Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 1870637)

Forgive me for shooting off my mouth, but this sounds like the cart before the horse. Wouldn't it make more sense to tailor what you do to the number of members instead of the other way around? As far as a sisterhood or rush retreat, for example, can't you find a smaller/cheaper venue or do it at the house? Don't get caught in the trap of "this is what we've always done so we have to keep doing it even if it bankrupts us."

Not only that, as the largest chapter, you need to be Panhellenic and think about what the other groups are going through - you said you even feel the constant pressure. How about trying to get the groups to all work together with venues and such - you might get a discount that way.

If you have a house to maintain that is appreciably larger than the other groups' houses, and this is hurting you, get a smaller house. Again, don't let tradition cripple you financially.

Originally Posted by AGDee (Post 1870878)

Co-sign. Additionally, should your chapter have one bad semester of recruitment and the other groups surge ahead, you'll be in their position now. Not only do you end up with fewer members, but you have to recruit year round, which is expensive in and of itself.

Originally Posted by psy (Post 1872614)

Oh, I agree, and trust me, we seniors (and our juniors to some extent) definitely remember when our chapter had a couple "low years" (numbers-wise--we still got great girls, just not enough to fill total). I'm still very pro lowering total, but apparently, I'm the only one on our exec board with that opinion.