Umm....NPC has been "moving" towards this since the early 90s. Many campuses have kind of giggled and kept right on doing what they've always been doing - if you don't believe me, read the "rush clothes -what are you wearing?" thread. If they keep "moving" at this rate, they'll get rid of all frills by, oh, 2050 or so.

I don't know about that--but we'll just have to wait and see. They have been moving pretty quickly these days. :D

Amen. FWIW, I googled and I think I figured out the school and the sorority. It's the newest in an area where new = bad and they had the smallest pledge class this past year.

The majority of girls going through rush here know about the sororities' reputations before they even get to campus. The national office probably should get a clue on that, and realize NOTHING they do will fix this (much like Tippie's example). So, either 1) accept being the smaller chapter on a big Greek campus and go with being the "unsorority" and get a smaller house or 2) close the chapter.

There are places I would love ASA to be because I would love to have a chapter at a school with huge Greek traditions. But I'm not going to push for it because I wouldn't want any of my sisters to have to suffer with being "that sorority" just because all the other groups have been there for 100+ years. It's not worth it.

Yes, some campuses have jumped right on the no-frills bandwagon...if that's what you mean by "moving fast", but there are other campuses that haven't changed a bit, and have no intention of changing.

There are a bunch of campuses where dropping all the frills in the world isn't going to make people recruit differently in terms of what groups look for in new members and what new members look for in groups.

And because of that, I don't see how ritual based recruitment would be possible.

Yes!

I also wonder if thinking that every chapter can be made strong is in itself faulty. With a couple of rare exceptions, even when my recruitment thread reading experience is added to my SEC experience, most campuses have a group or a couple of groups that struggle to maintain the membership that is expected.

Why not change the standards for those chapters so that their goal rather than quota and chapter total was financial solvency? And if they are financially solvent, even living on a dorm floor where most groups have houses, then concentrate your efforts on helping those sisters have an excellent experience rather than making the experience all about how unsuccessful they are at recruiting?

Or have a hard and fast rule about pulling charters of groups whose membership is below a certain point for more than X number of years relative to the rest of campus and then stay the heck off campus for long enough that people forget what your problem was.

I don't understand, I guess, why we have to be so different from IFC groups when it comes to our attitudes about chapter size, and as a result we do some weird stuff, and one of things we do is over-focus on the physical appearance of members during recruitment.

The problem is that if you stay off campus, you might not be able to get back on. There's room for another sorority, it's just that your sorority isn't able to attract women. How many times on here have we read about a chapter closing at State U, and then 2 years (or less) later, the Panhellenic is open for expansion, a new group comes on and does fabulous?

It's kind of like staying in a marriage you know is messed up for the sake of the kids or your lifestyle. You (the national HQ you) have to figure out how much that marriage/chapter means to you, and what you're willing to do to keep it. There are women who put up with their husbands cheating so they can have the perks of being "Mrs Important." There are sororities who put up with their chapter being at the bottom of the totem pole on large campuses because they feel that chapter is important to have there, for alum support or whatever reason.

Well, not getting back on campus would be the risk you took with a keep-membership-this-high-or-we'll-drop-you kind of policy.

Personally, I favor just letting some chapters be small and figuring out a way for them to do it without running in the red. But letting them exist isn't enough: GLOs need to figure out a way to keep the programming for the women who join at that chapter strong so that it's a chapter worth being in from a ritual and campus activities point of view.

What I think happens a lot at smaller chapters is that the experience can start to stink all the way around.

Within the campus PC community, the group is looked down on or pitied because they are so far from total or quota. Formal recruitment is kind of doomed no matter how hard they work if reputation and current size are the issue. Alumnae support may not be that great, so there's not much immediate help. The group is small enough that the officers are already working pretty hard just to exist, so the group ends up actually doing less in terms of activities. The average member makes a commitment of time and money for an experience that might be less fulfilling than being in the glee club.

And rather than saying, "we need to make sure that we put something in place so those members have a great experience," everything the chapter hears from the national or international group is likely to be negative about recruiting.

So, I'd first like to see a commitment to support all chapters, but if we're going to narrowly define what a successful chapter is, then a resolution to close chapters who hit a well-defined membership level is the only option that seems fair to current members. Any form of the "we are going to dump you for someone better" kind of stuff, which was the connection between the DePauw thread and this one, always seems to backfire from a practical point of view in addition to its betrayal of the ideals of sisterhood.

"She ain't heavyyyyyyy....she's my sis-terrrrr.....her wel-fare is myyyyy con-cern....."

True True!

Not everyone is a Lindsy or Paris, thank goodness!:rolleyes:

Amen to that. Old bag of bones ain't cute. :cool:

Lindsay used to be gorgeous. When she quits the cocaine and puts the weight back she won't be a bag of bones.

I agree! When people stop telling her that she is sexy when she looks like a crackhead, then she'll stop doing that. She looked spectacular when she was at an average (albeit below normal) weight. I hope everything works out for her.

It annoys me because she's stunning and her red hair is absolutely beautiful. She should never have gone blonde. Bad Lindsay, no more coke!

Silly Lindsay, coke is for, well--stupid people. :eek: