With this system how long did recruitment end up lasting? Our recruitment currently begins on a Monday with Bid Day on Saturday. We have 11 chapters and about 650-700 PNMs.

I absolutely agree that PNMs who withdraw are not necessarily undesirable members. That is the answer I have gotten when I voiced my concerns about decreasing placement rates to various college Panhellenics. I overall like the new release figures, but if there are ways to increase PNMs placement I think they should be explored. Does anyone know if retention rates have increased with the new release figures?

In your hypothetical, Susie and Annie would only know about each other’s schedules if they shared that information. Theoretically, a PNM could always “save face” by keeping quiet about her preferences throughout Recruitment. I know this is unlikely, as Recruitment is such a social event, but no system is going to make someone who got fewer invites feel better about themselves. If Annie and Susie are going to share schedules and invites, they’ve probably already shared the order in which they ranked the chapters.

I wholeheartedly agree that Flexing is fantastic. In my opinion, it’s one of the best parts of the new release figures.

I’m not sure even the most positive description of ranking by a Recruitment Counselor could get through to an excited 18 or 19 year old. In my experience, once a PNM knows the maximum number of chapters she can visit next round, she tends to think of chapters she ranked lower than that as “cut” by her.

As far as way more PNMs dropping out under A/R, I can only speak for the campuses (campi?) where I have advised, when I say that the number of PNMs withdrawing from recruitment increased. If that’s not true across the board, then it is even more reason for me to endorse the new release figures.

5 Consecutive Days:

Day 1: 10 Houses
Day 2: 6 Houses
Day 3: 4 Houses
Day 4 (Pref): 3 House
Day 5: Bid Day

"Turnaround," as it was called, was at 7 or 8 each morning. We got our invites printed out from a computer. We then circled the ones that we wanted to return to (maybe a scantron was involved?? I can't really remember).

Parties for Day 2 started around 1pm. Day 3 started around 3, and pref started around 6. (IIRC)

em_adpi might be able to shed light on current practices there. I know there are now 11 chapters and even more going through recruitment.

We had 11 chapters and it was Saturday-folowing sunday. Saturday was convocation and then meet your Rho Chi Groups. Open houses were 2 days, 1st parties were 2 days, second parties 1 day and pref 1 day with bid day the following day.
And we used scantron to pick our groups.

Hi Carnation. Having done recruitment for a long time I think there are some positive things to the new release figures and some negative things. It is my opinion that the release figures are great for 98% of the Chapters. There are still some places that I know of personally that Panhellenic does not make the PNM's go to there full party list for fear they will drop out. They still get bids AND are considered to have fully participated in recruitment. I think it has helped Chapters who historically have not made quota make quota and put Chapters on more of a level playing field in regards to size.

I think the new release figures are hard on the PNM's. I think a lot of great girls are cut because of first impressions. I think that there are a lot of girls who fall under the radar because they were not able to light up the room and impress a Chapter member in 20 to 30 minutes. I also know that we look at recs now with a different approach. If your a strong Chapter you can NOT invite back all your recs because then you would be releasing women you really want.

As far as new members dropping, we have not experienced that, but I do think there are women who find themselves in houses were they feel like they don't belong. I think the shortened educational programs also are to blame along with this generation just not being able to stick with what they start.

Lastly, to comment on the legacies. I think we do a good job at looking at them and keeping them as long as we can. Our Chapter may get 10 legacies going through, but some Chapters could have 50 or more depending on where you are. I would imagine this Chapters are letting go of legacies earlier than some other ones might. I think a legacy makes a great new member and we should try to take as many as we can, however, at my school it can be the kiss of death.

The flex list in my opinion is the WORST part of the whole thing. We hate to do them.

KC the way it works on our campus if they are on your flex list they are fair game. We spend a lot of time on those list for that specific reason.

Why? It seems like they'd be great. Is it simply uncomfortable to have a category of women who you want to keep but that you don't know if you will? Or is it that people read too much into them about how the chapter is performing and get anxious?


About JWright's great post about what to tell PNMs to "educate" them: I think you tell them at the very first meeting with the Recruitment Counselors that some chapter are required to cut a large number of PNMs after the first day and without naming any chapters, then actually give the percentages for some of the top chapters from recruitment the year before. Sure, if you get cut by a chapter you like it hurts your feelings, but if you knew that it might be one of the chapters that had to cut 50% or more, you would know you were among the majority of PNMS when you didn't get asked back to popular houses A and B.

And at the very same time that you tell the PNMS about the percentages the chapters release, you remind them that they system still works and that the groups that released that hard all made quota (or whatever) and XX% of PNMS who stayed in recruitment got bids over the last X number of years.

One of the things I've noticed is that PNMS always seem to believe there's something exceptionally hard about recruitment their year and will repeat complete myths about the number of girls dropping or being cut out or whatever being totally unprecedented. So it also might help for Recruitment Counselors to give little updates when the results are positive and maybe even to have statistics about what's normal for recruitment over the last five years, so that girls would know the system is working, rather than the PNMs telling each other, "Did you know this is the worst recruitment in the history of the SEC? The computer must be messed up. Half the PNMS have dropped out and none of the chapters are going to make quota."

The data about how things are going system wide exists, why not let PNMS in on it? "No, actually 80% of PNMs were invited to at least half the number of parties for third round, which is exactly where we were at this point last year when 90% of chapters made quota and 84% *of PNMS got the first group they listed on their bid card and another 12% got the second group. Only 2% didn't get bids, and half of them were SIPs. So RELAX, you freaks."

*I have no idea what number is realistic and this doesn't even seem mathematically possible, but you can understand my point, which is to reassure the PNMS that things are going normally.

I really wish my Rho Gammas had told me that. I heard as gossip that the only reason a person would get cut after the first round is for grades, or if they really sucked. I had a steller GPA first semester freshman year, and I WAS released by a few groups (though I wasn't cut that heavily), but I still thought that these top groups thought I was awful. I know now that I was likely cut due to RFM (I was comfortable at the houses, didn't make any major faux pas, I wasn't a visible freshman partying wreck, and I didn't have a bad history with anyone in the sororities...but I digress.), but at the time, I had no idea what RFM was, so I just thought I sucked. I wish wish wish this could have been explained to me.

Another thing I wish my Rho Gammas could have told me, so I could have seen that I stood a way better chance than I thought. I was the PNM doing all sorts of google searches trying to find placement rates at my school for the past five years. It was pathetic, yes, but I won at being the most terrified PNM in the history of sororities, and my system, while competitive, is NOTHING like the SEC and doesn't even require (or regularly receive) recs. While I was an extreme bundle of nerves, I know that there were, are, and will be tons of frazzled stressed out PNMs, and past placement rates will generally help to let them know the truth's of that campus's system. (Though I think at campuses like Indiana, LSU, Bama, ect, they could be a rather unsettling thought). I think UGAalum's ideas are terrific for calming the nerves of the stressed PNMs as well as thwarting rumors of scary rush statistics, and I fully intend to bring it up to my school's Panhellenic.

Is there a standard formula about what percentage of girls each house must cut each round under this system?

It's based on three years' worth of return rates for each round, priority percentages (how many PNMs rank the chapter in their cluster of 1st choice), how far down their bid list they go to make quota, etc. So there is a formula, but it's not the kind of formula like a + b / c = return rate that can just be thrown out there. :) And it's always overseen by actual humans to take into account factors that computer formulas don't know - like the addition or loss of a chapter, the over- or under-performance of a chapter, etc. And of course Flex Lists are great for making these midstream corrections.

And sure, we all do things to save our egos, so it's understandable on a human level that the individuals tell themselves fibs. But if no one ever speaks the truth about the situation to explain that everything actually going great even if everyone who got cut by the #1 group is unhappy about it. The problem is the lack of good or realist information that would kind of balance the wild rumors out.

And I know that I'm probably coming off as too much "we should just crush their spirits with the bad news first," but one of the best things I think we could do is to really talk about what placement rates mean. When PNMS hear that last year ___ percentage got their first choice, they think first choice of ALL the groups, rather than first choice of whom they had left at the end.

There's absolutely no guarantee any PNMS will listen, but at the same time RCs are saying, some chapters have to cut 50% after first round, they should go ahead and say 100% number of PNMS last year listed these chapter among their number ones in their rankings after first round. (I mean give them the real number from the year before, but my guess is that if PNMS get to rank six houses #1, your top return rate chapters really probably do have nearly 100% who rank them among the top parties they want to go back to.

No you're not. I agree with you. Even if we just forewarned them that with the RFM, the heaviest cuts occur early on, they'd be a little less stunned and more likely to stick it out (I think).

Now I am NOT saying that we should tell them every single thing about the RFM (like who makes the heaviest cuts or the formula that's used to calculate the # to cut), but I think just a little forewarning about the early heavy cuts would help.

Also, I think that PXs and Greek Life staff need to be sure that they're telling the PNMs that:

1. Recruitment is not guaranteed.
2. Not every girl gets their first choice.

Oh, there were sorority MEMBERS on here too saying things like "UGA has the toughest recruitment in the country - 75% of the girls get cut" which is bull poo. It's to make them look more "elite." Obviously if 75% of the girls were getting cut in formal they'd stop having it or something.

Well, close to 100% probably do get cut by someone, but they don't get cut by all the chapters.

I think maybe you're remembering the claim that I kind of though was false as well that top chapters have to cut 75% after first round. On the one hand, it's possible because some chapters at UGA really could expect close to 100% return rates all the way through prefs so they wouldn't need too many to actually make quota at the end. On the other hand, I doubt too many chapters are in that position and they'd still be competing with each other during prefs. ETA: maybe I'm a dummy for doubting it; I honestly have no idea what the releases are like at chapters at UGA.

ETA: and any sorority member who looked at quota times 17 and the number who started recruitment can see that the vast majority of girls finish recruitment and get bids. To claim otherwise is just insulting to other people's intelligence, as KSUViolet has already pointed out with her example.

I've had experiences with BOTH PNMS and sororities themselves freaking out over bad recruitment returns. Last year at my Alum they had horrible numbers sign up and bad retention rates. The Greek Director heard a couple girls that dropped out say that they would just go through in the Fall and go where they want (not completely true, but we usually have a pretty successfull fall recruitment. The Director's response, eliminate Fall recruitment, allow COB to total, but also cut total by almost 10 girls.
This hurt certain chapters who graduated a lot of seniors because with total dropped they may be at total but still look smaller than other chapters that did have as many seniors graduate.
My chapter for example lost 17 girls which put them at total but also could hurt them because they had a larger class than others and therefore look smaller now. (Hopefully it doesn't, the first cuts will be made this morning so we'll see the return rates)

It is unfortunate that total was reduced. Total should never be increased or decreased without first talking to your NPC Area Advisor who then gets in touch with the NPC Delegates on that campus.

Even still the college Panhellenic delegates must vote to raise or lower total. One person or the CPH Exec should not make those decision on their own.

I hope that your campus has a successful recruitment this year.

There was big drama about the total drop. I know our nationals got involved but our panhellenic board was pretty convinced that it was the right thing to do (with pressure from the director). I'm just afraid it's going to hurt in the long run because when it was closer to 60 a chapter could lose 20 seniors and not look decimated. now with total at 41 it's pretty rough.

I would think that over the long run, all the chapters would be in the same boat, right? Is there a reason that they wouldn't be?

dropping total from 60 to 41 seems pretty dramatic. what was the average chapter size?

Total was 57 not 60, sorry. Last year spring enrollment was low and quota was 10. I believe after quota most people were around total but would be below after graduation and would usually use fall recruitmnt to reach total. So Panhell cut it to 41 which was the average when sororities returned in the fall. It was basically a way to make sure that freshman didn't see highly active fall COB events and assumed they could drop out of spring and rush in the fall.

At baylor this year, quota ended up being 58. Which some groups got, and one group (possibly) below.
On the other hand, one sorority, which was already a good percentage over total (they were the fourth largest beforehand), took 75 girls. It was a quota addition of 17 girls, simply because nearly everyone in their parties preffed them. Great for them, but it will be interesting. Total is at 120, and they now stand over 210.

Another group got 67, one took 65, and one too 63.
The only group under total gave out 66 bids, but no word on how many accepted yet. Edited: They took 60, which is an amazing number!
It's been common in years past for the quota additions to be even, everyone taking between 2 or 3, or only up to 5%. I know the 5% cap isn't there anymore, so that may have caused the disparity. But 17 on top of a quota of 58 is a 30% addition.
But with groups who only took quota, they actually look like the failures here.
I don't know why quota was so low considering most groups were expecting it to be in between 60 or 70, but maybe uneven preference lists?
The group that took the most is (apparently) an up and coming chapter, and blew numbers out of the water all week long, which messed with the formula considering three years ago was the first year they hit total.



only four girls who suicided got regrets though, and that's a record low.

I'm no release figure expert but it seems that your campus needs a new method of placing quota additions.

Do you all have guaranteed placement for all PNMs who maximize options? Is there a big discrepancy in that some chapters pref girls who were online invited to pref that chapter, meaning that if they list that one, they've "maximized" and must be placed there?

It's my cousin's university. Every girl who maximizes their options gets a bid including single parties, and they started that last year. However, the group with the most apparently only had five single party girls (knowing them, not surprising), and one was a legacy anyways. Before that at baylor, I knew a lot of girls who didn't get matched from our high school.
They way she described quota additions was that they placed women like normal, and then every girl who was left over was then given their first choice, which generally gives the stronger chapters the most girls.
Because of the new release figures, it seems like some groups did invite nearly 100% every day. The stronger groups are still getting stronger actually, but it's allowed most of the groups that had problems in the past to become strong in recruitment. Seven of the nine were within 15 members of each other before pledging, and now eight of the nine are within 25 of each other. Most groups are well over total even before recruitment.
One sorority has always struggled and no longer participates in formal recruitment.
The ones that posted those big numbers are strongest at that school, and my cousin said their minus lists are huge as well, with one exception. The chapter that handed out 66 bids ended up with 60 girls, which is still over quota and an amazing number for them, because they were not at total beforehand.

The thing they don't do there that is at my campus is the idea of decline with regret, so maybe that might help even things out. (?) i have no idea why it was so many.

I have heard from numerous acquaintances that the new member dropout rates are shocking at some of the competitive schools that brag that all of their sororities reached quota. Does anyone think that it's due to pressure to take unwanted bids?

No, I think it's a healthy weeding out of women who went into rush for the wrong reason - wanting to join a sorority just to be popular and not giving a crap about sisterhood.

There's always been pressure to take "unwanted bids." It's usually been on girls without a lot of choices in rush, and on their sorority counterpart - misguided "let's help poor XYZ and throw them the leftovers." Well now it's happening to the girls who thought they would always get what they want and would never be anywhere in the "leftover" category. Pardon me if I don't cry in my Cheerios.

I think part of the problem for dropout is that the pledge classes are HUGE, and, imo, the New Member Programs are not geared to deal with the problems this brings. My daughters (both) were in pledge classes of over 75. I can see that a girl could get lost in this group and not feel connected, etc.

I can only speak for my school. The historically struggling chapter made quota this year for the first time in forever. Apparently only about 2/3 of those new members showed up on bid day and only about half of those lasted until initiation. I'm not sure what the real reason is or have any idea what the solution could be.

The real reason is that when you put on that new member pin on bid day you are advertising your social status to everyone and not a lot of girls want to advertise that they are at the bottom of the social food chain. They would rather just opt out of the greek system entirely. The sad thing is that if all these girls stayed in and worked to build up the chapter they would end up with the reputation as a chapter on the rise but that's not how girls think.

A lot of that has to do with Panhel interactions, I bet...at my school, though we DO have 'higher' and 'lower' chapters, because we all get along great, work together and try not to talk badly about each other, we tend to have very few problems with reputation.

Fixed your post.

This is why rush shouldn't be your first huge decision when you get to college. You should have some time to get away from HS and your family and become your OWN person before having to worry "OMG, what are people going to think of me if I join this sorority?"

But unless you go to a college with deferred recruitment as I do, rush is the first decision when you get to college. You join a sorority before classes even start. As far as these girls being dumb, they are not dumb, just very socially competitive. As I remember back to my high school class, it was the socially competitive girls who rushed and the others not so much.

Yes. That's my point. Thank you for re-making it. I meant "dumb" in the sense of naive.

It may also be tied in with the economy in the last few years.

If a girl wasn't just in love with her group immediately, she may feel less comfortable spending money on the group if it's a campus with housed chapters and the expenses that go along with that. I think this is especially true if she has the perception that her family is facing some economic pressure.

I've also noticed that high school kids may be more accustomed to superficial involvement with many groups rather than a deep commitment to any one thing. I think this trend has increased in the last 10 years.

Again, if a girl wasn't immediately amazed with her group, she may feel like the time required isn't "worth it."

I wonder if anyone keeps data of initiation rates and involvement through graduation in GLOs, as well as bid day stats. It would be interested to know if they've increased, stayed the same or decreased over time and how they track with the general economy.

This sounds like what happens regularly at a friend's school. The chapter would make quota on paper, but only a fraction would show up on bid day. Personally, I think Panhellenic and the Rho Gammas are forcing PNMs to rank chapters on their MRAA. So, PNMs rank the "low" chapter that they don't really want, either because they think they have to, or because they think it helps their chances for getting their first choice. This drives up quota, and the large chapters get the larger quota as a ressult of more women getting matched to the "low" chapter. PNMs who rank a chapter where they would not attend bid day aren't helping the chapter at all.

I'm wondering if some Panhellenics are thinking they're doing themselves a double favor by (a) getting great PR with everyone reaching quota and (b) "helping" smaller groups enlarge. I can see where some people would never see the downside of this.

However, the depledging numbers I'm hearing about are huge and I don't think they're doing anyone any favors--except, maybe, the girls who come around to liking the groups they never really wanted and the groups they pledge but that doesn't seem to be a significant number. When a group loses at least half of a very big pledge class, who benefits?

I'd love to see a comparison over time to know what we were really talking about.

One of the things to keep in mind, I think, is that I don't believe release figures have really increased the negatives for the PNMs in terms of actually pledging a group. Quota seems the same or higher at the campuses I'm familiar with, so if anything a girl has a slightly higher chance of pledging her top groups.

A girl might be cut hard after second round and be more likely to drop out, but in the olden days she might have gotten cut hard right before prefs or just not matched after prefs.

There may be a couple of chapters per campus who lose girls who were pressured to see recruitment all the way through with the groups they had left, but they were likely to be the chapters that just would have lost them earlier before release figures or would have been trying to snap bid them on bid day.

If nothing else, I think the "everyone made quota" PR does help because it takes an objective and public measure of recruitment success or failure off the table when people are talking about "struggling" chapters.