I guess that they'd prefer the unhappy, crying girls to at least be near-strangers?

Seriously, this is one that I don't think you can win, but being a recruitment counselor is probably less likely to make you want to quit your own group.

I'm just curious as to how many people in this thread have ever had to be a part of recruitment with a struggling chapter. (Whether as an active member or an alumnae volunteer/advisor.)

I've had to go through the wringer with 2 chapters, and I tell you - unless you've been there, its hard to understand.

I think we all know that generally attractive people have an advantage and that it seems that weight would figure in to that too.

But we all know overweight people or less attractive people who we know are very competent or who on a personal level we even, dare I say it, love?

That's what's so craptacular about what was suggested in the first post. Despite actually choosing and knowing this young woman as a sorority sister, the group said simply and apparently without much explanation that she should just stay away. And even recognizing that you have to sometimes hurt people's feelings to have a good recruitment, that's just not acceptable.

I know someone who decided to be a Rho Chi because she wanted to get some sleep those weeks. Last year, her group was up debating until 8-10AM the next day, each day! :eek:

In her case, I would say it is favorable.

I also know that some groups have rules about what you can say about PNM's. EX: Only positive things or that you cannot say anything really mean. A few of my relatives groups had this mandated by nationals from what they said, others just had it as a general policy.

I guess somethings got out of the grapevine at some places. :p

I'd say do what works for you to get the results you need. Such is the fight of life. Nothing's ever fair or right and in sororityland things can get downright ugly whether it's this or some other situation (homecoming with those guys ?! hell no! We're not having formal at that hotel! If she gets initiated, I'll give back my badge!) We've all been there, done that, seen it, heard it, experienced some drama that in the end we look back and go :eek::confused:. I'm not there to know the situation to judge. Use what you got to get what you need.

And to me, it seems kind of jerky to say, well if you don't end up with quota, you just didn't work hard enough.

For 85% or more of chapters it might be true that saying "quality over quantity is just an excuse for not working hard at recruitment." But for a small percentage of chapters, their problems have been around longer than the present members, and are beyond the scope of what even four years of working harder than everyone else on campus at recruitment can correct.

I think one person mentioned the example of a group with 80 members when the average was around 200. Let's be honest, this group faces this choice probably even after doing everything they can: do we only put PNMs that we'd be proud of on the bid list and know there's no chance we will be close to quota or do we list everyone we can and get more new members but have some new members we're not crazy about? When you're down that far on as SEC campus (or any other highly competitive place), working hard might be the difference between missing quota by 15 instead of 20. But they're going to face the quality vs. quantity issue no matter what. Don't be jerks about how they present what they decided. It's not like they're delusional and haven't seen their return rates, but they are happy about the new members they got this year especially. Let them enjoy it.

Yeah, I think everyone tries to make it as pleasant as they can, but ultimately if the group votes to cut your best friend, it's not going to matter very much what language was used to discuss it.

I do think it's probably 100 times better than it was before computers were used as much as they are now. More stuff can be done, I imagine, with less direct confrontation.

I'm sorry that some of us just soooooo out of it and dumb and can't understand...but some of us have a value system that doesn't allow us to degrade people we made promises to. As long as people continue to use your excuses it will not change. It will not change in one year, five years, maybe not even in ten years. It could take twenty, fifty, one hundred years. But it is possible to change it if someone will someday have the guts to stand up for what is right. As far as I'm concerened it's a total in-your-face disgrace to what the organizations stand for to be so shallow.

I was pretty disillusioned during the selection process. But on the other hand with the recruitment system we're given to work with...sometimes there is no choice but to make snap decisions, even if they aren't always the right ones. It's hard to stick 60-200 tired, over caffineated, irritable, possibly PMSing girls in a room for hours on end to discuss possible future sisters and NOT have confrontation.

This is probably very true for fraternities because they can give out bids differently, and there's no stigma to year round rushing or having two pledge classes a year. You can even have summer rush parties and give bids before guys get to school.

NPC recruitment with quota and chapter total as well as incredibly structured formal rush during which you can't give bids until the end changes the game more than you might think. It's a little harder for the current group of members to make it all up in one recruitment or even a few years of working hard at recruitment if you're a group that girls don't go into recruitment knowing they'd join.

I think that most NPCers have, at best, complicated feelings about the way we do things.

At the top chapters, it actually limits how many excellent girls they can take despite those girls wanting them first.

It's kind of bizarre.

I have been a member of a smaller, "struggling" chapter. However, my chapter was overall one of the best looking chapters on campus when this was happening, and the fraternities loved to mix with us. We were small because we attracted some women who were not very committed to sorority life, who dropped out throughout the year. And you know what? The smaller numbers hurt us every year during rush...it was a self-fulfilling prophecy...every year got worse. Even though we had so many beautiful women in our chapter, we got smaller pledge classes because PNMs made snap judgements based on our size. I think size of the chapter has way more to do with it than the size of the women in the chapter.

I'm glad I didn't go to a SEC school after reading all about how "it's all about looks." It's not like that on every campus, even competitive ones, and I'm glad. I think I'd feel stressed out and uncomfortable if I knew my sisters were THAT obsessed with me looking my best all the time. I mean, would I have to sleep in my makeup just in case I had to get up in the middle of the night? I bet I wouldn't have had the wild and super-casual twice-a-year camping trips with my sisters if I was in a SEC chapter.

I was a rush counselor two times - once as a sophomore when I was pre-med and knew I'd be too busy with classes and studying to spend those late nights in membership selection, and later as a senior when I was on Panhellenic exec. - and it was great. I was SO excited to do it my senior year...it was much more enjoyable than dealing with the decorating, the conversation, etc. It is also a lot of fun to see what all of the other chapters do during recruitment, and to hear the reactions of the PNMs throughout the process. I encourage all NPC women to apply if they're considering it...it's a good opportunity to see recruitment from a more objective standpoint.

I am on the Panhellenic Council (Pi Chi) and we have Rho Gammas who are the actual recruitment guides and I LOVE it. I actually fell into it by default, but it's an amazing experience and I'm so glad to not be going through recruitment this year...seeing it from the other side makes me soooo happy that I can see the bigger picture and not focus on certain aspects of the process.

What in the world ever happened to "It's what's on the inside that matters"?????
I can't believe ANY National would do that. I would turn in my badge with no hesitation. Sisters are supposed to love you for who you are, not what you look like.
That's just disgusting and a disgrace.

Honey, I'm not saying those outside the system are "too dumb" to understand what's going on... nor am I saying that I would actually DO this to a sister or allow it to be done. The chapter I came from wouldn't have done it. I would be glad to believe that there aren't chapters who do it and there aren't reasons it could accomplish something positive numbers-wise in recruitment... but I know for a fact that isn't true.

What I am saying is that, having been through an SEC recruitment as a PNM (and hearing all the talk about chapters, good and bad), I am disillusioned enough to get why a chapter would make this choice. Yes, it's mean to do it. No, I wouldn't personally do it, because sisters are sisters and I believe that part of pledging a girl is knowing that she'll be a recruiting sister for the next three years. But I understand the reasoning behind it.

I hate to revisit the DePauw situation, but one of the things that the women who left that chapter alleged was that they were keeping their numbers steady and that they always had women coming up who wanted to pledge them. They weren't in debt or unable to fill offices. But that wasn't good enough for the national, she said, they wanted the "Barbie" image. Basically, she said if DZ would have just let them be "the smart quirky chapter" and recruit the smart quirky women, they wouldn't have had a problem.

If a chapter at an SEC school was under that much pressure to pledge women, who the hell do you think they end up pledging? Anyone who will sign a bid, that's who. What if they got a huge pledge class, got their numbers up to total, but every woman in that pledge class was over 200 pounds with a mustache? Do you think that would fly?

Believe me, I've been on the receiving end of "you need to pledge more girls and get your numbers up, no matter what" and then a year later, hearing "WHAT ON EARTH made you pledge those girls?"

I'm glad we refused to do that. I'm happier closing then bidding every girl who walks through the door.

This was very true on my campus. My chapter was also "small and struggling" (we usually had around 100 members on a campus where the other sororities had 120-150 members). We are not in any financial danger whatsoever, and, though our national really wants us to make quota, we're not being pressured as intensely as this group apparently is. Anyway, this past year, though we did release several women who did not meet our standards for whatever reason (we refuse to be a "warm bodies" chapter), we were fairly good about following the release figures. We ended up with enough women attending our pref parties to fill more than three pledge classes; however, when it came time to sign bid cards, so many women chose not to list our chapter that we barely matched to half of quota. We are not actually collectively "fat" or "ugly" or "dorky," but this is the reputation that our chapter has acquired, and nothing we did to combat it in my four years as an active seemed to much of an effect. This is not me wearing blinders about the reality of our chapter - just about every member of my chapter could easily blend in with the membership of the majority of the groups on my campus. The reality seems to be that, apparently, every semi-competitive or competitive campus has to have a "bad sorority." As recently as five years ago, our chapter was just another "mid-to-lower tier" group that had no problem coming close to or making quota every year. Unfortunately, my campus lost a couple sororities in rapid succession, and we were apparently next in line to be "that house"...and so it went.

As long as the other sororities and the fraternities on our campus remain devoted to telling pnms that we are the "fatties," that we are closing this year, that we're the "sorority that takes the girls nobody else wants," etc, it will be extremely difficult to impossible for us to make quota. It really is a shame for us to lose out on so many quality women, and it is just as much of a shame that these quality women miss out on Greek life entirely because they cannot overlook the stereotypes they've heard - and, honestly, who can blame them for wanting to avoid that kind of stigma for three-four years? I guess what I'm getting at is that sometimes, it really isn't laziness or lame excuses when a chapter is smaller. We have had some success with informal recruitment, but most women on my campus don't live under a rock.

It's too bad that greeks treat one another this way, because it weakens us as a whole. Truly, if the sorority that does the most negative talking about us gets its wish and sees our chapter closed...they're next in line.

That's immaterial in the scenario I'm presenting. They are warm bodies in the chapter. They are making the chapter attain quota.

Oh wow, that first sentence really has something to it. Year after year, I've noticed that the stronger groups tend to know how to pick who'll stay in and who'll drop or transfer. Those groups end up with big senior classes.

talk about a veiled insult

Nope, not in the least. You look at the composites of various groups at a school and you realize that the stronger groups have managed to keep far more seniors.

No one can predict life. No one knows who will stay and who will drop or transfer. What you said sounded really bitchy even if you didn't mean it that way.
My pledge class dissolved for various reasons. There are only two active sisters left from it. I had to leave for unforeseen medical issues. They never thought that I'd have to drop because of that when I was given a bid and neither did I. My chapter is strong.

Well guys, anyone can manage to take a statement the wrong way if they want. I guess y'all have.

Again: through 35 years of involvement with the Greek system, I have seen that the stronger groups on any given campus tend to manage to maintain more seniors. They don't seem to have many who get married in the middle of college or transfer or flunk out for whatever reason. This is not a dig on anybody at all. Look at some of the rosters on college websites and compare size of senior classes.

And if you still think I'm trying to insult someone, too bad. You're way too sensitive.

Well I guess I'll have to find out where the stronger chapters are hiding their crystal balls and talk to the wholesalers stocking them. That must be the secret to large senior classes when you're handing out bids-knowing the future and all.

What you CAN do is average the attrition rates over a 3-5 year period and have an idea of how many seniors will probably drop out for one reason or another. It's kinda like figuring relase #s for recruitment.

So if a girl marries her boyfriend junior or senior year before he gets sent to the army, then she's from a weak chapter? And since when is getting married the same as flunking out of college?

I'm with you, carnation.

Too often, people get defensive because of their own particular situation.

Yeah, I can't get my head around the numbers thing. All I'm saying is, it's not fair to say that stronger chapters know how to pick the right women with dedication to sorority life. There's only so much you can do before handing out a bid. Can they afford it, are their grades good, do they seem normal?
My chapter is pretty big for a northeast sorority. We have a ton of seniors who graduate each year. But occasionally there are bad classes for whatever reason.
Numbers will only get you so far in figuring out who will stay committed.
I wish, with all my heart, that I could go back and have at least one semester as an active. I wish it everyday.
You get what I'm saying though, right? PeppyGPhiB's chapter was small because people dropped, but people dropped because they figured that they could. If no one wants a small chapter to begin with, you're working with what you can. I just don't see how to find a way to make absolutely sure that you're getting fully committed new members who will stay through to their senior year.

Or else the seniors stayed because the groups were stronger and had more to offer. i.e. the social status or connections they got from being an XYZ were something that enabled them to get student govt offices and such. Or as some people have pointed out, local political offices.

If being a Nu Mu alumna gets you an "in" with the local Junior League and you want to be in JL more than life itself, you'll stay in Nu Mu thru senior year...even if you're miserable and hate every minute of it.

I guess it all depends on the defintion of "strong group" you're using.

The way I'm understanding it is that carnation is speaking to LONG-TERM RETENTION as a means to measure success. I completely agree.

I feel that we've made it too easy for members to attain inactivity without fully investigating their claims, and that our shortened new member periods are hurting our ability to retain women-- they simply do not have enough time as provisional members to know if this is something they will want 4 years down the road.

Campuses do vary, and members leave the sorority for any number of reasons. But if you recruit a class of 60 freshmen members and 4 years later only 3 remain, that is a problem. Your new members coming in are going to start viewing XYZ as a 2 or 3 year committment, too, and it will breed a culture of poor retention.

If only it was earth-logic.

Well, like everything though, the stronger groups not only can pick them, they can pledge them and keep them because the strong groups seem more desirable in recruitment and may be more fun once your in.

Think about the difference between a connection a girl feels on bid day to the stronger chapter she placed first vs. the second or third chapter she got because although she wasn't crazy about them, she wanted to maximize her options. Is it entirely fair to attribute the strength of her connection to the groups' ability to pick members with certain innate traits?

I think there's a tendency for folks from strong chapters to assume that the strength of their chapter during their active years was mainly attributable to the merits and talents of that group of members. Who wouldn't want to think that: our chapter of this GLO is strong because we're awesome? But the flip side seems to be "and therefore, that weak group is weak because they don't know how to work hard at recruitment or pick new members."

Certainly the present membership mainly contributes to the reputation of the group and really does well or does poorly, but there's another probably either a third or maybe even as much as half of recruiting strength and reputation that happened before those members arrived on the scene.

Surely people who work at the national or international level of the groups must kind of see this, or it really would be as easy as having a couple of consultants help the chapter for a year picking new members with commitment and showing them how to recruit. How often does that really work on a SEC or competitive recruitment campus?

(And think of individual members you've known: it's weird but I can think of chapters where every single woman that I've known whose joined there is amazing and seemed to belong at an even "better" chapter, and yet the overall reputation stays the same. Weird, huh?)

How did all these overweight or awkward girls who are actives get into any uber-competitive sorority system? If the system is extremely competitive, aren't these the first girls to get cut from all the houses?

YES. I was going to say in response to NBH's one post that it's depressing that we even have to think about retention in those terms. But I think this is something that cuts across the board, for strong chapters and weak chapters. It seems that at some schools, you pledge as a freshman, you have a lesser office as a sophomore, you're on exec board as a junior, and then you're done. I have never understood the exhortations I've read some places about not having seniors in high office.

Also, as far as retention goes, you have to look at what's happening with women who drop out or transfer. One of our past national councillors left before graduating at the school where she pledged and transferred to a school w/ no ASA chapter. Obviously she stayed involved - she became a national officer!

I think that the "sorority is just for underclassmen" mentality among women who stay on that campus their whole college career is a far bigger danger than women who leave the school for things that are beyond their control. Especially if they can take alum status and stay involved.

If there are chapters struggling with numbers, they may not be cutting anyone. See my post a page or 2 above (stupid @#$%ing nonworking multiquote feature).

There are very, very, VERY few systems where there isn't at least one chapter that isn't as strong as all the others by a considerable amount. I think Ole Miss might be the only one, if that.

Well, one of the things that might surprise you is the relatively cute appearance of the girls that we might be talking about. What's not up to standard at some SEC chapters might be considered a cute member and good rusher somewhere else (see the regional war, Southern greeks vs. California, etc, threads for further development of this point). And the reverse might be true too; southern girls could seem insubstantial at a mid western recruitment, maybe.

But it seems that there are usually some less selective chapters or a few members even in highly selective standards, who find sisterhood despite not being as gorgeous or polished as might be desirable for recruitment.

Remember, with most PNMs we are dealing with 17 and 18 year olds who are away from home and in a very unfamiliar enviornment. It is no wonder the "herd mentality" holds such sway. I would not suggest they are shallow, but if you are in unfamiliar waters you tend to grasp at what you think you understand. So, a larger chapter about whom everyone has great things to say would be far more appealing than a smaller chapter which has "scuttlebutt" about their "problems". As we've seen in so many of the retro recruitment threads, tent talk and peer pressure can really mess up your mind as you go through recruitment.
My chapter graduated a very large number of seniors a year before I pledged - and our numbers could never bounce back, and we ended up in the death spiral. We had beautiful, smart girls - sparkling personalities, campus leaders - but not enough of them. We also were less concerned with appearance, to tell the truth. We had more girls who were not a size 2, and we also had more hispanic members. If we had more members overall, I don't think this would have been a problem. I don't know what the solution is. I'm proud of the fact we were not superficial, and that we pledged girls who weren't Barbie, but who had a great deal more to offer. I also wish that we could have recruited the numbers we needed to remain viable on campus.
I too am upset at the cattiness and shallowness sometimes shown by other GLOs when a chapter is struggling. There is no excuse for it. Every GLO should realize that the system is only as strong as its weakest link - and that every chapter which has to close is bad for the system. It's not an end-sum game. The more chapters there are, the greater possability for true diversity, and the more likely PNMs are to find a home. More happy Greeks means a larger system, which is good for everyone.
I'm frustrated by my inability to come up with a solution. Sisterly love comes in many shapes, colors and sizes. Also, a chapter is truly what the sisters make of it. We need an implant for PNMs that would help them realize that.

And some times people conclude that the beneficial things that happen are a reflection of their own merit rather than any other force in action as well.

ETA: I don't mean to suggest that present members don't contribute to the success of their chapters. Of course they do. But the complete experience of being in a chapter may not be totally within the chapter's control. This is true for the bad chapters that lose members and for the good chapters that keep them. Consider only which socials a chapter might have for an example. How much control does the new pledge class have over which who will have mixers with them? How much change can be made in the average active member period, positive or negative?

[QUOTE=AlphaGamUGAAlum;1476179]Well, one of the things that might surprise you is the relatively cute appearance of the girls that we might be talking about. What's not up to standard at some SEC chapters might be considered a cute member and good rusher somewhere else (see the regional war, Southern greeks vs. California, etc, threads for further development of this point). And the reverse might be true too; southern girls could seem insubstantial at a mid western recruitment, maybe.
[QUOTE]

This post reminds me of SEPC (Southeast Panhellenic Conference). I went this year and I saw girls from some of this "Super Southern" chapters that no-offense would have been shunned at my school. They had caked on foundation and blush and looked like children playing dress up with their faces. With spider eye lashes from so much mascara. (Not every single one of them, but some were awful!) I was expecting them to look like...I'm not sure, but better than what I saw simply because their rushes are so cuthroat. I couldn't help but think that if they could wipe some goop off they'd look so much nicer. But I knew that at their school maybe everyone tried to look like that so I just tried my hardest to keep an open mind. I know that if they'd come to my school they'd be schocked at what we wear/do too. Especially cos everyone's Hispanic pretty much. It's all a matter of perception.