Very true. I went to a smaller school with three NPC chapters, but it was the guys on campus that "ranked" the sororities. Nobody in each group really even cared. With so few chapters, there were never really "tiers", but it was well known what the guys, especially the ones in the fraternities, thought about each chapter.

As to whether that affected girls' decisions as to which chapter they joined... I don't think it did.

But in a competitive formal recruitment setting, I could definitely see girls forming opinions and basing decisions on what the guys on campus think.

No offense was intended, I just read the post in a different manner than the majority of people here.

Most of you were not in GLOs when Wilson Heller published his lists ranking sororities nationally. While his comments were always subjective, his "research" for the ranking was pretty objective. As President of my sorority, I remember receiving a form asking me to rank the other NPC groups on my campus. He then compiled this data from all over the country. Were his results the "be-all-end-all?" No, but it did give readers the perception of the "top" groups nationally.

It is human nature to categorize things/groups/ideas.

I'm not picking on you, SWTXBelle, but why waste time worrying about other people's superiority/inferiority complexes? This is a NPC "panhellenicism" that I just don't understand.

Wasn't the last Wilson Heller list published in the 1970s? Heller had a definite idea as to what made a top group-such frequent expansion to as many schools as possible. However I would have a hard time basing any judgement on data that was last updated 30 years ago.

And more importantly, Nut, do you still believe the "research" to be significant? It is one thing to buy into tiers as a collegian (such as when you filled out your survey) but are you implying that after over 25 years as an alumna that you still find the results relevant or pertinent?

I think the last one was in the early 1980s. I just thought his was a good thread to mention that there used to be a list... Currently, I can completely understand that many don't know the strengths of the NPCs not present on their campus or prominent in their region. Heller's list made me take note of Tri Delta, Kappa, Theta and Pi Phi -- even though they weren't on my campus (even though I was familiar with them due to high school friends joining at other schools.)

I think it is significant for that time. Currently, to speak of the top groups would be purely subjective, but in my opinion, it hasn't changed that much in 25 years.

Pick all you want - I'm a big girl. :)

I don't "waste time", but I also don't have much patience for stupid jr. high-type antics which negatively impact all of us. All of the NPC groups have statements of purpose which include the idea that one reason they exist is to enable their members to live their lives to their fullest potential - so anything that gets in the way of that is, imho, something which we need to eliminate. ( or at the very least, seek to NOT contribute to . . . )

eta - the new release figure method is an example of the good that can come of all of us seeking to advance our common goals.

A-freakin-men.

I've said it before, it's international tent talk. What purpose does talking about "international tiers" serve? Does it do any good?

If we're going to get into a ****ing match, why don't we look at some quantitative methods of determining an organization's strength? Now the accountants on GC will have to help me out with this one (I got Cs in economics and accounting :() but isn't there a percentage or ratio that is used to analyze an organization's strength based on their annual reports?

I would also add that any person who seriously complains about the weakness of their organization probably needs to work harder (volunteer, donate?) to help make it stronger. ;)

I think we talked about this before in the context of most chapters vs. most members. I mean, you can say XYZ has strong alumnae support because they have 100 more alum chapters than anyone else, but what isn't mentioned is that 2/3 of those alum chapters have less than 5 members. Whereas XYZ has fewer alum chapters, but most of them are very active with large memberships.

I don't see anyone complaining about the "weakness" of their organizations. In fact, most of the sorority alumnae on GC are very dedicated to their sorority through advising their local chapter, volunteering as a National officer, being involved with their alumnae chapter, etc.

It bothers me when people insinuate that belonging to a "low tier" chapter or a "low tier" NPC makes them less of a person. If a chapter has happy members who are striving to achieve the standards and live the values of their sorority, that's what ultimately matters.

Talking about tiers has the potential to undo a lot of good that members do, even if it is "quantitative". Kind of like how when Greeks complain that the media will be all over a story involving hazing/drinking yet fail to publicize the merits. Or when sorority women, fraternity men, and independents talk trash about the struggling chapter(s) on campus, even if they are trying to improve. The tent talk hinders their efforts.

If you want to talk about tiers, there are sites designed for just that purpose.:rolleyes:

I have yet to see the purpose tier talk serves. Is it consistent with your sorority's values?

:) This is what I was referring to with my do something about it comment above ...

It is short-sighted to think that if your GLO is "top-tier" then you can afford to look down your nose at the others. The fact of the matter is that the Greek system has always had, and continues to have, enemies who would like nothing better than to do away with ALL of us.

Our best defense is to be strong - to offer a way of college life that embraces the widest possible variety of women, that can offer sisterhood to women of all backgrounds, religions, races and economic means, that seeks to embody in our day to day living the fine words and noble sentiments we have as our creeds, symphonies, and statements of purpose.

The problem with rankings is that they are based on a very narrow set of data - it might be number of members, or chapters, or what have you, but it simply cannot measure the subjective things that can make a smaller chapter or sorority great in their own way. And most of the "ranking" I've seen nowadays tends to be TOTALLY subjective and based on individual perceptions - my personal favorite? When fraternity men base it on the perceived "hotness" of particular chapters. Yep, I've checked - hotness of members is not mentioned as an atribute of any NPC members that I've seen. It could be under the heading of membership selection, but I doubt it . . . :rolleyes:

There are several chapters of NPC sororities at highly competitive schools that do not participate in formal recruitment. I have nothing but respect for the fact that their HQs recognize that while they may not be able to compete in formal recruitment, they still have something to offer to women who might otherwise not have a sorority home.

Also, those women who might not find a home during formal recruitment but who have a great deal to offer a GLO - what of them? You need only review recruitment threads here to see that the system is not perfect, and lovely, smart, talented young women can go bidless. It is not in their best interests - or NPC sororities - to become fixated on meeting the needs of a miniscule number of perceived "top tier" types. That would be our death knell. The system's strength is our best insurance that we will be able to pass our legacy on to generations to come.

here, here!!