Thanks James, lol! :D

These things NEVER change. Take it from an oldie but a goodie.
Some of the original 7 NPC groups are also very strong in regions, or even a certain state in a certain region.
Confused? For example, a sorority can be very strong in one state in the South and have membership number concerns in the state they border.
And admittedly, a campus where Greeks are strong will often maintain the same pecking order for years and years based on status quo. Especially so in the sororities.
Fraternities are a different story, in light of the fact that many "top" fraternity houses will get busted and suspended for alcohol and have to shut down for a couple of years. But they come back and find the social order has changed.
Just an observation along with hearing my own kids and their friends talk about their experiences.

Reply To Anchor Alum
 

I enjoyed reading your very interesting comments. You said you heard about some 'top tier' fraternities being kicked out, then returning years later to find that their place in the social order had changed. That certainly sounds reasonbable, but there's actually a rush theory that says the reverse is more often true. It has to be an established system, but here's what happens most often: a chapter will die out or get kicked off, wait their time and then re-colonize, after which the chapter re-establishes itself in it's old place in the heirarchy! I know it doesn't make sense, but that's what happens very often. I know fraternities gone for two, five, even ten years on strong fraternity campuses, that come back and almost overnight re-establish themselves in the same tier they occupied before. Mayeb it has to do with housing (assuming they keep their old home). Maybe it has to do with the expectations of the alumni, or the leadership of the national. I cannot imagine, say, SAE at Alabama leaving then coming back as anything less that what they always have been.

Here, at PSU with 20 orgs, there aren't that many defined tiers, but everyone pretty much knows who the top 3 are. The top 3 can vary year by year, but one org has managed to stay in the top 3 over the years (and I'm not going to name it) but isn't always the most desirable chapter. However, the system is strong enough that you can't really say who's in what tier because things can change quickly and chapters that look weaker on the outside numberswise can be stronger and be more desireable than a larger chapter. Overall, no one is really the strongest and no one is really the weakest here.

Re: Reply To Anchor Alum
 

It has everything to do with housing and alumni support, and nothing to do with "rush theory"

Re: Re: Reply To Anchor Alum
 

Clearly, you're not a woman! :) :)

I mean... if you know how off the wall that sounds to a southern female... hehe... 99.9% of it IS rush theory!

Re: Re: Re: Reply To Anchor Alum
 

I'm refering to dormant chapters returning to campuses and resuming former positions of prestige.

I write this from experience. I was part of a returning group at FSU, and I've been at this long enough to know that if you don't have a house and alumni support, you are basically starting from scratch, and "rush theory" will not by the causal factor in restoring an organization to its former glory.

Also, "rush theory" is a terrible phrase. Rush is to recruitment as cramming for a test is to studying for a test. Any successful GLO does not leave all of its recruitment work for rush week. The best fraternities always have most of there pledge classes lined up before rush week even begins.

With all due respect, russ, fraternity and sorority colonizing are two VASTLY different worlds

So are you saying that national sororities will gladly jump into the process without alumni support?

No, alumnae support is an important part of the picture. But a national sorority will use this element as well as housing as part of a much larger theory of where they see a need on campus, what women they hope to attract, and more.

They were discussing fraternity colonization in the example given though.

As for sororities . . . it really does all depend on the campus. Looking through the yearbooks here it's easy to see that groups have switched places. Two groups that are easily "middle tier" now were tops on campus in the 1950s. One of the groups that had a reputation for being party girls in the 1980s now has the complete opposite rep and a completely different spot on the "tier." The group that is now the smallest was the biggest on campus ten years ago. At our campus it isn't strange at all for groups to cycle through the "tier."

The same is not to be said about, say, the University of Texas, where the tiers have been pretty solid with minimal moves up and down the ladder since at LEAST the 1960s.

I know, but this same argument has been put forth in several threads. I actually got confused as to what thread I was posting in, but it's still applicable.

Ditto.... :) :) :) hehehehe

I seem to remember the Ole Miss thread that seemed to come to the conclusion that without state wide alumni support, and a house, (re)colonization was not going to happen.

I also recall that three well regarded national sororities left FSU in the late 70s/early 80s and have been unable to return. Are they lacking in "rush theory?"

"Recruitment theory", a much better term than "rush theory", is needed, but is much less important than actually having people on the ground who can sell the product. I've been a sales manager, so this hits home, well, to me at least. And no matter how good your sales force is, if the product requires support (alumni), you better have it or, in the real world you're getting sued, and in the world of GLOs, you're simply going to fold. If the product requires other things to make it work, like a house, and you sell it without that house, its not going to work right.

But more importantly, and returning to my point that was challanged, when a dormant chapter is recolonized at an established greek system, there is only one way that it will return to its original point of prestige; with the same house (or comparable replacement) and strong alumni support. I seriously doubt that anyone can provide an example, that has gone through a 6 year cycle, that will defy my assertation.

Ok, just chill, Russ.

I'm not really arguing with you. I agree with your point. I just think that house and alumnae (if it's a sorority--if it's a fraternity alumni!) are needed, but do not a successful recolonization make.

As for the rush/recruitment issue--I think I've discussed that one before on threads in this forum. I don't want to get into it again.