Originally Posted by Firehouse (Post 1653571)

Crackerbarrel, with respect, perhaps we need to define why it is that you find "southern" fraternities superior to all other fraternities and fraternity systems.

You asked what makes Georgia Tech's system strong (and your implication that it is not). Georgia Tech's system is very old with very well established chapters; they are well housed, stable, large chapters and fraternity men populate student government and all major leadership positions. Tech has 31 fraternities - all big, solid nationals - and outside of Virginia Tech or possibly U-Florida that's probably the most in the south.

Yes, fraternities at most SEC schools are very well established and strong, but the "southern" fraternity systems are no more or less dominating of their campuses than the fraternity systems at: Missouri, Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska, Indiana, Illinois, Oklahaom, Oklahoma State, Cornell, Penn State, Southern California, Arizona...
In fact, I'd say the fraternity system at U-Arizona is probably stronger all-around than any in the south except Alabama (which has no peer in my opinion), Auburn and possibly Ole Miss. Even then, it's close and arguable.
The Betas at Oklahoma have 150 members plus 50 pledges and live in a house more majestic and awe-inspiring than any - any- in the south. You'd have a hard tme saying they are not "elite".
I love the south and I'm a fan of SEC fraternities, but the SEC fraternity systems are not superior to great fraternity systems in other parts of the country.

As far as your comment that "Top Tier means elite" and that "five out of 20 are not elite"...I respectfully disagree. The top 20% of any large system will tend to be elite. The top men tend to be drawn to the top fraternities. Claiming to be "selective" is something anyone can do. Being selective is only a virtue if you get selected back by the top rushees. On a big campus with a lot of rushees and a large number of fraternities, there are enough "elite" types to populate pledge classes for all the Tier I fraternities.
And, with respect, the truely bottom Tier III is always small, becasue bad fraternities tend to go out of business. The worst ones will fail and drop out of the system.
You may be exactly right about two levels in Tier II, but most people don't make the distinction among those in the middle.

Again, this discussion of your points comes back to how YOU define a superior fraternity system. If it depends to you on how many guys wear pastel shirts, then we'll have to agree to disagree about fraternities and their relative strengths. I respect your enthuiasm for fraternities and I have no doubt you are a stalwart and generous supporter of your chapter.

Originally Posted by Firehouse (Post 1653571)

Claiming to be "selective" is something anyone can do. Being selective is only a virtue if you get selected back by the top rushees.

Originally Posted by Firehouse (Post 1653333)

No irony here (three of the top five were kicked off) and no hidden message.
All three (SAE, ATO, SigEp) were booted for hazing, and in each case it was a mother who blew the whistle. One huge difference about this generation is that they share everything with their parents, including the details of their hazing. These were magnificent chapters, each in the 120-150 man range. Their loss disrupted the dynamic of the TopTier. Now, the system is stable again after other fraternities grew and took their place.

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum (Post 1654581)

I'm only 26 and find that strange too.

who would tell their mom about what they do with their fraternity??

I hope I'm not considered part of that generation.

/hijack

okay, now for the real question:

What if there are only 12 fraternties, not counting groups that aren't part of IFC? I still think that tiers might exist, but judging by my expierence, it changes every year. I don't want to give specific examples, but it almost seems easier to be good now if you are brand new, as opposed to when we came on and, well, no specific examples, let's just say that being frat#9 when only 8 or so were on campus doesn't lead to the warmest of receptions.

Also, is there a relationship between the founding date of the chapter and the social status/tier of said group?

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 1654595)

Absolutely there's a relationship.

Oldest are almost always higher. (or at least have a greater chance of being higher.)

And no, having 12 fraternities does not mean the tiers change. Arkansas has that many and it hasn't changed. The middle switches up a bit but only because of a new house.

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum (Post 1654596)

I think location plays a factor too, then.

As well as average chapter size. If you're at a big school with 12 groups and they have 90+ members a piece, it's going to be a different dynamic than at a school with 12 fraternities and the average size is 25-30.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 1654684)

True.

I think that possibly if it was a smaller campus with that many fraternities at that size the tier system could be very fluid.

Originally Posted by gtdxeric (Post 1653397)

Disclaimer: I'm about a year out of undergrad, and I think a female could probably answer this better than me... they see a lot more than any guy does, IMO.

You could make an argument for a top tier of 5-6 at Tech, but the composition changes a lot depending on how important Southernness is. You also start running into arguments like: ABC and DEF go after the same guys in the fall, and pretty much split them, therefore they must be on the same tier, right?

My point is, there's a fairly subtle transition from the top down at Tech, so the top tier is hard to demarcate. However, the bottom tier is much better defined, and consists of about 8-10 fraternities.

I know somebody's going to bring this up, so no, none of the fraternities at Tech would be considered "top tier" at an SEC school, but that's not what we're talking about here.

Originally Posted by banditone (Post 1654738)

What size are the large chapters, medium, and small at Tech?

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle (Post 1655093)

Not stupid - building houses that are very modern is a sure way for them to look dated in 20 years (look at all the "modern" monstrosities from the 60s - yuck). Using classic design (often Greek Revival) means the house will look good for decades.

Originally Posted by DSTRen13 (Post 1655099)

So very very true. My husband's chapter's house is hideous. Whoever thought letting an architecture student design their house in the early 70s was obviously high ...