I think we just have a terminology problem here.

Quota additions = the addition of women who did not match to bid lists of chapters who have made quota...only appliciable to chapters making quota...there are a limited number of these

Snap bids = helps chapters who didn't make quota to reach quota...only applies to those not making quota. You can snap up to quota even it it puts you over total.

A chapter that has reached quota cannot issue snap bids. The chapter can only issue COB bids if they are under total.


Also...it is a big step to say QA are a moot point for "struggling chapters"...and it would be just as big of a step to say that "popular chapters" don't usually have to snap bid. I've personally seen both scenarios.

Assuming there are people who want to accept the bids, which is always what makes it tricky

I think you are right that worrying about staying eligible for QAs is probably not that important for struggling chapters.

BUT, I think chapters with smaller numbers or lower returns should really think carefully about cutting folks.
The quality vs. quantity debate can go on forever, but sometimes, especially with PNMs well versed in competitive recruitment who won't telegraph their disinterest, chapters get delusional about who of the PNMs they really have a chance with and will consequently release some girls who would have been good members because they imagine they will keep perfect PNMs instead.

Don't keep crazy people who you'd be unwilling to bid and who are off putting to other PNMs, but don't get cut happy early in the process. The release figures are there for a reason; don't work against them.

This may sound horrible, but if the disposition is that every girl find a place, can't you figure out a way to suggest that the girls everyone really wants to drop get equally distributed among all groups rather than being placed in the groups that already have the lowest return rates?

Won't the-powers-that-be see that they are weakening the weaker chapters by compelling the weakest by return rate to keep the least desirable PNMs?


If it's a charity bid anyway, why not reassign the girls who got cut out of a round randomly back to parties rather than forcing the hands of a few groups?

It doesn't seem that it would be that hard to figure out and it would mean that the powerhouse chapters felt the same hardship that the smaller return rate chapters felt in terms of lack of mutual selection.

I understand.

From my limited perspective, I see greater danger to a chapter from cutting too many PNMs of comparable "quality" for lack of a better word as the current members than I have from a chapter having to keep a few less desirable girls. Not making quota and being under total year after year, in my opinion, does greater damage than having a few members who you weren't dazzled by round one.

I don't mean that chapters should just bid everyone for numbers, but there's a reason to be cautious with cuts.

What do they say when you point out what they are doing to the chapters with lower return rates?

I think you are right - we never used the phrase snap bid - an open bid was an open bid, whether the rushee in question went the whole way thru rush or not.

That's when you bring in your Big Squirrels (or maybe Medium Squirrels) and have them tell the Greek advisor "These rushees do not fulfill our minimum requirements and will not receive a bid from us under any circumstance. We do not wish to lead them on by inviting them back when they will not be bid."

Of course if this is a grade issue it's easy. Other intangible things, not so much.

Release figures are great but when it's encroaching on a group's ability to do membership selection in the way that their bylaws tell them to/in the way they see fit, that's when the individual group trumps Panhel. JMO.

I understand your frustration. What release figures are supposed to be doing is opening the girls' eyes to all the groups, instead of letting them keep hoping against hope that Awesome ABC wants them (when in reality ABC is just asking them back because, well, they can and it feeds their egos).

But the thing is, the perception that smaller chapters should take anyone anytime anywhere is not new - I remember CutiePie2000's story about having to put down a sorority for her pref that she didn't want. The Panhel thought they were doing the sorority a "favor" by "funnelling" women there -which is, of course, completely insulting.

Absolutely.

I wonder if there's a way for the system to accommodate this issue. I mean, at the point we're using algorithms to look at individual chapter numbers, couldn't "they" program in a variable for basically unqualified PNMs?

I really don't have that much of an issue with trying really hard to place all the girls who want to go through, but whatever hardship this philosophy creates should be born equally by the groups.

Sure it's a hardship for top groups to cut more girls early, no doubt, but I'm not sure it's equal to having to invite all the girls who were cut by the other groups back.

Basically unqualified PNMs should not get into a chapter. We are selective by definition. We have standards for membership and a woman who does not meet those standards can cause far more trouble than having one less member causes. A major drama queen, major slut or major risk management risk shouldn't get in just because of numbers. A woman who doesn't meet grade requirements shouldn't get in just because of numbers. The psycho crying girl that KSUViolet has told us about shouldn't get in because of numbers. There are limits. Should struggling chapters be more open to a young woman who is more shy and maybe had a hard time shining during formal recruitment? Sure. Should they take the girl that's done the walk of shame from every fraternity house by the third week of her freshman year? no way.

I really agree with this. I just want to clarify my last post.

It seems like RFs could account for unqualified PNMs and allow for all chapters to just straight up release a certain percentage of girls. And it seems to me that release methodology could do this and still function primarily as it does.

But in instances where the college is putting pressure on some chapters to cut no one, even the type of girls you describe (probably because they want to say they have 100% placement), I see no reason why only "struggling" chapters should be pressured to accept sketchy members. If the campus folks want everybody placed, place the undesirables equally.

You want quota additions? We got your quota additions. And then maybe everyone would be fired up enough to stand up to the pressure from the campus leadership pushing placement. It's easy to say placing everyone is a noble goal when you are required to make a lot of cuts. It's never going to affect you.

am i understanding it right that chapters with traditionally lower return rates are not allowed to drop pnms -that they have to invite back everyone?

on a different note, chapters with higher return rates aren't just dropping undesirable pnms-lots of times girls any sorority would love to have are dropped because of lack of recommendations or because they just fell through the cracks.

I find this discussion so interesting. I don't know enough to offer my opinion but from what I understand , FSU Zeta, you are right about some "falling through the cracks" unless some mid-tier groups are on top of the situation.

I didn't know it myself, but apparently based on what was said here, at some campuses, the pressure is on some chapters not to drop anyone. The invite targets for them would include the whole remaining pool of PNMS and since they can be penalized for not sticking to them if they cut too many (which I didn't know before), they are in a tough spot.

But absolutely, some chapters are compelled to release outstanding PNMs. And I'd say at some very competitive recruitments, almost all chapters have to release some highly qualified PNMs at one point or another.

To answer FSUZeta's question and also to build on UGAalum94's comments, there are definitely chapters that are "recommended" to invite back 100% of all PNMs all nights of recruitment. This would, in an ideal world, ensure 100% placement. How "strong" this recommendation is varies based on campus. At some places there are penalties, at some there's nothing more than a stern chat with the Panhel advisor. The thing is the advisor knows that anyone the chapter cuts is likely to completely "fall through" recruitment and not get a bid. I'll speak to my own chapter's situation. We would cut a variety of girls - some of whom were just really really rude and condescending to us because they didn't want to join. Panhel didn't so much care if we cut them because they were going to go somewhere else anyway - or if they got cut elsewhere they still certainly weren't joining us. It was the questionable awkward obese girls (to be frank) that the Panhel advisor got really worked up about because she knew someone was going to have to break it to them they'd been cut everywhere. Pretty much if we cut them that was sure to be what would happen.

Release figures, I believe, really help mid-tier groups (which is great!) more than the lower-tier groups. Sadly many PNMs will just not consider them, even if they're cut from the top-tier houses sooner.

Having said all that, I actually believe it's a much better idea to stick to the release figures and cut as few people as possible. I think a lot of chapters get the "quality over quantity" mentality and dig themselves into a numbers hole they'll never get out of (depending somewhat on the support level and philosophy of their national office). My philosophy is that you can CREATE the quality, but you have to have numbers in order to just be there and compete. You can really structure programming that increases the quality of some of your "marginal" PNMs. That said, there does have to be a balance. I don't think any chapter should be forced to take a PNM they don't want. I just think some chapters get too cut-happy thinking "quality quality quality"... They expect a lot from freshmen women, frankly, and aren't using the member development process enough to really create the women they want to have.

/soap box