Re: Auburn Numbers
 

Every group except one snapped up to 55 immediately after the computer ran the bid lists--before Bid Day. The girls who were snapped will never know they were unless someone tells them (and not many know) or unless they didn't attend prefs at the house that snapped them.

Well, that's it right there. At the big schools, not only are many sororities competing for the same girls but also the houses with the best returns from the last 3 years are required to cut the most girls after first rounds--whether they want to or not. I have no idea how the sororities manage that cutting and factoring in the number of girls that might cut them because at those schools, the sororities cut before they see who's cut them.

Could this be the problem? If the girls are cutting AND the sororities are cutting at the same time, couldn't that result in some sororities actually releasing more women than necessary?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE fan of enforcing the use of release figures. But, do it so it maximizes the PNMs chances of getting bids. Thank heavens for snaps :)

Sororities release first and then the girls get their results and cut from what they have left and it's like someone expects the sororities to be clairvoyant. ABC might love these 3 girls from Atlanta and have no idea that everyone else does too and that these girls will be cutting them...in the meantime, ABC releases 3 more girls they love and who would come back to them because they're required to release so many.

Re: Auburn Numbers
 

You are sooo not geeky... If so, I am also guilty...

"In a whisper... you might want to recheck the excel... everyone took 55... except... Zeta-56, Pi Phi-50, Tri Delta-54 and AXiD-? (according to my excel)"

I know Pi Phi and Tri Delta already snapped to 55... And an AXiD mentioned they had snapped or COB'd additional NMs.

On a side note... Someone mentioned return rates... Pi Phi was hurt this rush at Auburn due to having to cut... they are one of the three largest chapters on campus with a 90+% return rate for the past several years... they felt they had to release way too many PNMs... Though, I am not one to make an excuse... I cannot remember a time they have not made quota.

Quick fact: (if you can follow my gibberish)... for the last three years the largest chapter from the previous school year at MSU, has missed quota, the following year during formal recruitment... (it has been a different chapter each year). Everyone is screaming about the new release figures... though they appear to serve their purpose... All six chapters at MSU are about the same size...

Re: Re: Auburn Numbers
 

You know what, right before I read your post I totally realized I messed up!

This is what I did. I put the girls in a sopread sheet and then looked at the number they started on and ended on. Example: AXO had girls from #1 to #55. For some reason, my stupid head said "OK 55-1=54. They took 54 girls. Then ADPi had #56-110. Again 110-56=54. "

SO I had a mathematical calulation error as well. And here I thought I was doing something nice......I'm just a stupid head.

We snap bidded 5 or 6 girls Sunday morning before bids were distributed. Still working on it though...

That's why I really think that a system like bid matching should be used in these situations to determine who goes to which parties. At the end of each round, PNMs should be required to rank all the sororities they attended. On the sorority side, each group should make all the cuts they want/need to (for reasons like GPA, rudeness, etc.). If they have more women remaining than they are allowed to invite back, they rank them, plain and simple. Then the computer would match up PNMs to parties, just like bids are matched. That way, ABC wouldn't have to cut more people than they wanted to. Then, maybe, if there were women who didn't "party match" with ABC earlier in the week because they got their top nine choices, but weren't initially cut by ABC for reasons like GPA, those women could be extended an invitation to a later party for ABC.

I mean, how hard could it be, really. If we've got computer programs that can bid-match, then certainly we can make computer programs that can party-match, too.

Do you realize how LONG that would take for the sororities?? It took us 4 hours just to rank the girls who attended pref for our bid lists. I couldn't imagine how long it would take to rank all 1000 girls after the first day of parties!

I realize that it would take a while, especially for schools with huge recruitments, but there's got to be a way for chapters to streamline the process. And I think it's worth it if it means that more sororities will take quota, and more PNMs will find their homes.

It all depends on the system that you use to make up your bid list and invite lists.

I could write the software - what are you describing is a maximum cost/flow (scheduling) problem! That's my minor!

Basically what is being described is how my school does co-op rankings. It would easier for the chapters to not rank the women by order as much as in terms of 1, 2, 3 etc. You could only give as many 1s as you could invite back, but 2-3 just specifies preference if one of thethe '1s' decides to drop you. Of course, you'd have to have the option to NR - not rank (or drop). This simplifies it for the sorority (or employer) but requires more complex software algorithms.

/end geek rant.

I'm in AUDG's chapter and if we did it the way we did bid lists, it would take almost 4 hours.

For real; it takes us at least 3 just to get all the girls we had ranked.