On a related note to DGMarie's post--

I have a yearbook for Univ of So Cal from 1947

In 1947, we had the following NPC groups:

AXO
ADPi
AEPhi
AGD
AOII
APhi
XO
DDD
DG
DZ
GPhiB
KAT
KD
KKG (new in 1947)
Phi Mu
Phi Sigma Sigma
Pi Phi
ZTA

Now it appears each house had less than 75 members.

When I was at USC in the late 80s we had the following houses, but all were 100-140 members, more or less, except one group, who had about 11 members and folded while I was in school.

AXO
AOII
ADPi
APhi
XO
DDD
DG
GPhiB
KAT
KKG
PiPhi
SK chartered in 1988

AGD closed in 1986-87 school year. :(

The newest chapter at USC is Kappa, chartered in 1947. Talk about a hard campus to be a newbie on.

Now of the 12 groups including SK charter, only 9 remain, but houses are at 150-200...

So seems like there's roughly the same amount in the Greek System but in fewer houses. I know USC needs at least one more house to make pledge classes manageable.

Lauradav could weigh in on that situation, for sure.

I think this is a very astute observation. Orgs that have deeper pockets, bigger Foundation funds, etc. can go onto a campus with promises of palatial homes, more on-campus visits, etc. I won't say this is a bad thing. But if all orgs came in on an even playing field, knowing that it costs $XXX to start at ANY campus and the chapter must put in $XXX amount over the period of their colonization, everyone may be able to be competitive....

I wonder, and this is JUST a thought, what would happen if you went into a presentation and you couldn't name the org you were with until the choice was made, like a double blind choice??? JUST wondering...

I don't know that AZD's necessarily bad at expanding on larger campusses. I mean, they've been at OSU for a long time, for example. And I think that we've been over and over on GC the point that different GLO's are better for different sized universities depending on a number of different variables. As far as putting a cap on extension, well, size isn't everything. Strength of the GLO is just as important. We pass threads around asking how big everyone is, knowing that this isn't all that matters. It's the same problem that we have on campusses, too. "Well, ABC here is the biggest so they MUST be the best because if XYZ were the best than EVERYONE would want to join it." Then girls get into ABC and find out that the sisterhood isn't as strong, or they are having problems with girls not wanting to participate in anything, etc... Anyway, I think that's my soapbox speech for the day.

The Administration would like to see at least 2 more chapters at USC in the near future. IMO we could use 4 more in the long run. The probelm is that to come on and be successful the men's groups need to change their attitudes toward the new women's groups. The other chapters drive the new chapters off campus. At the same time, coming onto a campus like USC requires a HUGE investment of both time and money. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Well being from one of the "smaller" GLOs I would have to say that I don't think the # of chapters you have has anything to do with how strong an organization you are. I mean sure maybe XO with around it's what 200 or so chapters has more money to play around with than Phi Sig who has 111 chapters. But I don't really think money is the main problem unless it comes to being able to buy a house or not. I don't know what can help smaller orgs get a few more chapters... all I know is as long as we do get STRONG chapters, no matter if they're in the deep south where they'll most likely be strong no matter what since people just WANT to go greek there for some reason, or if they are at a school that doesn't have that strong a greek system as long as people are joining the chpaters that do exist, smaller orgs are not going to die out, and I kind of take offense to people who are saying that they think that smaller orgs might "die out" with out even knowing the health of our national orgs. It is a good discussion question from the standpoint of wanting to get more chapters out there for smaller groups, but don't assume if we don't that we'll die out. :D

Hi all--

Check out the rush forum. I posted a question there related to this topic. :D

lauradav, I think that the problem you mentioned (the negative attitudes of men's groups) unfortunately is a problem at many schools when it comes to expansion. :( Hopefully USC will be able to overcome this challenge!

.

I have to disagree with you on this one, Glitter. Although we dearly love our GLOs, they are also businesses which require money to operate and remain on the cutting edge.

Housing is not the only area that requires money. Expansion costs a lot of money--publication packets, travel expenses, recruitment expenses, the cost of having a Leadership Consultant with the colony full-time. That's not cheap.

All your leadership programming costs money. Conventions and Leadership Conferences cost money. Printing your publications (like the magazine) is enormously expensive. I haven't even included the costs of your day-to-day operations of Headquarters Staff. Just think about how much the organization spends on mailing costs every year! Yikes!

Unfortunately, in many ways that old saying is true: money makes the world go round.

I've actually been able to see the financial spreadsheets of many fraternities and sororities (amazing what you can find on the internet) and I was stunned to see many of them operating in the red. Some Foundations are running on fumes. :(

I don't know what we can do to even out the disparity between the larger and smaller organizations, but you can't delude yourself into thinking money doesn't matter. And before any of you go running off to find your Foundation's spreadsheets to make yourselves feel better about how financially stable your Fraternity is...keep in mind what Cream said. EVERY SINGLE fraternity or sorority out there right now--I don't care WHO you are-- is only ONE or TWO risk management lawsuits away from filing for bankruptcy. If that doesn't sober you up fast, I don't know what will. :(

I agree that on the individual chapter level that money doesn't mean much . . . of course you can have great sisterhood even in a tiny chapter. And you can have great sisterhood even if your nationals is one of the weaker ones -- that's not what's being debated.

The fact is, money can do a lot. The larger chapters can afford to have paid, full-time workers . . . some of the smaller chapters can't. The larger chapters can afford to have more paid travelling consultants, thus having a better chance of catching risk management violations or just having a better chance to work hands-on, in-depth with problems a chapter may be facing. Groups with more money can have more elaborate programming. (You know, the national HQ who hires a nutritionist to flesh out their "healthy living" program, etc.) And I'm sure there are lots of examples I'm forgetting.

I'm not saying that money is the ONLY thing you need to be a successful national sorority -- as pointed out above, if you have innovative programming and are offering something that the larger sororities don't, you can definitely compete with them. But money definitely helps. And as long as the bigger sororities are the only ones at schools with large or prestigious Greek systems . . . the bigger sororities are getting more members. More members = more dues, more alumnae dues and more alumnae donations. And the gap between the biggest and smallest sororities will only continue to grow. That's why I think some of the smaller groups will start to "die off."

Oh, and I wanted to bring this point up:

Think of formal rush. Apply that theory to the bigger, nation-wide picture. In formal rush, we do have "expansion caps" -- total and quota. We have limitations on how much you can spend. And we do this because the NPC supposedly concentrates on inclusiveness and we want everybody to succeed as much as possible. So why aren't we applying this on a national level as well?

Again, I'm not necessarily advocating this, just questioning.

This is a GREAT question and I've had the same discussion with other Greeks. If NPC seriously wants to be inclusive and have everyone succeed as much as possible, then it seems to me that NPC has a moral obligation to level the playing field. If they're not committed to doing that, maybe they should cut everyone loose and make it a free market expansion system like the NIC. (Of course, this would probably hasten the collapse of those 6-11 NPCs shadokat was talking about.)

I think it will be a cold day in h*ll before we see either one of those options happen, but I don't know if you can call the present way of doing things fundamentally fair. I LOVE the NPC, but as a fair-minded person...I can see where smaller sororities think that NPC is talking out of both sides of its mouth.

Please don't flame me, because I'm looking at this on a theoretical level. This is a GREAT topic, BTW.

I'm not sure I agree with Greeklawgirl. It's like saying a market system must be totally communist or rampantly free-market no-holds-barred. But why? The US and Canada have free markets, but we do have some controls (no child labor ... minimum wage). Why does the NPC have to go to either extreme just to prove their commitment to a level playing field?

Besides, I'm not sure NPC's goal is to have every member org succeed equally. Yes, I hope most members think that would be a good thing, but it isn't the *purpose* of NPC. If the NPC believes in equality, it believes in equal access to the tools required to achieve equality - just how "all men are created equal" works in the US political system. It means we all get to go to school; it doesn't mean we all are guaranteed great lives.

I realize this argument opens me up to some guy saying, "OK, why don't you argue the same way for formal rush, then, and oppose quota?" - so preventatively, I just don't, so there.

sugar, name one sorority that doesn't have a paid staff, leadership consultants and a magazine, for starters. They all do. I'd love to see the financials you speak of as well.

FuzzieAlum, I don't want you to think that it has to be an either/or option. Obviously, there are *many* gray areas when it comes to trying to shore up the disparities. What I mean to say--and I probably didn't express myself very well--is that I can see both sides of the story. I wish I knew what to do to make EVERYONE as successful as they possibly can be. I'd be rich and on a tropical island by now if I did! ;)

A quick look at sorority websites led me to two chapters - one with six times as many paid staff members, excluding traveling consultants, as the other. Yes, one was bigger, but nowhere near six times bigger! Assuming that neither org is making really dumb financial decisions, we can conclude that the bigger chapter has a lot more resources per member.

This doesn't mean the bigger one is better, or even that the smaller one isn't adding as many new chapters as the bigger one, or that an expanding school ought to pick the bigger one - but that if a lawsuit hits both of them, the big one will be able to do a lot more cutting back to prevent entering everyone's least favorite chapter, chapter 11.