I can't believe I'm replying to this...
Yes, the sorority could change their mind to invite a girl back to round 2 if they met the girl again---that's not the point. The point is that if you are borderline getting cut after round 1 (a "maybe" that got cut), you're not ending up on that chapter's bid list after 4 rounds, so the chapter should not lead you on. For every PNM that a chapter "changed their mind on", one that was set to be invited back must be cut. Members of "top tier" chapters do like many of the women their chapters end up cutting, but there are only so many spaces.

Plus, like other posters have said, down in SEC-land and at other competitive universities, chapters know who they want for the most part, and meeting a PNM that they don't know twice vs once is not going to make the difference in getting cut or invited back after round 1.

And like I said...the point of RFM is not "oh let's give everyone another chance at the top tier chapters". It is to maximize Panhellenic membership.

On certain big campuses, several of the older sororities have pretty much interchangeable members, despite what people say about 'finding your best fit' and they're all looking at the same group of a couple hundred outstanding girls. Say there are 1600 PNMs--6 groups might have their eye on the same 200-300 girls because no one knows for sure which way the girls will go. I've actually seen lists--let's say, a sorority thinks that quota will be 50 and here are their top 50 girls but because they know that every sorority gets cuts, they have a runner-up list. No, I'm not talking about my own sorority, I haven't seen any Pi Phi lists because I'm too far from alum groups or chapters. I have seen lists for at least 6 other groups.

Whether or not these campuses have pre-recruitment parties in the spring or summer, these groups already have their eye out for certain girls. Most of them they know very well. I know of one SEC sorority that has alums looking out for 'the best girls from the small towns' in their state and that's mainly who they pursue. Others may have other types of girls they're looking for but when invite lists come out, it's pretty obvious that many sororities have the same list of desired PNMs, mainly your stellar girls with great service and grades and activities and looks. Many sorority members have a Wall of Fame inside where the members hang up posters with pictures and details about their PNM favorites, urging others to vote for them.

It'd be nice if there could be a second round of no-cut parties so sororities could get to know girls better and that happens at some medium-sized to smaller schools but face it, when you're dealing with hundreds of girls you conduct it the best you can. I don't have any suggestions for how to do it better...the numbers are just too big.

AXOrushadvisor, you're probably right about exclusivity. So much of the PNM talk before recruitment on certain campuses isn't "Will I get a bid?" but "Will I manage to get a bid from certain groups?" That's no different from what it was like 30-40 years ago but your chances were better to get in your desired group back than because quotas were determined sooner and thus quota was bigger.

You know what? I think that in a way, sororities are reaping what they sowed back then. If 8 sororities took classes of 60 each and the other 4 took only 25 each, the new members were happier then because they got (one of) their choice groups. However, their daughters are paying the price because with so many legacies of certain groups on certain campuses, the daughters aren't making it into their legacy groups.

I can speak from experience - even chapters at non-SEC schools have their eyes on certain pnms, and have alumnae working with them to get recs, etc. You'd be surprised at some of the "non-competitive" campuses where chapters have their lists of favoured pnms before recruitment starts.

But they might not. That's kind of like saying a job should interview their second place candidate again, even though they know who they want to hire. MAYBE they'll change their mind, but probably not. And then the third, fourth, fifth.... 345th girl would like a chance too.

So... you just want to get rid of RFM. It's been explained pretty well that this screws the less popular chapters by leading PNMs on. And it implies that there is something so valuable about ABC's membership that cannot be found with XYZ. Why should the popular chapters maximize their return at the expense of the less popular ones? Particularly when all that happens is fewer girls get bids overall. It's not like more people will get bids at ABC, the exact same number will. Even if Suzie PNM changes ABC's mind and gets invited back, you just bumped Jenny PNM who is now in the same boat as Suzie.



No. You might slightly increase your chances with chapter A, but you will have to cut other chapters each round you return to chapter A. So now you've lost out on a chance at a bid to B, C, and D. And then A cuts you anyway. Overall, your odds are better if you're let go early from a more popular chapter if you keep your options open.

Again, this puts a lot of weight on membership in one chapter vs another which I think is really misplaced.

I agree that it's not just SEC schools that have pre-recruitment bid lists already mapped out. I know for a fact that other less competitive southern campuses have done this in the past and may still do this.

If you are real, you need to get off the bitter bus and be happy with the chapter you are in and quit wishing for things that would never have happened, and blaming it on the Greek system. IF you are real.

However, I doubt that's the case.

In a perfect world, that would happen. (Cue rainbows and unicorns.)

But what you get is a full semester of high-pressure, under-handed dirty rushing, lots of focus on certain girls and none on others. Lots of time spent on "Coke dates," lots of time wasted on non-productive "rushing." Chapters are delayed in getting a portion of their budget, and NMs have less time to bond with the chapter.

There's a reason early recruitment has survived thus far - it's the quickest and most efficient way to place new members.

Is it perfect? No. RFM is working great now, helping the smaller chapters build. Eventually, somebody will come up with something a little better.

I like the UGA model - a sort of formalized second recruitment that takes place in January. This enables chapters to fill spots for girls who resigned, dropped out, transferred or graduated in December (an increasing number of women do that now), and enables girls who were dropped or quit or couldn't rush for some reason in August, or just transferred in, or changed their minds, to join.

You know what I remember about Coke dates back when Arkansas had deferred recruitment? (You had to be a sophomore back then to rush)

Coke dates weren't mentioned in the recruitment brochure, I suppose you had to be "in the know". Some girls had loads of Coke dates all summer. When the rushees came back to campus in the fall, dozens of them discovered for the first time that Coke dates existed because other girls would be excitedly talking about the ones they'd had. This had a huge negative effect on morale...."Why did I even bother to show up?"

Add to that that Arkansas had bed rush anyway and you can see how some women were picturing those beds as already having been filled before they even showed up on campus. They probably were.

AnchorAlum and others, I know y'all are just picturing with me how dirty the rush would get if the SEC crowd went to deferred recruitment. I know that Ole Miss has it but I have no doubt that the beds are already "filled", so to speak, before the first class starts in August.

I'm sure that deferred rush works for other campuses but I guess that's a whole other thread.

Yes, because not ALL the chapters do it, and preferred pnms will decide not to pursue certain houses. BUT - 33girl is absolutely correct. A pnm might not be able to get the top-tier house she thinks she wants, but there are opportunities for other great chapters to offer her a home, thanks to the new release figure formula.

From what everyone says, everyone wants the same "top" girls. If a chapter is stupid enough to spend all their $$ on the same women everyone else is spending it on, that's their own fault. Maybe if this sort of thing had more concrete consequences (i.e. getting to rush and realizing OH CRAP WE NEED $$) sororities would step out of this silly mindset.

Why would NMs have less time to bond with the chapter? Most groups have a 6-8 week mandated national pledgeship, whether it occurs in spring or fall.

Talk about a revealing quote! There's no mention here of retention or member satisfaction - just that this is the easiest way to stick people in holes. Quick fixes rarely work. The NPC gives lip service to "lifetime membership" but if they really meant it, they wouldn't be trying to just pledge people as quickly as possible.

If sororities were able to retain all their members until graduation, there wouldn't be such craziness of getting the best freshmen, upperclassmen being disadvantaged, etc etc etc. You could fill the bathtub and keep it filled without having to continually plug the leaks.

Big chapters have plenty of money to spend. They don't spend it all on recruitment. A good bit of the bill for dirty rushing is footed by individual members and alumnae. You'll never see it in the recruitment budget that's submitted to Panhellenic.

The 6-8 week new member period is just a basic. It takes longer to really get to know people in the chapter, and for the chapter to get to know NMs. That's what we tell NMs all the time, isn't it? With deferred, you've got a semester less to do it in.

You are right...if we could all keep all our members all 4 years. That just doesn't happen. I daresay if you compare retention rates for early and non-deferred recruitments, there wouldn't be that much difference. Retention is indeed something that needs more attention (I lay that in part to the brief NM period).

I used to think deferred recruitment was a great idea and that my school (Alabama) should change to it. But then I saw it in action, in a couple of smaller schools with a just-as-competitive recruitments. It was a nightmare.

I would never say that EVERY school should have deferred recruitment. It clearly works for many schools. And it clearly doesn't work for many others. Isn't that why NPC offers several different methods of recruiting?

I wouldn't say that either. I'm just really glad my alma mater has it.

So in other words, all these chapters have to do is ask the alums for money to do whatever and they get it? You were the one who brought up the "budget" but it seems that having a "budget" is a moot point.

You've got a lifetime to get to know your sisters. Or, you should have a lifetime if you don't get burned out and self-terminate. Don't forget that hopefully some of the women have come into the chapter ALREADY being friends with some of the members. That's what I'm advocating. We heard constantly that women pledge more often because of friendship with one member than any other reason.

I doubt that very much. There was a poster on here who said, in effect, that at her (pre-freshman rush) school, people routinely disaffiliated by their junior and definitely senior year, as Greek life was looked on as something you did as an underclassman. To the point that only 25% of her pledge class was left by the time she graduated. I also think it's important to look on WHY people disaffiliate. I just ran over my years as an active briefly in my head, and of the members we "lost," 3 left college completely (one returned later and reactivated) and 4 were terminated for behavior reasons. We didn't have women quitting because they "just weren't feeling it anymore." The other sororities on campus were similar.

I know with a large rush the thought of changing can be daunting, but it's that kind of thinking that perpetuates pre-rush choosing of pledge classes and under the table alum donations to get around budget rules.

Anecdote =/= data.

we would need much more to know why people disaffiliate and if it correlates with the type of recruitment they have.

That's exactly what I'm saying. And from what I've seen on GC, it DOES tend to correlate.