesn't offer much hope that overall situation changes much over time (although the particular struggling groups may vary a little from decade to decade.)

Well, it's not altogether hopeless, either. I have seen chapters on many campuses completely change and overcome stereotypes to become the best on a certain campus in a few short years. Again, I stand by my statement that sacrificing sisterhood for more members should not be an option. But I digress. . .

When the chapters overcame the stereotype, did another chapter get stuck with it or did it go away completely?

Actually, one went away completely, because it was a ridiculous stereotype regarding sexual orientation. Several of the other stereotypes also disappeared, but of course, people are always going to talk trash, especially when people are petty and jealous of certain accomplishments. Sisters just need to remain dedicated to their chapters and hold on to their ideals.

Actually, I cannot remember Storks real name but he grew up and is a good looking Dude!:D

Go figure! Hypocrates!:(

Oh, Storks biggest statement, "You Morons"!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...dyshack_vi.jpg
Douglas "Stork" Kenny

(December 10, 1947 – August 27, 1980)
Cofounder of National Lampoon (the magazine)
Co-writer of National Lampoon's Animal House (movie)

Storks' full quote: "Well, whut the hell we s'posed to do, yuh mo-ron?"

I need to re-watch that movie. I saw Revenge of the Nerds recently. But I need to see Animal House again.

Animal House was on the other day :)

Speaking from personal experience from someone from a Large SEC school who was in a chapter that struggled for a number of years with "image problems" on campus. Your suggestions, while in theory are wonderful, typically just don't work. We did exactly what you listed above, and the only way we became a successful chapter was to close it, make all the remaining members alumnae, sit recruitment out for a year, then re-colonize. Now we are one of the largest/strongest chapters on campus. If have found, that once a specific chapter reputation has been established on campus, it's near impossible to fight/counteract it.

I would imagine its a catch-22 . . . it probably takes a couple years for your image to catch up with your reality. And of course to change the image you would need to change the reality.

But you can't attract the new members you need because of your image. And you don't want to hide/lose the members that give you the bad image . . . Checkmate.

I am glad you shared this experience, but just because none of my suggestions worked in your chapter's case, does not mean that they can NEVER work in any situation.

James:
No idea why you said checkmate, buddy.

No, but we can cite tons of examples where they didn't, and none where they did.

Trapped unable to move and in jeopardy . . . game over so to speak . . .

I am not in a sorority but know a few girls on them . . anyway I haven't seen this stuff work where formal recruitment is virtually the only way that the sororities get their numbers . . . on chapters where COOR is more important . . . it may work better.

Remember that Formal Recruitment, isn't really recruitment . . .

No, not really game over.

Why is everyone so obsessed with being right? Can you not handle the fact that someone might have a different opinion than you? Are you that horrified that the way you deal with a certain situation may, indeed, be incorrect?

Here's the deal though, James: at the campuses that we're talking about, for the most part formal is the only recruitment.

In the NPC system of recruitment where you use quota and chapter total as a means of leveling the playing field and maximizing girls' opportunities to pledge (which seems like the spirit of it to me), all the chapters are expected to get the number of girls they can during formal recruitment "quota", and the chapter total amount is usually slightly less than four years worth of quota (there are different ways to figure it).

The only groups that COB/COR are the groups who were unable to have quota number of bids accepted during formal recruitment or that are under chapter total even after taking quota in formal.

Basically the very fact that you are COB/CORing at these type campuses contributes to your image/reputation problems since only chapters that didn't get quota in formal are participating and that makes you seem less desirable. With chapter total, it depends on the year. In a year where total was adjusted upwards, a lot of groups will be participating in COR/COB despite having recruited to quota in previous years because it will represent the first opportunity that they can. But in most years, it seems to reflect a membership problem relative to other groups.

I think you're misunderstanding his point, but I could be wrong. He's basically seeing how hard it is to solve the image problem at some campuses. I don't even think he's talking to you particularly.

Do you see what I mean in that context, KathyKD?

I understand the concept but I disagree with the application or the approach to the situation. :) Agree to disagree.

Que?

No, I agree completely.

Shut the hell up already... Enough...

You know if you timed that just right. . .

hahahahha

All I've seen in this thread is...

SEC: Blah blah fat girls ruin our reputation and formal recruitment

Normal campuses: Our sisterhood is more important than getting superficial new members.

DONE. Lol see no one has to read the whole thread anymore.

During rush in college, I was always one of the sisters assigned to kitchen duty. Pictures taken back in the day reveal that I was quite adorable and thin, but I was a terrible rusher! Especially with the small talk in the first two rounds.

Can't always assume things are because of looks/weight.

I agree too, and there are tasteful ways to request that they do something besides stand in the front row of rushers talking to PNM's every party. I am not telling anyone "hey, you're a fatty, hide," but rush isn't always pleasant for everyone.

We had a sister who wanted to be in a skit but could not dance to save her life. We eventually changed it so she would sorta "introduce" the skit, and someone else took her place as a dancer. It's the same thing, just find another place for the women who do not excel at rushing for whatever reason.

I guess what I fail to understand is why this is acceptable and why there is no one willing to try to change it. Of course, it will take years, maybe even decades of work, individuals skilled in marketing, and individuals with some strong values to lead the change. Maybe that's why it won't happen. It's just too much work for the few that are willing to do it.

It isn't though. Maybe as an alum I can help with that. I hope so. It's just extremely depressing how accepted this is. It is totally against what the organizations were founded for...and, like I said, despite my cynical distaste for Pledged, has made ME, already a Greek, believe it.

And no, it's not going to be one chapter that changes it. One chapter cannot take on a whole monster by itself. Especially if they are already tired and stressed out from constant recruiting battles. Nationals/internationals, for instance, sometimes help perpetuate this attitude. We saw it in the DePauw case. I've seen it myself...a chapter seemingly offered no help at ALL relevant to the campus it was on..."suggestions" based totally on a campus where Greek life is the norm. I haven't experienced it, but I don't doubt that my chapter might run into similar problems with officials if it found itself below on numbers. Maybe everyone just got too big for their britches, and that's a shame. It seems that those of us who became Greek on smaller campuses really got the sisterhood/brotherhood experience. It doesn't mean we don't have our issues or run into petty/superficial attitudes with both members and PNMs at times, but even based on just this thread there is a HUGE gap. I have little doubt that if the sisters at my chapter were presented with the decision to close and recolonize or totally exclude sisters for recruitment, they'd rather recolonize. And I really do think the others on campus would be the same way.

And I do agree with the point that once you have a reputation, it's near impossible to change it. Especially if it's a negative one. Think back to high school. Weren't the nerds nothing BUT nerds, even if they quit band and lost the braces? Teenagers have a tendency to be self centered. They aren't all completely STUPID and superficial as some keep saying, but in general...self centered...YES. It translates into their perceptions of others. BUT I think the talk with the council...both male AND female councils would be helpful. It isn't going to turn around the reputation, but it might SLOW the progression of nasty remarks. It would take some effort. For instance, having a Greek advisor on your side who would call a meeting of individuals in each organization who DO value sisterhood/brotherhood and are therefore likely to be more sympathetic to the plight of the struggling chapters. It is part of the fight to change the way things are. It's not going to happen overnight. That's just not possible. But if people put the EFFORT into it, it could be changed in a few years. Seems worth it to me...being Greek and an Alpha Gam is important to me...therefore making sure the reputation of neither is tarnished by this stuff is as well. Because to me, it's VERY tarnished.

I have read this entire thread - I think my original post is around page 8...

I still maintain that this happening is not exclusive to struggling chapters. It is not exclusive to competitive campuses. It is not exclusive to the SEC. It happens far to often than I would probably care to know.

I think it is sad that it happens at all. You can come up with whatever justification you want for it happening, but that does not make it any more ok. It does not have to happen.

Most of the discussion seems to keep focusing on the poor struggling chapter at a competitive school that is trying to compete. What about when the not-struggling chapter does it too? They don't have the 'fat girls' reputation. They obviously like those member enough to have offered them a bid in the first place and allowed them to stay an active member. If the member is good enough to be in the chapter the entire rest of the year and no one has a problem with that - why suddenly are the too unsightly when it comes to recruitment?

This is different than they aren't a good rusher, can't sing or dance to be in the skit, etc. There are ways to assign those people to other areas without insulting them. Per the OP - this is where we are talking about a purely superficial rejection of someone based on physical appearance (whatever that may be).

That is something that I would never consider to be appropriate, either in the years that my chapter struggled or in the years that it didn't. Not everyone feels that way, but coming up with what you consider a 'good reason' for it does not make it any more right.

Does anyone actually know of someone who was asked to stay away from recruitment for NOTHING BUT physical appearance? I know that this is being talked about a lot, but I'm not really seeing any anecdotes or anything..just what one girl told us, which I still believe isn't super reliable.

Can you give examples of what you mean by "rejection of someone based on physical appearance" within the group?

What I see happening in the thread is that to see what we expect to see, we are kind of misrepresenting what was said by others.

People acknowledging that "image matters in recruitment in the SEC" in any form, even the ones that you kind of said were alright as far as matching people with what they were best at, translates to blaming the fat people, for example.

So unless you can give examples of people being singled out for appearance at chapters at non-competitive recruitments, it's hard to know what you are really talking about.

Do you mean dress check? Or do you mean having a concrete example of a young woman being told to stay away from recruitment at a strong chapter at a non-competitive school, and you know personally that her only "weakness" was appearance?

What a shame that this just keeps going on and on.

No matter what is said, it is not going to change things is it?:(

But people can have conversations about hypotheticals if they interest them. And if it doesn't, no one compels anyone else to read it.

And really, do you even want to have a conversation about how threads on GreekChat make us look? This wouldn't even be the right forum to start with if that were the issue.

Agreed. :)

A point that could not have been made by any two better people...since together you've posted on this thread 136 times!!! LOL :p

"Move away from the computer."