I know that some PNMs are able to rank the sororities "with regrets" as a sign that they didn't hate the GLO. It's a shame that sororities can't do the same thing, to make COR easier.

As with most things, RFM was put in place partly because people abused the system. Sororities were inviting back girls they had NO intention of bidding just to cover their butts in case something wild DID happen and they lost all the girls they wanted (it never did) or for bragging rights (we had more people come back to our parties than any other sorority!).

Something had to be done for those girls who were going the whole way through to pref and getting screwed. This isn't just big schools either, it happened at ALL size schools. Yes, it hurts like hell to get released from 9 out of 12 groups, but better to find it out the first day than after a week of falling in love with a group that doesn't even know you're alive.

I think the best solution is for more schools to offer sorority preview weekends so the PNMs can at least put themselves out there.

(Large rush only) If a chapter is so "high octane" that only that type of girl makes it in rush, wouldn't the shy, sensitive girl get lost in the shuffle of the chapter if she DID make it in?

The "entitlement complex" may be worse nowadays, but there have always been girls who were Edie Everything at their teeny weeny high school (sometimes on their own merit, sometimes not) who went to a large university, rushed, and got their butts handed to them on a platter.

This is so true! (Although it was annoying when this kind of girl did make it into a high-octane chapter.)

"Edie Everything"! LOL!

This also damaged other sororities within the system as well. When the stronger chapters aren't cutting that means that the PNMS get to do the dropping. Then, when their big cuts come in they are either left high and dry or with invitations to chapters they haven't been to since the first round. Before RFM was instituted at my campus suicide rates (for bid signing, not the real kind) were extremely high due to one of the struggling chapters inviting girls who had cut them but were invited to their pref as they had only one other chapter inviting them back.

If a chapter invites too many girls back they are also preventing other sororities from sharing their sisterhood with PNMS

I totally agree with the abuse of the system and saw it first hand. What would happen if you started RFM after round 2? You would get a second and longer look at some of those women who don't light up the room when they walk in the door, but still be forced to make heavy releases?

There was a graduate student at my sister's school a few years ago. She went through recruitment purely for the research aspect. She intended to publish something about it, I thought. I don't know whatever happened to her.

The problem is that it goes both ways. Doing RFM after round 2 means that the "top" chapters would do lighter cuts, and PNM's would not necessarily take a look at the chapters that take a little longer to really make an impression.

I think it is less about the numbers game, and more about the attitudes of 18-year-old women, in BOTH directions.

Absolutely. This is one of the challenges a "popular" chapter faces during recruitment in the era of RFM. They essentially have their pick, but because they have to cut so many women early in recruitment, they have to know what they are looking for and how to determine if a PNM has those qualities. If all they're looking for is "cute" and "bubbly" that is their right to choose PNMs that way, but if they want more women with more substance, they must ask the right questions. You have to have all of your members on the same page about wanting certain things in PNMs and educate them how to steer conversations to be productive. Otherwise, you'll have a bunch of your members gushing about PNMs and they can't really give you concrete reasons why they'd be good members.

I do agree that cute girls with bubbly personalities tend to do better in recruitment, though. Social psychologists know that people who are attractive are more likely to be perceived positively, and unattractive people are more likely to be perceived negatively, even if you have an identical conversations. It's ingrained in our brains.

I TOTALLY agree with this, BUT how do you really get to know a young women and ask the right questions in 5 minutes? Maybe the real answer here is to have the first round go a little longer, but I know for a lot of Universities there are major time constraints.

Aren't those major time constraints artificially induced? Isn't it up to the school administration and the Panhellenic council to set the rush schedule? Scheduling it over several weekends instead of over 3-5 days presents other challenges, but presents more opportunity for increased interaction. Those who believe rush must be accomplished before school begins, but choose not to let it go on for two weeks or so, set the constraints.

Different strokes and all that, but the point is that time constraints are a choice.

Doesn't what we were talking about in the networking/who you knew before recruitment kind of take care of this for the top chapters? We kind of advanced the idea that they already had before recruitment a relatively big number of girls who they actually knew well in real life.

If that's the case, will another round of parties really do much more than prolong the inevitable?

ETA: I've found myself wondering if the psychology of guaranteed placement/near guaranteed placement after prefs hurts retention for reasons beyond girls simply being added to the groups they listed last on the bid card. I tend to think, and I think there's some research to back up, that we value things that we think are selective or scare more that things that are easily attainable. Girls who are matched to less selective groups (even if they don't officially know the RFs for each chapter) may not value being selected as much as girls bid by highly selective groups, for that reason alone, even if the experience of being in the groups is fairly comparable (which is sort of unlikely if you are talking about the popularity of social groups, but still)

I wonder if the perception that a lot of girls got dropped completely make everyone else more pleased with her bid.

I know that our chapters are supposed to employ that kind of thing - i.e. we get together and talk it out and decide we want women who have A, B and C quality. "OMG she's so sweet" doesn't cut it. If the worst thing happening to you as a popular chapter is that you actually have to think about this stuff, that's really not that bad of a thing.

It's a lot easier for (using my school as an example) 300 sorority women and 75 rushees to clear their schedules for multiple weekends than it is for (Bama as an example) 3400 sorority women and 1700 rushees.

I'm sure those women would love to have hours and days and weeks to get to know all the rushees inside and out, but they need to get their lives back at some point.

This is good. Especially what you said about prolonging the inevitable...at the first university I went to, rush was delayed until sophomore year. Supposedly that meant more opportunities to interact and each sorority was even allowed a certain number of "rush dates" with each PNM. What happened was that the women you would expect them to want got all the rush dates and at least half the PNMs (as a result of a survey that got Arkansas moving towards freshman recruitment) had absolutely no rush dates at all.

Since it was a bed rush, with less than half of the PNMs receiving bids, the sororities cut down who they wanted to focus on pretty early. It was kind of obvious to the others and resulted in a year's worth of hurt added to the week of hurt they might have had without it. Still, some women soldiered on to their usual release from recruitment.

I agree that networking is vital in the SEC---but not everywhere. I re-watched that Northwestern video and I was writing this from the viewpoint of popular chapters in schools less competitive than the SEC (like private schools with students from around the country or public schools outside the South), where recs are less common, most women may not think about recruitment until the summer after graduation, where each chapter member doesn't already have 5 BFFs each going through recruitment. I apologize for not making this clear.

I would contend the opposite is possible. My chapter was one of the small ones on campus and our retention was very good. The base argument may, however, be similar - maybe these girls are more proud to have gotten into A sorority than the girls who had an easy go through the whole process. I've also wondered who is more likely to stay involved as an alum - the one from that huge chapter or the one from the chapter who struggled year after year? The problem is quantifying "involved."