After Several Years: What Do You Think of the New Release Figures?
 

It's been several years now...what do you think?

My opinion:

GOOD--it has certainly beefed up a lot of sororities. Groups who haven't met quota for years, especially at the big schools, are now at total. Under the old rules, many of those groups would have certainly been gone by now.

In many big schools' recruitments, all the sororities have made quota for years and are even adding new groups (like Auburn, Warrrr Eagle! And Theta is coming! :D) I'm so happy with the growth of the Greek systems around here.

BAD--the deep cuts after second parties are really devastating to a lot of PNMs. We know so many who have gone from 12 parties on Day 2 to 0-2 on Day 3. Frequently these are either girls from small towns who are unknown by sorority members or those from huge high schools that have lots of sorority members on that campus and the members think that their sorority will be the only one to cut Polly PNM but surely she'll have a lot of options left--but she doesn't.(I hope that makes sense.) The shock of those cuts is so rough that many drop out of recruitment (hey, they're 18) and have a bad impression of Greeks forever. Remember justamom's discussion of that at LSU?

Also, I'm told by many sorority members that more pledges are dropping before initiation. Some say that they were pressured by rush counselors to stay in recruitment when they didn't like their returns. I wonder what the dropout rate is now compared to, say, 10 years ago?

My last concern, and I've talked about this for years, is that legacies aren't being looked at as carefully because everyone's in such a hurry to cut a certain number. In the last 10 years, we only know 2 girls who were able to pledge their mom's sorority at UGA and dozens who were cut by mom's group.

So what do you think?

As far as the pledges dropping before initiation...I think some of that is also due to this generation thinking everything is instant. We had a girl on here last week who quit pledging because she didn't click with anyone in two weeks!! In a large chapter, that's hardly enough time to learn everyone's name, let alone "click" unless you all live together or something.

To be honest...I hate it. I think it puts significant pressure on smaller groups to invite back undesirable potentials. As a member of a chapter which is smaller (but only by five or fewer members) than the larger chapters, we get calls every round saying, "We know everyone cut this person including you, but you NEED to invite her back due to your release figures. If you don't, you will fail as a person and chapter." It's retarded and I think if people would realize that we are not obligated to accept undesirable girls, we will not. Yet, we still get several calls every year, even though we ALWAYS refuse to take them. No other sorority gets these calls.

FantASTic: WHAT??!!! You're kidding! Is PH making these calls? What would they do if you ignored them? You should, you know.

^^(quoting 33girl's post) I have to admit, I don't like the new 6-8 week new member period. I've talked to new members and new initiates and am amazed at the "trivia" that they don't know yet. I don't care if Phi Mu is on your campus or not - if you're an ADPi, you should know a bit of the Phi Mu history! And don't get me started about campus history!

In the all and all, I do like the release figures, with a condition: I do think they should be explained better to the PNMs, the Legacies, and the Alumnae. It's a bit like AI - not enough people know enough about it for it to be very effective. Once it's properly explained ("All sororities must cut deeply at X point, and further before each other party. They will try to give Legacies the courtesy of a second chance, but depending on how many PNMs there are, that can't always happen." etc), I think more people will be accepting and act accordingly.

Maybe this is something that Alumnae Panhellenics can do. Yes, send in the recs, send in the Legacy Profiles - but please be aware that Release Figures will change the dynamics of the Legacy system. I'd like to hear that repeated ad nauseum, rather than console one more deservedly heartbroken mom!

PS: I've heard this generation as always expecting microwave solutions to crockpot problems!

Exactly. Panhel cannot force you as a chapter to invite a woman back if you have voted and decided that she doesn't meet your standards for membership. It would be like national Panhel telling national HQs that they have to colonize at this school or that, even if the group had no interest.

I completely agree w/ HC that release figures should be explained more to alums - an article in the national magazine would be good, especially for those groups who have many chapters where this is likely to occur. I remember right after I pledged reading an article in the Phoenix about legacies not being guaranteed bids - it encouraged the moms to look at things from their collegian point of view (i.e. the girl who is a legacy but doesn't fit in w/ the chapter).

Not to deviate from Carni's question, but I hate the reduced new member period as well. If your school participates in fall recruitment, you are initiating girls who may never make grades. You are banking scholarship entirely on what they did in high school, and Lordy, I've seen it backfire.

Education is the key
 

I agree that additional education needs to be done to help PNM's, current active and alumnae members better understand RFM. What we do know from the data is that overall RFM is working. They system is not perfect but more PNM's are being matched and more chapters are making quota and are close to or at total than under the previous system. RFM will not save a struggling chapter or community, nor will it change the perceptions of PNM's of which group they want to join but it does even the playing field.

In the next breath I will say that I also think that it is helpful for Chapter Advisors, Regional Volunteers, Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, and the like to give feedback to their NPC Delegates. This information can be passed on to help with internal communication or to help the RFM Leadership Team continue to improve RFM.

The RFM Leadership Team is continually looking a ways to improve how the system works and while not all concerns can be addressed right away, communication and patience is important.

Feedback to your NPC Delegate and others in your organization that work with Panhellenic issues can help address communication and education internally. It may feel like the broken record approach but we just have to keep at it as each new class arrives on campus.

I think that generally the release figures seem to be doing really good things at the chapters that I know about.

I think the one thing that needs to be emphasized more is that the releases are working at the top chapters too. It may mean that they have to release girls they would have been happy to have as members earlier, but if the group is still making quota or quota plus from the pool that they identified early in recruitment the releases are working for them too.

My knowledge is really limited, I admit it, but I think that alumnae and PNMs think that if the girls were invited back more places their chances of pledging those groups would go up, but in reality they really wouldn't have. Highly selective chapters with really high returns rates know who they want early in the process, for the most part. They could string you along and make you REALLY want them, but it's hard to see how that'd be good if they have no intention of offering a bid.

No doubt it does hurt to get cut hard after first or second round but it's not really better than getting cut hard before prefs.

Similarly, more girls may drop out as new members because they were encouraged to maximize options and then weren't really happy with their final results.Considering, however, that these girls didn't get different final results, what harm has it really done them? Is the group harmed by the PNMs having giving them every opportunity to win her over? I wouldn't think so. Sure, they may have gotten a NM who was more enthusiastic about actual membership, but if that's the case, it seems more like the group's error than anything the system can be blamed for.

I'd really love to see data about how the shorter new member periods are affecting retention. I have the impression that what I've seen is positive, but I can't remember where I read it.

I like the release figures method.

From the PNM standpoint, it gives them a more realistic idea of where they might expect to receive a bid. This gives them more of an opportunity to "fall in love" with their future chapter instead of getting hung up on their preconceived notions. From the chapter's standpoint, it requires the more "popular" chapters to make larger cuts earlier (based on past return numbers) so that all chapters ("popular" and "not so") can focus more on who they "really" want with less competition from each other for the same PNM. Hearts are bound to be broken but the bottom line for me is that RFM gives everyone involved a more realistic idea of what to expect earlier in recruitment so that hopefully everyone can have a more enjoyable experience.

con:at schools with larger panhellenic systems, pnms seem to still be confused when they receive invitations from the chapters they ranked lowest on their list. seems that pnms either aren't listening when it is being explained, or it is not being explained thoroughly enough.

pro:rfm seems to be working. it's not perfect, but it is much better than the previous system.

FSUZeta, here's how I remember the system in the past: the bigger groups at each university wouldn't make many cuts until after theme parties, then they'd cut very heavily. That's when we had all the recruitment dropouts.

Quota wouldn't be set until after theme parties, resulting in the bigger groups getting quota with huge pledge classes and several smaller groups making a fraction of quota. Actually, I can't remember any NPC-wide rules, only that each campus seemed to set its own rules.

I've got a lot to say on the subject, need to formulate my ideas (plus some people have already said what I wanted to say), but if some girl wants to drop out and not attend parties because some group is that offensive to her, let her. Sure she'd be out of recruitment, but at least she wouldn't be leading a chapter on, or taking the place of a more open minded person. The sooner they drop out the sooner groups can see who is committed to giving everyone a chance, and girls who may have been released (though desirable to some groups) will have a decent chance.

I hate seeing groups work hard for those who won't give them a chance for whatever reason. I find it really offensive and tacky when a group of women open their home and sisterhood to someone, and that woman can't even give them a chance.

Yeah this will ruffle some feathers, but frankly I don't care. I am tired of groups catering to PNMs with superficial issues and I think RFM is one way we can really weed out women who would join a group at school X and transfer to school Y for the prestige.

I choose to take little stock in the anecdotal stories of increased drop out rates because of the shorter new member period or RFM. Change always makes people long for the old days, but until you can give actual research that supports these anecdotal stories, they are nothing but stories. The research says that the system is working better. It makes sense. As for PH calling a chapter and harrassing them to take a girl they cut, it's ridiculous. The chapter I advise cuts more than their release figures recommend every year. They don't get to take quota additions since they didn't "maximize their options," but they are willing to take that risk so they only take women they want. PH can complain, but they can't make you do anything!

All I know is I applaud Chi O for sticking to their guns and waiting until after the semester and grades are made to initiate. I feel it makes membership much more special and moms I've talked to like it as well. I don't know about retention and all that but I think the way it is now girls feel they are just joining a club and not a life long affiliation. Change is good but at what cost, numbers or lifelong members. Just random thoughts

Yes, it is PH and also the Greek Life Staff.

For a few years, we actually did it...then my big became Recruitment Chair and, after consecutive phone calls saying that if we didn't take a particular girl [who was cut by ALL houses on Day 1, which should say enough considering we are very noncompetitive] we would "never make total or quota, ever again" [wrong - we did both that year, by the way] she told her to stop calling and threw her phone across the room.

That stopped it for THAT year...but we've gotten the calls for the past two years straight still. We have refused to take any girl we have cut - we do not want her if we have cut her. It's highly offensive, considering we are NOT a struggling chapter.

I have my moments of appreciating the wait, also. I can honestly see both sides of the matter, but the bottom line is that women go to college for an education.

In my 20 years as a volunteer, I actually see more women making grades these days than in the past. We have also raised our minimum requirements for good standing for both individuals and chapters in those years. Our national average GPA increased with the birth of our Strive for Pi program (an incentive program with awards for members/chapters that achieve a GPA of Pi .. 3.14). I don't see huge numbers of new initiates not making grades. In fact, it seems like it's usually sophomores who have trouble with grades. In fact, overall GPAs have increased so much that I really wonder about grade inflation on the schools' parts. Almost always, a change in major improves a woman's grades a lot. Sometimes they are just in a major that doesn't fit their skill set and when they change to something that fits them better, their grades improve tremendously.

As for release figures, it does seem to be working to help more chapters get quota/total. I agree that no chapter should ever be pressured by PH to invite a woman that they cut just so that they meet their release figures. We are, by nature, supposed to be selective organizations so it's only natural that some women will get dropped by all chapters or not receive a bid. It does seem to me that the disappointment of being dropped from the 'dream' chapter early on would be less than going through the whole process to find out you don't have a bid because your favorite three chapters invited 5 times quota to pref, knowing full well that most of those women wouldn't get a bid.

Though I don't have a ton of knowledge on the subject, the new release figures seems to have greatly helped my alma matter- Pitt. I graduated in 02, and since then, the membership among sororities has evened out and actually gone up- before, there would be as many as 5 out of the 11 sororities not at total. Now, there's only 1 that's consistently under total (by their own choice, I might add). It's really evened the playing field.

Back in the day, 70s, we (ZTA) waited until January for initiation. Our grades determined whether or not we could be initiated. Our pledge period was the entire quarter. I don't remember if other groups waited or initiated earlier in the quarter. At the risk of sounding " old school", I totally agree that it is worth the wait.

Question: About PH making the "phone call" ... are we talking about flex numbers here? From the chapter I advise at smaller Greek system, a "popular" chapter might be flexed 6-12 PNMs per day but that chapter would have a say in which PNMs they were flexed on or off. Any thoughts from GC?

Since your not a struggling chapter, don't take offense. Maybe PH is just trying their best to work it out for one heart broken girl. You have the right to say no, and you did. I don't think PH calling a struggling chapter is any less offensive...you have the right, no matter how strong of a chapter you are, to choose your own members. Next time, inform them that you aren't interested and let it go. For all you know, they may have called the other chapters, too!

Are their any studies or numbers that support this? How does an extra month of waiting for initiation improve the odds that a girl will take the lifelong membership seriously? Have you seen more people intiated then have to be dropped for grades? There is a relatively small difference in time of the new member period in both situations...I fail to see how it can make that big of a difference. I don't think AOII has seen a change in grades over the years, which is the only thing that I can see would actually be different between the two options.

I too wondered how waiting a few extra weeks = taking membership more seriously. We had to wait until the next semester to initiate - and still had those who did not take their membership seriously. Not making grades hasn't been a big issue in the chapters with which I was involved. If anything, I can think of a case where the fact that a member was already initiated but on scholastic probation made her study that much harder to get her grades up and remain on campus and an unfettered active. It all depends on the individual.

I am sure each NPC group has carefully considered the pros and cons of a shortened pledge period and continues to monitor its success. I personally think the most important determining factor is the new member education program itself, whether it is 6 weeks or 6 months. Also, don't discount the examples set by actives and alumnae. New members are more likely to believe in lifetime membership if that's what they see around them.

Being someone who was initiated in the last ten years...what was the previous system?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just interested http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/im...s/viewpost.gif
All I know is I applaud Chi O for sticking to their guns and waiting until after the semester and grades are made to initiate. I feel it makes membership much more special and moms I've talked to like it as well. I don't know about retention and all that but I think the way it is now girls feel they are just joining a club and not a life long affiliation. Change is good but at what cost, numbers or lifelong members. Just random thoughts

My thoughts: I read this more as suggesting that the mystery of "will I or won't I be initiated" gives NM more incentive to keep going, consistently improving, because only by achieveing something (here, it's grades, but if you look at old school pledge programs, where everything was covered in mystery) would you get to initiation.

So the extra month of wondering really makes them more eager to be a true lifelong member? I don't buy it! Also, if you think about it, many of our organizations immediately initiated new members in the early days. Our first "pledge" was initiated almost immediately. This long pledging period evolved over time and was not an original ideal of at least the AOII founders. If it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me!

chapters set their own numbers-they could invite back every last pnm if they wanted to all the way thru prefs. there was a set quota, the same number for all groups. there was a lot of "stringing along" as you can imagine.

Well, if everyone would just wait and have rush second semester like they should, this would be a moot point. :p

I mean, is there anything showing that Chi Omega has lower disaffiliation figures than other groups because of this?

I know there have been debates about deferred recruitment here and I hope this doesn't turn into one. I also know that you know I agree with you.

Deferred recruitment, while it has many cons, has many pros. One of which is that you have college grades to go on, rather than high school. It doesn't guarantee that every new member will make grades, but the majority will. Just like you can't guarantee that every active will make grades on a given semester.

I still believe that the only reason why I was able to maintain my grades during my new member period (lovin' these PC terms) was because I'd been through a couple semesters before (I didn't join until the fall of my sophomore year). I may not have had my best grades ever (I was sick most of the semester, was still joining, and a full courseload - honestly I don't know how I lived through that semester), but at least I was able to maintain my dean's list status.

Hence my :p .

I just think of people like my high school's yearbook editor and NHS president (among other things) who got to Penn State, partied too much, and promptly flunked out. She looked fabulous on paper and had a great personality - any chapter would have been falling over themselves to bid her. But the fact is, she just couldn't handle college life - at least at that college - and knowing her, I don't think study hours or (in the case of Chi O) the threat of not initiating would have changed that.

Danielle, this is an odd question, but do you think there are people from a wider geographic area going to Pitt & going Greek there now?

Pre-shortened NM periods, we pledged more than one woman who never did make the grades, so that's not the only reason I'm against the shortened NM periods. We also had women who were so grade-oriented, they only attended sorority functions which were mandatory. I will always say that one of the biggest advantages of being in a sorority is learning how to balance grades (job) and social obligations responsibly!

ThetaGirl, when I was a pledge, we had a 15-18 week pledge period, and had to have one term's GPA prior to initiation. During Recruitment, many sororities wouldn't cut PNMs until the last moment, keeping the quota really high, and having the PNMs hold out to see if they were going to get a invitation to Pref from the "highly regarded" sororities.

Sounds like I like the previous system better! When I was an active I would have loved to have had a longer NM period for are girls....

The rationale behind changing the programs to 6-8 weeks from 1 semester was to fight hazing in chapters. If you only had 6-8 weeks as a new member, then you would have a much shorter time to be considered "less than." The reaction to the change is very different depending on who you speak to about this. Some women who pledged an entire semester think that it needs to be re-instituted, but some women (like my bio sister) see no difference and are happy with the change.

I'm curious why you would have loved a longer NM period? What did you feel was missing?

I was in the first year my chapter shifted to the 6 week NM period (it was called Bridges at the time). So maybe becuase it was the first year, but lots of things seemed really rushed. For example, our bid day buddy was our big. So if you didn't click with them, you were SOL. We also busted our butts trying to learn everything- national history, chapter history, etc. We were lucky that our chapter was fairly new, I can't imagine trying to fit everthing in for a 100 yr old chapter! A couple of more weeks would have given a little more time to digest everything. Plus thrown into that 6week process was Homecoming- so that week was a loss in terms of pledge activities, plus mid-terms were another week. I remember one new member meeting lasting 3 hours just so that we could cover everything in the pledge manual. We had 5 manditory new member meetings plus one overnight retreat. Add pledge pinning and then initiation into that.

One other reason a longer pledge period might be good- it might lessen the post initiation let-down. If you can spread out some of the fun activities, then it might not be such a downer when they come to an end after initiation.

That's how I remember it too, especially at Auburn, where blanket invitations were issued through 3-party day (I think). A member of one of the biggest groups actually told me they didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings, so they kept inviting them back - with no intention of pledging these girls!
The new method has strengthened the weaker chapters, and isn't that good, in the long run, for everybody? The big groups who choose their NM classes before the first party still do that (which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't).

I, too, hate the shortened NM period. Even a couple of weeks longer would help, I think. Members don't know histories, policies or procedures as well. I've seen members clueless about our Founders, and we only have 3!

Back in my day, we had formal recruitment twice each year. The fall semester pledge class got their bids in early to mid October and had to wait until January for Initiation so that they had college grades. The Spring pledge class got their bids in early February and were Initiated at the end of March. That makes it seem like one class had a lot longer to learn the material and stuff, but it didn't really work out that way. If you think about the timing, our pledge periods were really about the same in actual time spent on pledging. The fall class had meetings from early-mid October until early-mid December.. about 8 weeks. Then we had dead week (week before finals) and finals week, then two weeks away from school completely. They were initiated the first weekend back at school. The spring pledge class had meetings from early Feb to early April and were initiated right around the 8 week mark. The additional time for the fall class was not spent doing anything except finals and being home for Christmas, in reality. Both classes truly had 8 weeks of pledging either way. The "shortened" pledge period of 8 weeks doesn't seem shortened to me at all. Ours was that long 25 years ago when I pledged.

Personally, my NM period was slightly longer, about 10 weeks because I was a founder of my chapter. However, I noticed in later NM classes that they felt they were rushed through the NM period, and didn't learn as much as the founding class did. Also I think we would have had less problems with newly initiated members if they had more time as a NM. Of course this is just IMO.

ForeverRoses,

We pledged the same year, but my experience was far from chaotic as you described. We had plenty of time to get everything done and didn't get Big Sisters until week 3. Fortunately (or maybe unfortunately) Homecoming was not a huge event at my school...I made our Homecoming "card" with three initiated sisters one afternoon in the dorm. My sister who had been intiated in the last full semester class in my chapter couldn't detect any real differences between my new member training and her pledge training except for a longer waiting period. We had a few people from the earlier classes complain that we hadn't "earned" our letters, but they were quickly drowned out by the sisters who were determined to make it a successful and meaningful experience for the NMs. As for Thetagirl218, I can imagine that the NM time seems short to you, but also remember that your colonizing class had many more responsibilities for setting up your chapter as well as learning the history of Theta. You could never have done all of that in just 6 weeks!