I agree that smaller chapters can be strapped for resources depending on the expectations and requirements of the chapter.

Dnall's earlier posts weren't just about that. The earlier posts seemed to be proposing an ideal chapter and that's when GCers began responding.

At this point, it doesn't matter what dnall types and where he types it. Some GCers already have it out for him. LOL.

WTF?
 

Dude, you're freaking 40. Your "personal annual entertainment expenses" have zero to do with ANY chapter of a collegiate fraternity in 2011.

Once again, the dichotomy between fraternity values that you brag about vs. what you actually advocate for real life success is straight up silly.

I have tried VERY hard not to just jump because it was him posting. But damn if he doesn't have a serious craniocolonoscopy going on.

It's all the porn. Or the hookers and blow. I don't even know anymore.

And if you don't raise 50k for your philanthropy you might as well not exist.

dnall would be wise to realize that there is not a singular "worthy" Greek experience, even within councils.

On the other hand, his critics would be wise to realize that there are more worthwhile pursuits than trying to convince him otherwise.

This really falls into the "spending so much effort posting" argument pit. I have plenty of time for other worthwhile pursuits after telling him he's a fucking moron. Which, lest he think I'm being passive aggressive, let me make it clear. Dnall, you're a fucking moron.

We post what we post. Should he want to keep posting his stupidity, odds are we'll keep responding in kind.

Ya know, I thought about giving up yesterday, but I didn't. Bad decision. Today this will all end. Because statements such as these:

.. make me realize that there is no in between for him. You either have 60+ members, tons of massive parties, and raise 50k in one weekend for your philanthropy.. or you have 20 members and you're broke. The fraternity, school, and campus culture don't matter. The amount you pay each semester in dues doesn't matter. Nothing else matters except that you're going to struggle forever without 60 brothers.. You better get used to it.

Ok, now that that's settled.. Can we go have some fun in some other threads?!!!one?!!!??!!!

If you're a 20 man chapter (and every other chapter on campus is 60+) and trying to run a 50k/yr event, you're doing it wrong. If you're on a campus where 50k/yr events are the norm, then of course a smaller chapter won't have the resources. No one disagrees with you there.

BUT if you're not on a campus that does 50k/yr events, 20+ massive social events, it doesn't matter. This is what people are trying to tell you. A 25 member group can do just as well as a 40-50 member group on my campus without being broke. I have seen it happen.

You have to realize everything isn't either/or. There are shades of gray that don't match your experience.

The guy said he's in a chapter with 20-something guys, while the other chapters on campus have 50-60.

I did not at any point (nor have I ever) say 60 guys is ideal. There is no real ideal. If I was a 20 man chapter I'd be trying to grow to 30, 30 to 40 to 60 to 80 to 100, and really I don't like the idea of going over that while keeping brotherhood strong.

The only ideal is to achieve your ritual/creed goals while having enough money/manpower to operate at a high level in competition in order to deliver sufficient long-term member satisfaction.

While I agree there are plenty of gray areas across the spectrum, at some point near the bottom of that spectrum you have such limited resources that it prevades almost every decision you make and is a serious limitation to ever doing anything big.

When I'm hungry, it's nice to think about what I'd actually like to eat and go get that rather than say, oh well I can't afford anything so it'll be PB&J again.

That's all I freakin said to the guy. I didn't say his greek experience automatically sucks or anything else. I said life would be much better if they can grow and bring in additional resources. Otherwise he faces some disadvantages. That isn't trashing his org or telling him his life is over. It's motivation for him to work his tail off to make his org grow and achieve great things.

But that's implying by that group being small they can't achieve great things. Some groups have no desire to grow to the 50-60 limit because that's not the audience they cater to. Smaller groups can and DO achieve great things. For some groups, life is better smaller and continually adding small amounts of incredibly active members rather than being a large group where you have a 50% active-rate.

Groups cater to different interests. That's what you're not understanding. To say that this group can only achieve great things and be successful if they balloon up to 50-60 people is wrong. I'm not saying adding more members is bad, but if the group is historically small and operates very well as a small group and has been successful filling their niche, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that (and to suggest otherwise is dumb).

Also, throwing more resources at a problem/opportunity does not necessarily result in a better outcome. It's the old cliche, "work smarter, not harder". If you have twenty guys running a philanthropy tournament that appeals to the whole campus and gets tons of non-greeks to sign up, it will be better than fifty guys running a tournament that only appeals to other greeks. The difference is only that the first group came up with a great idea for a broomball/chili-cooking/pingpong tournament that is really exciting to the campus community, while the bigger group was complacent and just went with softball.

You can and should work smarter not harder no matter how many guys you have.

By definition, any tournament that appeals to the whole campus versus just greeks is going to get more participation. It's also easier to get the word out with 30-40-50+ active motivated participants than it is 20. There's economies of scale to everything.

That 20 man chapter probably can do that one event and maybe raise a couple grand for charity. I have no complaint with that. But, how many of those events can they do per year before they burn out their members, or overwork them so they aren't making grades, or that one kind of thing becomes all they're about?

With a 40 man chapter, the minimum you're able to accomplish is double what the maximum a 20 man chapter is capable of. But the upside is higher then that. That event that stretches a 20man chapter to very limit is easy for a 40 man chapter. If it's easy, you can do more than two of them. You can do 3-4+. The synergy and economies of scale that come with having more resources (manpower, money, etc) has an exponential effect on your capability.

You can argue that a very small chapter is that way because it fills a very narrow niche and takes only exceptionally high quality members. And that such a chapter can still operate at a high level despite the above disadvantages.

Okay, sure in theory in some very narrow circumstances in a very very few locations that could be true. But, more times than not, a chapter is not historically or currently small because it operates at a high level and takes only the very best. In most cases, they're small due to competitive forces and tend not to operate consistently on a high level.

About consistency also. With a 20 man group, you're much more dependent on exceptional individual leadership and management. Those exceptional people don't come around that often, and when they do they can only transfer part of the skill set to a very limited number of also exceptional people who happen to be waiting in the wings.

The tendency of smaller groups is to be very inconsistent over the long-term. They are more likely to swing between very high and very low points in their operational effectiveness over time. By just doubling that chapter to 40, you exponentially flatten that business cycle. You double the number of effective leaders at any one time, you double the probability of exceptional leaders being present, and of exceptional leaders coming up while other exceptional leaders are there to mentor them. You double the resources available to you, which means you accomplish at least twice as much with half the risks.

I'm not going to say there is an ideal chapter size, because that's different from one place to another, but there is an extent to which bigger is in fact better. Just like there's an extent to which too big is a bad thing. A 20 man chapter when all other chapters are 50-60 is not a good thing. The correct response is strong growth.

You make waaaaayyyyy too many assumptions.

You are assuming that all campuses are equal in every aspect of Greek life, and that is just not true.

Take my org, for instance. We are usually the smallest chapter in terms of member numbers on a campus, but we are just as visible as the other, more larger in number D9 sororities.

You are hung up on number, and it is always not about numbers. It is about how many of your chapter members actually participate. You can have 75 people in a chapter, but if only 10 truly participate in the activities then the rest are just "seat fillers".

Ya know dnall, I was trying to "pull" for you, but you really are very narrow minded about this topic. :(

I've said this already. Of course a small number of committed people is better than a large number of non-committed people.

But, a small number of committed people is less capable than and EQUALLY committed larger number of people - ie no "seat fillers."

It's really simple. If you had the same chapter you came from. Only you double the number of member, they were all absolutely 100% just as dedicated, and you had twice as much money available... think about what more you could have accomplished. It doesn't get any more straight forward than that.

If you're telling me larger chapters automatically mean non-committed seat fillers, then I'm not the one making assumptions.

ONLY if the 20-person chapter is concerned about it, and just because YOU would be concerned that your chapter had 20 members when the others have 50 does not mean that EVERYONE would share that concern. Why is that so hard for you to understand?