I think that since interviews and things like that have been eradicated (worst idea ever but that isn't the point of this post) 6 weeks should be ample to complete a nationally mandated, cookie cutter pledge program. The only thing that I think would suck is getting to know enough people well enough to choose your big.

That isn't because they don't have time to learn it. That's because your national program isn't making it a priority. Which seems to be a trend, sadly.

But seriously, folks - do you REALLY need to learn EVERYTHING in the new member period? Can't some of this be spread out and learned later on? What is really the most important for an 18 year old to learn as she joins an organization? In my mind, it is to learn that the women she is with are fabulous people, and these are the people she will WANT to be with for the next few years [and beyond] - she wants to bond with these women and make connections. Interviewing folks doesn't make connections... doing things with them does. New member periods should be about beginnings.... not about everything. Cramming in information that is book work or just like school is boring. Have education, yes, but make it interesting and fun. The new member period should still be a recruitment period... a 6-8 week "wooing" that "teaches" the new member "yep, I chose wisely... and I want others to experience this, too." It should be "the basics" - how do I function within this particular chapter?

There's plenty of time for education about the sorority if you look at the opportunities for education about the organization over the course of 3-4 years vs. 6-8 weeks. I know that is how our organization is moving, and from what I can tell a number of others are doing the same. Learning about the founders, our history, and our values is STILL a priority - but only the groundwork has to be accomplished during the new member period.

My $.02. That and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. :rolleyes:

Ditto!

I disagree that interviews don't make connections but whatever, that's your opinion and I'm sorry if you didn't get the positive full effect of them. Part of the problem isn't just that interviews have been eliminated, but in some cases ALL one on one contact has. Not everyone shines in a group or is bold enough to start to make connections on their own. We see that over and over in posts on here.

As far as the history - no you won't learn everything, but for God's sake, a college educated woman can't learn the names of THREE women for a membership test? That's shameful.

And in some smaller chapters, you go from being a pledge right into offices that are important. You NEED to know what you're doing.

ETA: Can we please split this into another topic? Shortened NM periods have nothing to do with release figures during rush.

33Girl, I apologize for continuing the shortened new member period conversation here, but. . .

and as always, I want to make clear that I have no formal position in my group other than being an alumna.

Here's my deal about shortened new member periods: I do think that when the new member period was direct instruction and little assessments about knowledge of the group or required projects and you had to make grades, it build a sense of anticipation about initiation. It reflected the idea of initiation as we probably really think of initiation generally (assuming you think about the word "initiation" ever): a sort of transformational ceremony at which because you had acquired the required knowledge or demonstrated your worthiness, you became a full member of a group and gained any knowledge that members had to be a full participant within that body.

I don't know how accurate our perceptions were, but you had a sense that there were hard and fast requirements about what you had to do to be eligible to be initiated and they required that you demonstrate traits rather than merely showing up at required meetings and going through the motions. (And by showing up and going through the motions, I mean the difference in participating in a learning activity for the fun of it vs. the sense that if you fail your membership test, you won't get initiated.)

While most of us, I think, accept that because hazing was a real issue at some chapters that the idea of proving your worthiness had to be diminished in importance, I wonder if a process that includes un-initiated members into more things previously reserved for full members (like chapter) and that reduces or even eliminates the previous "requirements" for initiation, allows people to value being initiated as much as the old system.

I think most of us see anticipation as heightening positive experiences generally. Think about little kids and Christmas. Would they get as much out of their presents and toys if they were just there one day when they came home from school. Or maybe more seriously, with the idea of religious seasons at church thorough the year. Does the season of Advent make the celebration of Christmas better? Does observing Lent heighten your awareness of Easter?

I'm not trying to equate Greek membership with religion sincerely, but my point is that it kind of makes sense that a reduction in the things that build anticipation for initiation might make initiation less special and less valued.

Sure, I can see that you probably don't remember your pledge test material any better 20 years later than if you had learned it after initiation and I even doubt that this anticipation would necessarily make you more likely to stick around for senior year, but I just think that the once in a lifetime experience of being initiated is that much more spectacular the more you've looked forward to and anticipated it.

Back to release figures...

As someone recently initiated, I am a product of the new release figures, and would like to add my two cents. While I did not suffer incredibly heavy cuts, I am glad that release figures gave me far smaller of a pool of sororities to choose from. Because I was cut from some chapters I loved early on, I was forced to look at other chapters I might have no considered. From those chapters, I fell in love with my current chapter, and I might not have been as happy as I am in Gamma Phi Beta had the old system before RFM been in place.

So, while I only know of the other system from comparisons and not experience, I do know that I would be far more devastated being dropped before pref than right at the get go. After what I have learned from former methods, I am almost sure I may not have preffed the three great houses I did pref, and I'd rather have gotten over cuts early on and been happy with my later choices than the other way around.

As for the notion that some PNMs may be forced to attend some houses bid day, I did not see that in my recruitment to a great extent. I did, however, see many girls in the same situation as me...who had been cut early on and grew to love the houses they have left. And its done wonders for the smaller houses on campus.

Of course, there will still be people who drop out because of their choices. I know I'm pretty unsympathetic on the subject, I think thats a silly thing to do, because a house may have seen something in your where you would fit into their house. I know the system is not perfect, its not. But while the new RFM may cause the closed minded people to drop out, I think thats fine with me. At the risk of being less than politically correct, if they can't open themselves up to the wonderful oppertunities each and every sorority has to offer, I don't really want those pnms in the greek system

Sort of random, but I was reading something recently about how people do better and feel better about their decisions when they have fewer options available. (The post above mine made me think about it.)

It's possible that the shift to making PNMS rank the groups and then their getting party lists with only invites to the maximum number of parties on it (which isn't technically part of the release figures, but I think makes them work better, right?) may be a good thing in itself. I would think that ranking would be less like a final decision than having to actually accept and regret.

I agree.

I have no experience with either system, but I do know 18-year-old girls. A good portion of them will never visit Greekchat (how sad) and they'll never know that they should keep an open mind. They'll have their eyes on a few sororities (or one!) and they won't receive a bid. If that happens after the first party and they drop out, then they weren't meant for sorority life anyway. If you string them along for 3 recruitment parties, knowing that they won't receive a bid from your sorority, you're setting them up for a huge disappointment, and I would understand them dropping out just a little bit more. I can't imagine it feels great to get cut heavily after the first round, but imagine going to 3 or 4 parties, really getting to know a chapter, and then not being invited back for preference. I understand that can still happen, but it wouldn't be to such a great extent.

And while these PNMs are striving to get bids to their one or two favorite chapters, there's a very good chance they'd be ignoring the other chapters that invited them back. No matter how many other girls were still with you at the party before prefs, as a PNM, you'd probably still think you had a very good chance. As GammaPhi88 pointed out, this system allowed her to focus on the groups that truly wanted her. In the long run, I'm sure that a lot of people would prefer to know the places where they truly had a chance earlier rather than later... no matter how disappointing it might be.

In addition, there are schools with a ridiculous number of sororities. I can't imagine having to go to 15+ parties for the first round. But imagine having to do that for the next few parties, also. With these release figures, it gives the PNMs more time to know the sisters, and vice versa, without having a crazy amount of PNMs there during each round.

And IMO, the old system would waste recruitment time. In a formal recruitment setting, you only have so much time to meet and talk to PNMs. Why, as a sister, would you want to be there during round 3, talking to a PNM that you know won't be wearing your letters on bid day?

I think many of the problems in the beginning were mainly due to chapters misunderstanding the way RFM works. For the most part, many greeks have no real concept of how bid matching works in the first place, so making changes like RFM can be very confusing. I also think that it shocked the "better" chapters who finally realized that they actually will have to work for their NMs since they can't just string along a list of girls to fill in the gaps for PNMs who get away! I know of many anecdotal stories of chapters missing quota who had never missed it before. I think that sometimes these chapters think they suddenly should be ever more selective and not keep all of the girls they can when in the past, they willingly kept tons of girls that would never get a bid. It's just a new game, and chapters are slowly learning how to play it! One of the hardest parts is realizing that your chapter and every chapter that competes with you probably has the same group of girls attending parties....only one group can get a girl, so their chances of filling quota drop significantly. If one top chapter wants a girl, there is a high likelihood that other top chapters do, too.

This is really true, but it's also worth remembering and promoting that at many campuses almost all groups are still making quota.

I think the idea that release figures make it harder for the "better" chapters is one of the reasons that more people haven't been that happy with them, and that's why I think it's so important that we remember that at many places quota is as big as ever and that groups are eligible for quota additions. So, there's a reward to the top groups too even if it's a little harder than it used to be to pick the exact right girls.

And really wasn't one of the biggest problems getting the right data and the groups to follow it? It probably took a number of years before it could be said with any accuracy how many any group needed to invite back to really end up with quota. The perceptions of some chapters popularity may have always been a little different than the numerical reality.

This is my position. The shortened new member period seems here to stay, but from what I have seen, a new and improved program that takes into consideration this shorter period has not surfaced within my GLO. Add to that, much larger pledge classes and activity restrictions (read: no testing of pledge material, for example) and it makes for woefully disinfranchised new members.

We pretty much feel the same way. Better to be released from chapters early, than led on and be left with no house because of being unable to see the forest for the trees, blidners, insert metaphor or cliche here.

One advantage to the old system is that from a PNM's point of view, you felt like each chapter was giving you a fair chance if they invited you back to the second or third round (whether they were actively considering you or not -- a PNM would have no way of knowing.) If a chapter dropped you after the third round, you could at least say, "Well, I met quite a number of the sorority's sisters, and for whatever reason they felt that I would not be a good fit." The perception of fairness was there, and PNM's were still able to meet, and form perceptions of the chapters that might eventually become their homes.

Under the new system, PNM's are more likely to receive heavy cuts early on. If a girl was cut from the majority of the chapters after the first round (as might happen in a very competitive rush,) I don't think I would blame her for being soured on the whole process. PNM's are always told to keep an open mind, but if a girl receives heavy cuts early on, her *perception* is that the chapters are not keeping an open mind about her. The process of recruitment becomes that much more confusing and painful for her. She might be forgiven if she never gave the few chapters which invited her back a second chance. If a PNM feels completely out of control of what seems to be an incomprehensible recruitment process, the quickest way for her to regain control is to drop out.

I'm not writing this to knock the new system, which I think has many virtues. I'm just not convinced that it presents the sorority system as a whole in the best possible light to PNM's.

Blue Skies, I can totally see what you are saying and as a formal rush drop out myself, I agree with your assessment to some degree and can remember saying to someone at the time that I didn't feel any particular gratitude to the groups that cut me early.

BUT, I think it works better systematically for the groups to cut girls they really aren't serious about early on. It's better for the chapters to know who is willing to continue with the process even when they know who is really in the running than it is for them to get word only on pref day that many of their PNMs dropped.

Actually, I think I am a bit older than you ;)- my chapter was one of the test chapters for Bridges, which is another reason for it being so chaotic. Several things changed the next year (like bigs being assigned on bid day). I don't think the NM period should go back to 11 weeks, but 8 would have been better.

As for the new release method- I like the idea of chapters not stringing along PNMs. However, I think it does need to be explained better to the PNMs (and even the chapter members!)

It might not be the BEST light, but it is probably a truer light.

I mean, there are some chapters that have their pledge class picked out before rush even starts and barring some unforseen circumstances no one else has a snowball's chance in hell of getting a bid there. That's just the way it is and while it is daunting to the psyche, better to get daunted then to go through your whole college career (and then some) convincing yourself you were THISCLOSE to getting a bid at XYZ when you weren't anywhere near it.

I had a couple sisters who I think basically convinced themselves that if they would have held out for another semester, that a certain (more prestigious) sorority would have bid them. The fact of the matter is - NO THEY WOULDN'T HAVE. Maybe that's hard for them to accept, but knowing that group I know it is the truth.

This still happens. I cannot understand how they get this idea...especially since most of those girls were cut Day 1 or 2 by that group.

I appreciate that heavy cuts are made early on. To a PNM, though, it seems very unfair to be cut from a chapter after only talking to to a few active members for 25 minutes. At a certain chapter, I only met ONE member during open house (I don't know if their bump system got messed up or if that's just how they did things). So when that chapter cut me right after the first round, I didn't feel like they gave me a fair shot.

It would be great if there were no cuts until after the second round. If the PNM spends more like an hour there and meets 2-6 active members, she feels like she got a fair shake at each house and probably gets a better feel for how she wants to rank each chapter. But the logistics of this at a large school would be a nightmare. My school has 13 chapters and spends 2 full days on open house as it is!

I'm going to make the argument (and I do realize that I'm playing Devil's advocate here) that when PNM's feel like they got a fair shake, it's also good PR for the chapter and the GLO. That PNM may be in a position of influence one day...how do you want her to feel about your org?

I still feel very positively about most (all but one) of the chapters/GLO's who cut me. I went through under the old method. I remember some delightful, warm, meaningful conversations. Politeness and hospitality on the part of chapter members was universal. This is bad?

I'm just wondering if there is some sort of happy medium.

Well, one of the ways that releases by some chapters work it that they cause the PNM to realize that they have to look at the chapters that really want them. If there are no cuts until after 2nd, that pretty much wastes 2nd round in terms of having any idea of knowing where you stand.

And since at most campuses the number of parties that a PNM can go to reduces each round, you'd have PNMs cutting some of the chapters who want them to keep chapters that don't.

I understand why it seems like it be better PR, but I think it would be bad in terms of actual recruitment outcome.

ETA: and there is a happy medium really since I think the majority of PNMs do have full parties for second round, don't they?

I guess I think that if we want more PR-based open activities, there's a place to have them, but it's not in the middle of actual recruitment. We could all probably benefit from more Meet the Greeks type stuff before formal recruitment and we'd benefit even more if there were all Greek campus wide service projects or drives that were about actual service rather than hype or publicity, which I realize is ironic in a suggestion about PR.

But I don't think you can give people warm fuzzies (no disrespect to Alpha Xi Delta intended;)) at the same time we need to be sending realistic messages about where people match.

We've been doing the new release figures at my school since 2006. I do know that it has helped everyone reach quota and even some struggling chapters make quota additions. We have a relatively small recruitment with six sororities and usually less than 100 girls accepting bids. we've found it works well for everyone. There aren't any cuts until after the second event but they're a lot more, honest, would be the best word, and it helps when girls are coming into skit night. Also, since are events take place in one building girls can see if another sorority has a large party or a small party and that can effect perceptions. Now, everyones parties are equal and most girls end up happy.

I think that sounds like the sort of balance I'm talking about, KDMafia. A girl who goes to at least two events at each house, and is able to talk to at least 3 or 4 members, will have no reason to feel mistreated. It also gives even the competitive chapters a better chance at evaluating the girls.

For schools that do grade cuts after the first round, make that transparent as well. A girl can say, "Okay, I got cut from XYZ because I didn't have a 3.0," or whatever.

That's okay for campuses like mine where there are only 3 chapters (4 when I was a collegiate,) but for big systems with upwards of 8 chapters, you already spend two days having open house parties. Having every girl come back for the second party would extend the process even further. I doubt very seriously that anyone on the sorority side would want to add additional days to an already arduous process in order that a few girls who would not get a bid from them regardless of the rules get to feel like the system is "fair." No matter when you make the hard cuts, it is always hard for the PNMs. Stringing them on does not make them feel better. I think I'd prefer to think that I was cut because someone didn't get a chance to know me rather than because they got to know me and didn't like me!

we had 11 chapters at my campus and the only cuts that were made after open houses (the first round) were for grades (or a standards issue, but it was rare). For first parties, the rushees had to narrow their list to 9. Unfortunately, they usually ended up cutting the same couple of houses, so those groups numbers would drop off significantly. Unfortunately, it also led to many girls who would have been great members of those houses to get dropped completely after second parties.
Maybe if the rushees didn't make cuts after open houses it would have worked, but that would have made rush at least a day longer- we already had 2 days of open houses and 2 days of first parties. So the new method makes more sense, but I think educating everyone as to how it works it the key.

This is a recurring thought in this thread. I'm curious as to some suggestions for how this can be accomplished. It's easy to explain RFM to women who are already in a sorority, as they have (most likely) had some internal education on how their own membership selection processes work. So they understand terms like bid lists, invitations, releases, release figures, etc. And for the most part, you don't have to worry about hurting any feelings of active members when having these discussions.

How do you say to a big group of excited PNMs, "So the really strong, popular chapters will be cutting half of you after the first round. This is so you will get a chance to meet the average and weak chapters and they will get a chance to make Quota." They are already freaking out as it is and stressing over the cuts.

How do we deliver this education without furthering stereotypes and bringing more attention to things like tiers and strong vs. weak chapters?

Not at all picking on FR here - she's just the one I quoted. :) I am genuinely curious as to some ideas for what to tell PNMs about RFM. Does this education happen in a large group setting? Is it given by the recruitment counselors? What kinds of language should be used and what should be avoided?

I don't think you are picking on me at all! :)

In terms of education- I think it should be the recruitment counselors that explain it to the rushees. The large gatherings seem to be more of a pep rally type of thing. Plus it is harder to answer questions. And it doesn't have to be phrased- the strong ones will cut half of you. It should be explained that ALL chapters have to make manditory cuts. Just like the rushees make cuts, so do the groups. Sometimes just like a rushee has trouble deciding who to cut, so do the groups. But they have to be made.

I think sometimes the ranking of the chapters by the rushees before the sororities make cuts confuses the rushees as well. It makes the rushee think that since they ranked the group #1, they will be back there. Then they get cut. Why not just have the rushee chose from the groups that invited them back rather than doing a ranking before the invites to the next round have been extended?

^^^ Forever Roses, I think that you hit it on the head.

Panhel should probably not go into too much information about how the chapters make cuts just that they all will have to make cuts and will likely labor over these decisions for different reasons. I also like the idea of a PNM selecting max number of chapters to attend during round two, three, etc. based on their invites back. Having PNMs essentially rank post cuts seems to make more sense if you are trying to save hurt feelings. Having Panhel offer TMI about release figures will just serve to confuse the PNM and foster the sterotype of strong vs weak chapters on campus.

I don't think you CAN say that, because there may be times when groups are cutting lots of people for reasons that have nothing to do with release figures - grade requirements or the like.

The rushees just need to be told that 90% (or pick your figure) of them WILL be cut from at least one chapter, probably more, if that is the case. I think what gets to some girls is they think no one is getting cut but them.

And yes definitely, if the sororities are cutting harder because of RFM, the PNMs should see their choices before they rank. They should still have to go back to their max amount of parties though.

I think this would be a very good start. Letting the PNMs know, in a smaller setting (like Recruitment Counselor groups), that most of them will be released from at least one chapter.

Additionally, having a PNM choose from the chapters that invited them back helps to not give them unrealistic expectations. When you spend all evening, night, and morning thinking you have released a chapter, it can be quite a surprise to see that you will be returning to that chapter. Likewise, PNMs expect to return to chapters they ranked highly and it's unpleasant to realize that not only will you not be returning to that chapter you like, but also that you have only a few minutes to get composed before events begin.

The only problem I see with this is logistics. At my campus, at least, the PNMs are no longer confined to a particular area. When I went through, we lived on a dorm floor with our Recruitment Counselors. They woke us up as soon as our invites were ready (usually about 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning) and we chose which ones to accept. Also, you were not allowed to withdraw in the middle of the night, which gave PNMs a chance to sleep on it for a few hours. I thought this was helpful, because a PNM had time to recover and gain a little perspective. Often now, a PNM will see her invites less than an hour before events begin and make the snap decision to withdraw. We've had PNMs standing in line to withdraw change their minds and then it's too late, they have to withdraw because they've missed an event. It would be nearly impossible, given current time constraints, to get their list of invites to them and have them accept, regret, or regret with interest, then feed that into the computer and have events scheduled.

I have suggested changes such as these to college Panhellenics and they seem to think that the way it is "weeds out PNMs who would make less than desirable members."

On to the original question: As a recruitment advisor, I think the new release figures have been very good for the Greek system overall. I was absolutely terrified the first year we used them. I got our suggested numbers and realized that we were going to be required to release over one-third of the PNMs after open house. I thought there was no way it was going to work and nobody would make quota. After many obsessive conversations with the director of Greek life and a thorough explanation of Flex lists, I was still unsure. However, that first year all but one chapter made quota and a chapter that had historically struggled had the most quota additions. I’m now a believer. Since we’ve instituted the new release figures every chapter has either made quota or been no more than 4-6 away from quota. We’ve even had a few years where every chapter makes at least quota.

The only negative from my perspective is that our placement rate has gone down. A much higher percentage of PNMs withdraw than before new release figures. However, I believe that with some of the things discussed in this thread this could be minimized as well. As I said before, the college Panhellenics I have talked to indicate that this larger number of PNMs withdrawing should lead to higher retention within the chapters. They have tended to articulate that the PNMs who withdraw are the same ones that would likely resign from membership. I haven’t done any research on that, but it would be interesting to see what the statistics indicate.

This would extend the recruitment period, however maybe it should go back to the way it was when I rushed. We went to parties, then the day after we had something called "post office". We would go around a certain time and get the invite list- who invited us back. We would see the list, select which ones to go to, and then go on our way. If you were upset, then the Rho Chis were there to talk to you for as long as you needed. The parties were not until several hours later. You would meet at a certain time and get your schedule of parties, but you already knew who was on the list. So say first parties ended at 9pm on Sunday. From 10am-2pm on Monday you could go to post office. The second parties would then start at 6pm.

Yes, it worked this way at my school in the early 90s, on a campus with 10 houses and over 600 women going through Recruitment. We got our invites at 8am, and parties began early afternoon. If the computers of that day could make it work, then I have absolutely no doubt that logistically (referring back to LyreLyre's post) it could work today with even better technology.

(**for those who were upset and wanted to drop... they were encouraged to accept the invites they wanted/had, return to dorm and sleep on it a bit, and then they could drop out right before the parties. This usually allowed them time to get over the hurt and most plugged right along with the rest of the week)

I agree wholeheartedly that PNMs should be choosing from the groups that invited them and not the newer method of having them rank immediately after parties. I have spoken with quite a few PNMs who stated that they "would be doing all the choosing." It has been clear that they do not understand fully that there will be cuts on the sororites' parts too, and I agree that this leads to more women dropping.

I do not agree that all of those who drop would not be devoted members. Eighteen year olds make impulsive decisions, especially when emotions are running high. I know a few from my campus who really regretted their decision to drop and could have been outstanding members. They just allowed their emotions to get the better of them.

What you all are discussing here is the difference between Priority Ranking and Accept/Regret. The advantages of Priority FAR outweigh the advantages of Accept/Regret - and that's why we've seen the vast majority of college Panhellenics switch to it. Consider this: Campus has 12 chapters. PNMs go to all 12 first round and can go to 8 the second round. Super Susie PNM gets invited to all 12 chapters for second round. Average Annie gets invited to 6. With A/R, Annie is somewhat depressed because she was invited to HALF the number of chapters as Susie. With Priority, Susie's list has 8 chapters and Annie's has 6. So she doesn't feel as bad. Plus she could (theoretically) "save face" and say that she got invited to her top choices if she wants.

That's just one instance. Not to mention that you can't do flexing unless you use Priority, and the advantages of flexing alone are too great to give up.

I remember one university's Panhellenic handling the ranking very well. The recruitment counselors told the PNMs to rank the 8 chapters that they loved as #1, and then the chapters that they liked as 2, 3, 4, 5. So it wasn't ever "who do you want to go back to?" or "who do you like the least?" The vocabulary was always very positive.

And regarding the A/R method of having PNMs look at invites in the morning and go to parties in the evening.... WAY more PNMs drop out when it is done this way. When PNMs get their invitations 15-30 minutes prior to the parties, they are already dressed, they are already there. There's no time for tent talking and others trying to convince them to drop. Then they go to the parties and many times actually make a connection and wind up joining a sorority. Sure, some still drop, and that's fine. But at least they gave it a chance.

(I realize that we've wandered into A/R vs. Priority discussion, but this discussion does weigh in very heavily to RFM. :) )

^^^ what is flexing?

From the chapter perspective at least, it is basically the "what if the release numbers are off" list of who the chapter would either next be willing to release or would have next choosen to keep from their relase lists. Our chapter usually got flexed either on or off by 6-10 PNMs per day.

Education is..still...the key
 

I completely agree with Priority vs. Accept/Regret - although some still believe in AR.

I also think that Clustering is the way to go - as it was explained if you can go back to 8 chapters the next day out of 12 you give 8 a #1 and the rest a #2. This way the PNM's doesn't see each chapter with a rank but rather they see that group as the one they prefer. If one of those chapters with a #2 cluster appears on their schedule the next day it is not so bad because PNM's are clustering and not cutting certain chapters.

Flex lists work as follows:
Minus Flex Lists - Minus Flex List are required for every chapter on a campus where RFM is used. If asked for a minus flex list, your chapter must rank a number of women that you would be willing to release in addition to your carry figure. The RFM Specialist working with your campus will determine when Minus Flex List will be used and how many women must be on your chapter's Minus Flex List. The Minus Flex Lists are used by the RFM Specialists to make adjustments during recruitment as campus patterns change from year to year.

Plus Flex Lists - Most NPC groups highly recommend that all of our chapters use Plus Flex Lists, but they would never tell a chapter to take someone who did not meet their membership criteria. Plus Flex Lists allow our chapter to invite additional women to the next round of events if necessary. From time to time, one day or one party does not have the same spark as the others, Plus Flex Lists provides the chapter with protection so that the chapter has the best opportunity for a successful recruitment. Chapters that do not use the Plus Flex List greatly increase the chance that they will not make quota during recruitment.

(More on Flexing)

Using Flex Lists allow for adjustments to the return rates in real time - as gatordeltapgh mentioned to take into account the cyclical nature of recruiting strength seen on campuses. Especially now - as RFM is allowing more chapters the chance to pledge Quota, these chapters are becoming stronger recruiters. So they might not need all of the PNMs that have accepted their invitations.

And having PNMs flexed on or off does NOT necessarily indicate a change in your chapter's performance. It is always done by looking at retention and other considerations as a whole. Flexing on and off affects everyone, and it's always done in a way to give PNMs and chapters the best options possible.