Just failed my new member exam- need some encouragement
 

My NM exam was yesterday. I failed it by the barest of margins. I had been feeling sick all weekend, and despite studying my hardest, I still failed :(.

I went to the hospital right afterwords and was diagnosed with pneumonia and swine flu. My fever during the exam was 103*, and since I got home from the ER all I've done is sleep.

I'm not the only girl who failed and that makes me feel a *bit* better, but I'm still really bummed out. I'm on bedrest for a week, and I have no clue if I'm going to have time to retake the exam before initiation.

I could really use some encouraging and cheering up. I'm pretty down right now.

You should call or email you new member educator (pledge mom?) to tell her what is going on and that you are very ill.

I've been in touch with my NM educator, chapter pres, my big, and a few of the actives. They're all trying to figure out how to deal with the situation. It's just a bummer

Do pledge exams really count these days?

Depends on the org, I suppose. They do with us -- passing with 100% accuracy is a requirement for initiation.

I was surprised to see the thread in the Sorority Recruitment forum and not Fraternity- I didn't know the women did that anymore. For Kappa at least it's considered hazing (or so I've been told) and therefore not allowed for us.

Wow.

New member exams are considered hazing?

Yep, that's what I was told when I joined. Could be totally wrong, I really don't know for sure. The only new member tests I knew of on my campus (3 sororities, 5 fraternities) were the fraternities- so I just figured that was yet another difference between men's & women's GLOs.

There are sororities that still do new member exams.

It may be of interest to you to find out whether what you were told is correct before you spout it as a truth. It is interesting what you find when you begin interacting with members outside your chapter or with your national headquarters. :)

I do interact with them, thank you. I was just saying I was surprised that other women's GLOs did them... that's all. That's a perk of a place like GC, you can actually learn from one another... in my book that's a good thing.

Then you would know whether what you were told is correct. You're welcome. :)

I wish we were allowed to do New Member exams... but you're correct, they are not allowed by Kappa nationals because they are considered hazing. I think they would be a useful tool for getting the NMs acquainted with Fraternity history outside of the required presentations. Oh well.

^^^ Not to be in your business, but I am assuming what you're saying is that the NMs have to attend presentations on history, policy, whatever else the sorority deems as important, but there is no tool for assessing whether they retained any of the info?

If that's the case, is there also any objective tool for disqualifying someone from the process entirely? (Attendance points, for example)

My sister is right. In Kappa, new member exams=hazing. YOU may be surprised by what you learn when you listen to others before dismissing them as misinformed.

You're correct. Attendance at the weekly presentations is required for Initiation, but no, there are no checks on whether a New Member has studied/retained the information. I wish there was, and I think the organization would benefit by requiring that New Members show that they know Fraternity history, but I understand why they're careful. In my experience the New Members are respectful, pay attention and learn... if they were snots, we probably wouldn't have bid them in the first place!

Oh shut up.

I didn't say she wasn't right. How the hell would I know? I said it would interest her to find out whether she's right. She's the one who included the "so I was told" disclaimer as though she didn't know.

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to respond to your question.

New members must complete the new member program, which at my university meant one presentation/week on history, risk management, philanthropy, etc. There is nothing in place to assess their understanding of the material, nor do I think there needs to be. If the new member does not complete the program, she cannot be initiated.

Why don't you think there needs to be assessment?

I'm sorry but I don't see how requiring attendance and making sure they actually paid attention are separate. Also I fail to see how test would be hazing as you would expect the sisters to know your history.

Correct. Some KKG chapters do use a point system for attendance and grades and such, but it's not org-wide. Our chapter was fairly small so we self-regulated without points. If someone missed mandatory events and didn't get excused, they could face the standards board. Initially just a "hey what's up" type of thing, but it could be a disqualifier if it got to that point. But as a small chapter (and small school) people generally were pretty good at attendance and participation. We also didn't have the semi-typical "senior apathy" (although we had heard it existed), boy was that a shock when I started working with a PAC 10 school :)


ETA:
The reason I used the disclaimer is because I didn't have our Bylaws & Rules/Regs handy. Better safe than sorry, lest I get beat up on GC!

This is all fascinating to me.

*no judgment here*

Honestly, because I've never seen a need for it. The information, while only FORMALLY presented once, is DRILLED into the new members in other ways (for example, we would have trivia contests for the new members during informal meetings). I just don't think an exam is necessary for what really shouldn't be difficult information to retain.

Tests in any form are always hazing. :)

I can definitely see a reason for considering a NM exam hazing.

I disagree with removing them, but I understand.

I believe that Kappa defines hazing as any activity that is not required by ALL members (active or new member) and that is why exams are not allowed.

Edit: Now that I think about it, isn't that the basic universal definition of hazing?

That's what my friend in DPhiE told me. It shocked me that girls weren't exactly required to actually learn and retain the org's history.

I mean, I guess ours isn't technically required either (maybe?), but everything is definitely highly encouraged.

I don't get it. You expect brothers or sisters to know the info, so shouldn't the NM be held to the same standard? Psi U doesn't have any official policy but most chapters won't cross pledges if we feel they don't have a good enough concept of our history and traditions.

I see.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a Kappa educator introduced a version of "positive behavior intervention systems" into the organization.

Giving the new members the information to learn for a prize has a similar effect of giving them information for a quiz. Just that rather than punishing those that fail, you reward the ones who pass.

I think both have a place in fraternal and sororal education, just as they do in schools where I have seen PBIS introduced.

I have heard that definition but many organizations to not subscribe to it. And neither do I. New members and actives don't have to do the same thing for a reason. But, actives had to do it when they were new members.

I would have been terrified if we had to pass an exam - I was a COB - so I was a little behind the girls in my pledge class and had to catch up with our education program, which wasn't too difficult, but an exam might have thrown me over the edge.

I don't think the exams are right or wrong - just depends on the size of an organization, it's traditions and histories, and things like that. But I have to say that I am glad I didn't have to pass one, even though I feel like I know most of the things a girl in my sorority should know, including our history and relevant facts.

Therefore, punishing those who fail through the lack of a prize.

It's really all semantics and a psychological game.

Given the popular definition of hazing which confuses pledging with hazing in many instances, they are still being hazed even if they walk away smiling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kappamd (Post 1863342) I believe that Kappa defines hazing as any activity that is not required by ALL members (active or new member) and that is why exams are not allowed.

I went to the Kappa website on hazing, and here is the definition:
Kappa Kappa Gamma Hazing Policy
Hazing is defined as any activity or action taken with or without consent of the individual involved that produces mental, emotional, psychological or physical discomfort, intimidation, humiliation, degradation, embarrassment, harassment or ridicule. Such activities and situations include but are not limited to, blindfolding for any purpose; creation of excessive fatigue; physical and psychological shocks; treasure hunts, scavenger hunts or kidnaps; wearing apparel that is conspicuous and not normally in good taste: engaging in stunts or degrading or humiliating games and activities; and late work sessions.

Under examples, it specifies "Asking new members to pass a test for initiation."

Handled properly a test wouldn't have to be hazing, but perhaps some people crossed the line a few too many times and they decided to play it safe and discontinue it.

I read this and wouldn't assume they meant a NM test that was formally written and administered.** Actives can make testing conditions torturous but perhaps organizations should take that up with the chapters.

** "Test for initiation" could be "jog 300 laps to test your love for this organization."

We used positive reinforcement in other ways as well (rewards for best class attendance that week, point system for attendance at non-required events, etc.) I don't know how other [Kappa] chapters run, but it worked for ours.

As for the lack of an exam, I know that when the day came for Initiation, we were just as well educated as any of the actives.

I also always thought that it was nice that our Founder's Day sat smack in the middle of the new member period, because it made a lot of the historical education seem a lot more tangible and relevant.

Maybe that's the point- "test" can be interpreted so many ways they decided everyone would be better off to just ban them. Most of the testing situations I've heard of (again, from the men at my alma matter) were extremely lax- things like a couple of actives talking to each other and "accidentally" giving out the answers. So there it was more of a formality than actually testing knowledge.

Oh, that would've been nice! We had deferred recruitment so we only had CORs during the fall. Although for us because we had a term between graduation and recruitment, it was like the time to come together and resolidify as a chapter. So Founders Day fell during that time, which was pretty cool. I guess it's good at any time of the cycle!

To be honest, I've never heard anyone but members of NPC sororities define it that way. Most other definitions I have seen (and just about every legal definition I've seen) involve some element of physical or emotional harm, which, btw, the Kappa definition seems to do as well:

Our test is nationally mandated (in our governing documents) and nationally standardized. The test that is given is the test published by our HQ; chapters cannot deviate from the National exam. A chapter advisor has to verify the scores, and as I said earlier, you have to get every question right to be initiated.

Hey, whatever works. To each his own.

What was this thread about again?