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?