I was referring to the comments by James in earlier posts.

Luckily the rest of the responses have been geared toward helping the situation and finding a workable solution. :)

How odd. Nowhere in my post do I discuss the worthiness of small chapters to be Greek.

I would have to further disgree with you and say my post was very much geared towards helping the situation and finding a workable solution.

What I am doing is challenging the small chapter paradigm and badically saying that the excuses that small chapters use are self deceptions that define their problem incorectly and therefore do not allow a solution.

Once a chapter says "small is good and cozy" they lose their competitive edge and lose any reason to try harder.

So the first step is to admit they have a problem lol, and then take steps to solve it.

Browneyedgirl!

A few of us have posed the same question to you and you keep ignoring us.

What is your current COB policy? Are you allowed to Cob in the non-formal rush semester?

Actually 33girl, I believe that the way Panhell works, each Panhell member has an official NPC delegate advisor and that they basically they believe that they have to vote the way that advisor tells them.

Any Panhell people want to correct me or elaborate?

Also note that Browneyed girl keeps saying that the Advisors areng up with suggestions, and that one of the advisors was KKG's National President as well as a NPC board member. Thats not an undergrad lol.

So there is no choice or real leadership experience for the collegians here at all.

James - I refer to your comments that all small chapters "suck ass"

Not only is this a vast generalization of something which you obviously know nothing about but it also completely discounts any good qualities that these chapters may possess. A large chapter with problems is no more 'kidding themselves' than a small chapter is by trying to justify their small numbers. Most small chapters are not small by choice but this does not signify that their chapter is inherently better or worse than a larger chapter on campus.

I do not envy the chapter at Clemson their position because it sounds like they have a lot of work ahead of them. I know how hard their task will be and how much effort it will take to integrate that number of new members into their group. It is hard but it is possible. But remember, while they may be 1/3 the size of the largest chapter, they still have 65 members so they can't 'suck ass' too bad or they would be far smaller than they are. Incidentally, that number is the current chapter total at my collegiate school and above total for many others.

All I am saying is that there can be a productive discussion of the issues without resorting to belittling the chapter involved and the many other chapters nationwide in similar situations.

James - it depends on the school. I don't think our advisor ever attended a Panhel meeting and she certainly didn't tell us how to vote (she wasn't a sister, so she couldn't). Obviously at large schools like Clemson the advisors are going to be more informed. Some sororities do give the advisor an insane amount of power - some she's just a figurehead. But as browneyedgirl said, when you are in that meeting, you (the collegian) are the one who votes.

Now as far as Greek advisors and administrators manipulating decisions with threats, that's another story. :p

I wouldn't be too upset with him . . . I've found that fraternity men have little concept of what it's like to be a huge chapter, and therefore don't understand the "less sisterhood in large chapters" complaints very well. On our chapter, for example, out of about 25 fraternities, only 2 of them have over 100 members, and maybe three more are over 80. Out of 11 sororities, about 7 of them are over 100, all but one (or maybe all?) over 80. So for the fraternities, anything over 60 is considered pretty big, whereas for the sororities it takes almost twice that.

Most campuses are similar.

So the likelihood of most men ever belonging to a chapter of over 100 is fairly small, at least when compared to a women's chance of belonging to a sorority of over 100.

Personally, my chapter isn't even at campus total (120) and I feel like we're way too big already . . . I wish sororities on our campus could be capped at 60. Unfortunately that's not really plausible.

James--

Chapter advisors on campuses that I have had to deal with during expansion do help the chapter make the decision on how to vote. International/national organizations also talk about it at their council meetings. You're right, it's not just a chapter that has the vote, but other people are involved. And obviously that's because the organization has to look out for their best interests, while also being positive panhellenically.

I do agree with you that some small chapters get to a point where the fight has left them. They've struggled for a long period of time, and they decide to resign themselves to the size that they are, and work hard at recruitment, but don't let it dictate their entire chapter. Sometimes that's good, other times it doesn't work. But in defense of smaller chapters, and someone else mentioned it, often times don't have the motivation/lack of sisterhood/lack of participation factor that large chapters can struggle with. This does NOT imply all large chapters...I'm speaking generally of course.

The sad truth is that while we are all gung ho sorority women for our own groups and believe in our principles and sisterhood and what not, sororities and fraternities are businesses, and to keep themselves viable, they sometimes have to make tough decisions.

First let me say that I am NO EXPERT on rush or NPC rules.

Let's take this proposal another way, in a way that doesn't involve a cap on sorority size. Why don't the really large chapters with members who are concerned about their gigantic size just extend fewer bids than quota allows? Why couldn't this be voluntary?

I understand that a chapter has the RIGHT to take quota, but if these women are complaining that their groups are too large, why would they WANT to take quota? Isn't the large size a problem that they could solve on their own just by not taking so darn many new members? Isn't this an easy way to solve the size problem?

It just doesn't seem right to keep taking tons of new members and then complain about how many members a group has. If you want fewer members, extend bids to fewer people.

Isn't that simple, or are people too caught up in the game of bragging about getting quota?

In the formal rush process, you do not have complete control over how many women recieve bids to your chapter. If you extend fewer bids than quota, and they are not all accepted, you shoot yourself in the foot. On the other hand, if you extend more bids than quota, you can't retract them just because too many girls accept.

For example...

At my school, quota is usually around 50. Approximately 150 women attend pref parties at each chapter, in an ideal situation (50women*3parties=150). My chapter can choose to put all 150 women on its bid list. So, if the first 50 we want do not all accept, it goes to 51, 52, etc. If we cut our list to 45 because we didn't want to take quota, and some of those did not accept, we would end up with fewer than 45.

So, as long as your school uses some kind of computer matching, it is in your chapter's best interest to put as many women as possible on the bid list.

There is more to it than bragging about making quota. The whole philosophy of greek life is to maxamize the number of women who are able to pledge. If the larger chapters didn't pledge quota or the system set a cap they would be turning away even more women than they are right now and then they will get more women on campus who have a negative attitude toward Greek Life. I believe their advisors are on the right track in working to help the smaller chapters with their COB and competitive size efforts. I have seen similar efforts work to calm smaller chapters on other campuses.

I would think, though, that the concept of maximizing the number of women who are able to pledge would be less important than doing what it takes so that the women who are in the system are happy. It sounds like women in the larger chapters are seriously unhappy with how many members they have.

Isn't it more important to take into consideration how happy the members themselves are, than it is to try to ensure that fewer people on campus have a negative attitude toward Greek Life?

Anyway, if women are getting turned away from the largest groups on campus, they're not necessarily getting turned away from Greek Life. Maybe the members of the smaller houses would love to have them.

Again, I'm just curious and I think this is an interesting discussion. I guess the proposal of "caps" got me thinking.