That is not really an issue at all. Quota at UGA is set by how many PNMs attend pref and sign a prefernece ranking card. It is made very clear what the implications will be if they decline their bid after signing this legally binding agreement. I can only think of two or three situations this year where girls declined their bids.

To answer your question, yes. They would have 25 girl parties. Some would even be smaller because of scheduling. PNMs do not view this as a negative thing. It makes them feel honored to be one of the "select few."

Moving on to your question about how it could work for all four rounds. After these houses make their 60-70% cuts after round one they cut very few girls in subsequent rounds. They are not cutting 60-70% every day. Just initially. So they basically have to have a fairly good idea of who they want before recruitment even begins.

Does this answer your question?

It does answer my question. Thank you.

I'm surprised that it differs so much from how release numbers work in the first couple of post on this thread, but thanks for explaining.

That's good about quota. As far I as I knew, quota was still set by the number invited to prefs, as opposed to the number signing bid cards.

You are right, I would imagine very few if any groups won't make quota if only girls signing bid cards count!


Thank you!

Conniebama, my question was a little different only because UGA has 18 groups. While I think there are a few girls who get released completely early on (as you noted, if they have really low grades for example) as a percentage of total PNM, I would expect that the number of girls released completely after 1st round would be slim.

Please note that this next observation is based on my memories of a process that I don't know if I understood fully at the time, so it may be wildly wrong.

In the past there was always a significant group who, because they got released by their favorites so late, dropped between third round and prefs when they realized for the first time where they'd actually get bids.

And if I remember correctly from back in the 90s, these late drop outs who were invited to prefs might have counted towards quota, even though nobody was going to bid them.

It's excellent that now only girls signing bid cards count!

GeorgiaGirl, if I understand you correctly, basically only second round parties at these houses would be small because for third round, 300/6 is about size of everyone else.

Thanks!

At the campus where I advise having fewer parties is an option. You just have to let Panhellenic know by the time they schedule the parties. As far as I know the computer does the schedule.

there are way to many rules. sometimes i wish PHA rushed like IFC, everybody comes out and you go to the events you want.

done.

On some campuses, particularly smaller ones, they will use a much less structured recruitment. I do think that a PNM should go to each chapter at least once. At small schools with 4 or fewer chapters and with total at 40 or fewer, it doesn't always make much sense to approach recruitment with release figures.

If the "IFC method" were the only method of recruiting at schools with a large Greek community (i.e. 10+ chapters, total at least 100), you'd see patterns in membership, well, similar to the IFC, lots of turnover.

Well I am from a small (4 sororities) greek community university and WITH ALL OF THESE NEW rules there is so much potential for mistakes on "return rates" and I know this because it happened at the school I advise for this past recruitiment year. IT WAS A MESS and my specific chapter was drastically negatively effected.

Now, don't get me wrong if done correctly and without personal interference by the local panhellenic (given the fact that the greek advisor can and usually does have a favorite sorority - I mean they are only human) then I LOVE the new release figure method but Man when it goes bad it is awful and there is no way to go back and correct the problem.

Furthermore, due to the fact that one of the factors with the new system is to help the "struggling" chapters, if the system breaks down it hurts those chapters that much more. So, I do believe there is room for improvement in this system.

Sounds like the problem isn't the system - it's the faulty implementation of it. Is there any way to "fix" the problems before next recruitment? Advisors are only human, but that doesn't mean they get a pass for playing obvious favorites!

Oh yea I am sorry of course the "issue" that occured will be corrected prior to the next formal recruitment, however the damage was done and there was no way to correct it during the 07 formal recruitment period

- and yes it was human error that should have been caught by the greek advisor and should have been easy to see - and could have been stopped by the GREEK ADVISOR ONLY for she was the only person in authority that new all of the release numbers (I don't want to say too much)

- BUT really I am over it now because alls well that ends well - I just hate to see human error mess up a good system to that extent

Just a quick question for you release figure gurus - how are release figures set for a new chapter that hasn't been through recruitment? Can they invite back as many as they want for each set of parties?

My understanding is that for a new chapter, since it has no historical statistics that
the chapter is allowed to invite back any number of women.

My assumption would be that the chapter is encouraged to invite back almost all of their women from round to round (the equivalent of assuming the chapter has an historically poor return rate each day). If it's a campus using RFM, the flex lists should be able to help cushion the numbers if the chapter does better than expected, so they don't have ridiculously large parties.

I'm sure others on here will be able to tell us more precisely.

hmmmm
 

This idea of not offering legacies just seems contradictory on so many levels.

If a FOUNDER of any organization could see how membership is done presently, I would think they would be appalled. Why would any organization risk alienating alums by not offering legacies? You not only lose future membership, but also financial support as well.

If an organization is successful (however you measure it, but let's use size, because of 'quotas'), then why should you turn away membership? How did this policy start? Some weaker organization whining about how they are shrinking, and then this policy was instituted to help them out? Was the policy started by a non-greek or someone with a grudge? Why would any organization want to help their competition? After all, every organization is competing for alum financial support and member support...

If House A can attract 200 people, and House X can only get 5, then House X deserves to go silent, unless they fix the problem. If House A decides to NOT offer legacies, and all of a sudden their Alums stop supporting them (causing decline), then they ALSO deserve that as well.

Actually, my organization limited membership nearly from the get go. Direct from our public history: "In our first constitution, chapter membership was limited to 25." That was over 125 years ago and a decision made by the founders. Is the limit the same today? No, because it depends on the campus.

You seem quite bitter.