My b, missed it.

I feel like this thread is like the TV commercials for Bing.com.

And no matter how hard Bing tries, its search results still aren't as good...

/tangent

Were you a first semester freshman?

If so, did this occur less than a month after you set foot on campus?

I think there is something to be said about both styles of Recruitment.

I do have to say though, of the schools I've visited, true success lies somewhere in-between. I've seen some schools where the system is so loose that it destroys some chapters, and I've seen the system is so strict that it kills the morale to participate.

Ultimately, I think that regulating recruitment is a lot like regulating a business. Over-regulation kills profits and destroys incentives, and under-regulation spawns greed and often times limits organizational sustainability.

When I was a Freshman, the sororities were over-regulated. The Panhellenic sought to reduce competition making equity their primary concern. The different chapters stopped actively recruiting (instead the Pi Chis were the only ones responsible for meeting PNMs), Frills were banned entirely (no balloons, no table-cloths, nothing), and cutting was mandated by each chapter to ensure each sorority got an equal number of members. There was almost no incentive to boost numbers, and recruitment numbers declined so much that each chapter had to COR more and more after each Formal Recruitment.

The Fraternities at my school, on the other hand, had almost no restrictions. Alcohol was used during recruitment, Sorority girls participated at each event, and members were allowed to bid/initiate anyone and anywhere. One chapter who was non-pledging (hint: Not SigEp) started recruiting PNMs far before school even started. They would actually hold initiations AT Freshman Orientation and would have a group of Freshman at Fish Camp initiating even more people. They would initiate as many as 50 - 70 people each semester and kick out the ones they didn't like (this, of course, would spoil them from being able to join another Fraternity) and those people didn't have very positive things to say about the Greek System afterwards. This, of course, led to a lot of shit-talking from the other Fraternities which, of course, led to even more shit-talking by this chapter, and caused an overall decline in Recruitment numbers for Fraternities.

Fortunately our (former) Greek Advisors "resigned" and were replaced by excellent staff people. They taught us how to compromise on Regulations and encouraged us to investigate how other schools did it. We ultimately found that the best solution was somewhere in-between. The sororities began to loosen their restrictions allowing chapters to decorate their rooms and 'friend' girls on Facebook, and the Fraternities restricted women and alcohol from recruitment as well as creating a "hands-off" bidding from Freshman Move-in to Bid Day.

Really I don't think there is such a thing as the "Best" recruitment rules, only the "Right" recruitment rules.

This kind of thing can happen when a guy knows a lot about the houses. But another negative aspect can occur when a guy knows too little and can be swayed by random things.

When I went through, one house had a wall around the front of their house with a big entrance to a patio where they held their event. My friends and I went in and had a great time.

The next house had their wall and patio in the back, so the front entrance was just one small door which was crowded. We took one look at the line and skipped that house.

The Sororities work hard to eliminate that kind of crazy. "The door was too small."

In my 20+ years experience as a volunteer, using just my own observations, I've seen no difference in drop rates over the years or based on the varying levels of structure with recruitment. In fact, our drop rates are really very, very low. In my experience, the rare times that more than 1 or 2 women drop before Initiation, it's generally due to other issues such as hazing or major sisterhood problems in the chapter.

I can't believe this even went over for one rush, as some sororities have rules that say the PNM must meet a certain number/percentage of members before receiving a bid. In other words, this is completely against national policy for some groups and if people wanted to "challenge" those bids at some point, they probably could.

I think (hope) what he means is that the recruitment counselors were the only ones who could speak to PNMs prior to the start of formal recruitment. I.E. the recruitment counselors are the only ones promoting formal recruitment because of psycho crazy silence rules.

Yeah, sorry this is what I meant. Although I know many of the women in the Sororities were upset at exactly how few women were meeting the PNMs before they handed out bids. Even in sororities with complex bump-groups there were still chapters that had to mainly trust what their sisters had to say about a PNM.

This is why we say pledge, you can always drop. We know they won't. They just need a little nudge to make the leap.

Nope, but thanks for the compliment.

At most schools, the current system, yes, designed by women, treats freshmen as fungible assets. You're an extrovert with good grades who dresses well? Come on in.

But the mindset seems to be "it worked for me, why change it?"

But I've had my say. I really don't think I'm necessarily a minority of one, but probably joined by thousands who don't post here.

Pot, meet kettle.

And jeepers, what a coincidence, you joined Delta Gamma. I'm sure there were women who felt pressured to not disappoint the "one friendly face" they'd met, women who didn't click with the sister who was writing them (and dismissed the whole Greek system because of it) and women who thought this assured them a bid and were disappointed.

But hey, it worked for you, why change it.

And tens of thousands who disagree?

I really don't know anything about the back and forth, but claiming the support of invisible others (whether supporters in PMs or thousands who don't post) doesn't mean jack.

GC's not a controlled sample, though I'd guess it's probably unintentionally representative, at least when it comes to younger alums and current members. Regardless of whether you're a minority of "one" or "one percent" you're not exactly vindicated by your silent thousands.

If you weren't in the minority, we wouldn't have the system we do.