In my limited experience, some fraternity chapters really do stay consistent over time. Barring being kicked off campus or serious problems and punishments from the university, they really can expect to keep getting the same type guys. It's kind of based on a hometown feeder system in which so many guys from certain high schools grow up with relatives in the chapter that they don't have much to worry about.

Some of the chapters are really old and have pulled the same type guy for most of their history.

Now, I can't say if they'd keep getting them if they weren't affiliated nationally. I think many of the guys are a little more interesting the ideals of the founders than sasquach

Baby, I'm not moderating; I'm participating.

Jump in please!

Individual chapters tend to get the same kinds of members if that's what the actives look for. Also, alum come back to many chapters and are very involved in the decision making processes.

It takes a complete overriding of the structure of chapters for there to be changes. Depending on what types of changes there are, this often results in alum "disowning" their chapter because "it's not like it used to be."

It's more about what keeps me from feeling like a complete jerk. I'm okay with seeming to be a partial jerk.

A jerk who knows her limited range of experience but is sincerely interested.

Yikes.

*****

To anyone who wants to respond:

So what's up with actives not remembering basic things from their pledgeship like the founding values and purpose of their organization? Is that something that isn't frowned upon in many GLOs?

Thanks to the both of you, I've learned something new that I didn't know. I guess I've seen too many chapters that shifted over a 5-10 year period, or slightly longer, and assumed that was more the norm. It's good to know that it's common to have a chapter stay static in personality types over the years.

It's something interesting to think about, especially as it relates to the idea of a struggling chapter and how they can overcome their issues.

It just seemed to go with moderatin' and participatin' but forgive me if it seemed fresh.

I think most remember that. I found that kind of shocking, but I'm never sure that any particular poster is actually who they are pretending to be, so there was a limit to how seriously I was going to take that.

Maybe he just didn't want to tip his hand about what group he was in?

Yeah, and this is one of the reasons why being a struggling chapter at some campuses isn't something that a couple of pledge classes is going to correct, unless something else about the campus changes although it certainly can be done. I'm just always somewhat amazed when I hear stories about "how we took our chapter from bottom to top in four years." On some campuses, especially with tradition bound guys, it's going to be tough.

I honestly just chalked it up to the societal apathy towards history. So many people don't know much of anything as it relates to history (except sports) and I figured some will view the founding of an organization in a similar light. It's learned for the time period that is required and then quickly forgotten.

(But I'm cynical about stuff like this, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.)

And this may sound kind of bad because we all like to claim to be the first at something, but some groups founding ideals and history may not seem that remarkable if they are just presented in the context of pledge education, rather than something that the organization promotes to be lived out.

But again, you'd probably have to buy into the national organization to be interested in that.

I think it depends on the dynamics of the chapter and how obsessed they were with their uncompromising traditions. I think that many chapters may switch in terms of how the members look or dress but that's a surface level appearance of change and inclusion. When you get down to it, the members tend to think and act similar to the older members from that chapter.

So is it cool or uncool for rushees to think they know the "personality" of particular chapters and cater to it? Would that seem phony or that the aspirants are genuinely interested in learning the chapters and being considered for membership?

I was actually moving away from sasquatch and typing in general. So if most remember then that's good. :)

I won't take your opinion with a grain of salt because I don't think it's cynical or inaccurate. This could go back to not only failing to fully respect those who came before you (founders, older members, national, local, and chapter history, etc.) but also about what being in an organization means to you.

At the SEC schools with the super-traditional chapter, I think it would be remarkably hard to pull off effectively if you weren't at least partially the real deal.

It seems from an outside perspective, that if you were on a campus where the groups really attracted certain types that it would be a plus to fit the superficial mold.

Oh for crying out loud in a bucket.

I am not saying you should come to rush ANYWHERE wearing a hoodie.

I am responding to the numbskull who said that no one over 22 should wear jeans unless they're slopping the hogs and anyone who does isn't dressed "appropriately."

This thread has gotten completely off track and no longer has anything to do with rush, in case you didn't notice.

"My cat's breath smells like cat food."