Well, right, that's what I meant...they are going to take women who they have in mind beforehand, or even someone like a NM's roommate who didn't rush, but the NM's big meets her and thinks she is awesome, or whatever. They are not going to a) troll the lists of women who dropped out of recruitment or b) openly advertise to find the handful of women they need to hit total.

Yes, all CPH should evaluate total as soon as possible after the end of recruitment so that groups who have spots available can take advantage of the positive momentum of formal recruitment, COB and be done. Then the second set of new members folds nicely right into the new member class and everyone move on to chapter programing...oh and studying!

It used to drive me crazy when some of the CPH I worked with wanted to wait several weeks or even two months to evaluate total and vote. It is much better to get things done quickly to let any chapters who need to COB to get going. The CPH will work with the NPC Area Advisor to select average, median, largest chapter size based on post recruitment chapter sizes. More often than not average chapter size is the best fit. Some campuses have an auto reset to average chapter size, but not many.

I guess I'm thinking of a case a few years back - a large recruitment campus where all chapters were over 300 except for 1, which was under 200. Chapter total was at a lame 130ish, even though QUOTA was nearly that amount. If they don't reset to average chapter size, the chapter with the small membership is doomed to never catch up. To me that is an example of panhellenic misunderstanding the importance of a properly set total.

Probably not choice b) but you might troll the list of girls that dropped out of recruitment or signed up for COB that are a legacy, someone that you had a really good rec letter for? an athlete? someone that couldn't fully participate in recruitment because they were in the band? something like that?

Oh, right, agreed. I'm just trying to make the point that NOBODY should ever assume that dropping out of formal recruitment is a good way to get a bid later on.

Oh no - I would never suggest dropping out of recruitment in the hopes total might get raised as a recruitment strategy.

Just that raising total presents an opportunity for a few people that might have missed out on recruitment.

Yes, but they are NOT the women who dropped out of recruitment when they only had lower-tier houses left on their schedules. That's all.

I have to completely agree with carnation on this one. I can understand looking at the numbers immediately, but IMO it would be better to not announce total is raised until January 1 or whatever. That way having a spring class/COBing would lose its stigma.

Are ALL the chapters at UGA far enough over total? Numbers (without names, obvi) would help understanding as to whether this is good or not.

Just because I'm feeling generous again, from the MOI:


When total is too low, the Panhellenic community is unable to grow because of lack of sufficient spaces to accommodate women interested in membership. When total is too low, the smaller chapters are unable to close the size disparity with the larger chapters.
When total is too high, parity is also difficult to achieve. Potential new members have incentives to withdraw from a structured recruitment process and join during continuous open bidding when they do not receive an invitation from one of the perceived “popular” chapters on campus. This trend can suppress quota as well and create wide gaps in size among the larger and smaller chapters.
Resolved (2003), That College Panhellenics review total annually; and
Resolved (2009), That the procedure for determining total now reads:
Total is the allowable chapter size as determined by the College Panhellenic and includes both new members and initiated members. Any member who is away from campus for the entire academic year is not counted in total. Members away for one academic term are counted in total. The Panhellenic reviews total each year to ensure that existing total reflects current campus conditions and the Panhellenic goal of growth and parity, and to allow the maximum number of women to participate in the fraternity experience;
Resolved (2009), That College Panhellenics review total following recruitment when chapters are at their largest. If it is determined that total should be revised, after consultation with the NPC area advisor and their respective inter/national organizations, total may be determined by:
1. The average chapter size, rounded down to the nearest whole number.
2. The median chapter size (for example, the size of the fifth-largest chapter in a system with nine NPC groups).
3. The size of the largest chapter(s).
Total may also be determined by any one of the above, combined with a number that reflects the best adjustment to total to ensure continued growth opportunities, parity, housing obligations, availability of campus facility and vitality of the College Panhellenic community;

I know that it's the correct thing to do. :) I just wonder if it will have the desired effect, or if it will cause a second wave of "I am that special snowflake that can get the one spot the most popular group has"-itis. If that happens, it doesn't help the smaller chapters at all.

All 17 houses are not currently at total

Huh:confused: lol

It's also a problem if raising total on a year with record numbers means that a bunch of chapters have problems when numbers go down a bit.

In the event that you are not feeling generous, anyone can access the 17th edition of the NPC Manual of Information (updated March 2012), online, here:

http://www.uta.edu/greek/_downloads/...nformation.pdf

(in this case, page 78 of manual, 84th page of pdf file)

Not really, because total can also be reassessed and lowered.