Does a shorter associate program lead to more drop-outs?
 

As an advisor of many years both to my own chapter and the local chapter of my fraternity, I've noticed a phenomenon that is troubling me, and I'm hoping to get some input from others.

Back in my days as an active (mid to late 70s), it was implicitly understood in our chapter that membership was a lifetime commitment. Dropping out as an active was almost unheard of. Accordingly, we had a long pledge program (or associate membership program, to use the modern term), with initiation taking place in the first week after Christmas break. In my mind, this was good from two points of view: (1) we had the fall grades in hand, and (2) the Christmas break gave some of the pledges a chance to think over if they -really- wanted to make that commitment. Some guys came back from break and decided to drop, and in my mind that was a good thing. Not everyone was cut out to take a lifetime oath, and it was better for them to go their own way.

However, today our national HQ is strongly pushing a six-week associate membership program for all chapters, with initiation taking place before Thanksgiving. I've seen this program applied at the local chapter, and I've also noticed that the initiated brothers seem to think nothing of turning in their pins and dropping out whenever it suits them. The local chapter has lost maybe a dozen brothers over the past year and a half, mostly with excuses of "I don't have time" or "It's too expensive". I can't help but think that this behavior is strongly correlated with the abbreviated associate member program; the percentage of guys that drop seems to be equivalent to the percentage that used to drop at the start of spring semester back in my day, except that today these guys have paid the initiation fee and gone through the ritual. My concern is that this "brotherhood is no big deal" behavior is affecting the entire chapter as a consequence. When brothers see members walk out the door without shame or concern, it undermines the entire concept of "a lifetime of brotherhood".

For years my own chapter resisted this trend of an abbreviated associate member program, but now our national office has threatened to pull our insurance unless we comply. My concern is that my own chapter will now begin to see the same trend of drop-outs after initiation that the local chapter is dealing with. I've talked to the BOG chairman for my home chapter, and he says that our national officers have noticed this trend in many chapters, and that they are concerned about it. On the other hand, the push for a 6 to 8 week program coupled with fall semester initiation is, as I understand, an idea that many other national fraternities are pursuing with equal fervor.

My personal opinion is that our national HQ pushed for this change because they noticed how fewer men paid the initiation fee than the association fee. They wanted that extra money, and forcing a quick initiation was the best way to improve the percentage. On the other hand, it seems that two years later you've lost just as many members, but (in my mind) in a manner that is much more demoralizing to the chapter. The whole point of the pledge program was for everyone to figure out who was, or was not, a good fit for the chapter. Now it seems the entire process is being short-circuited for the sake of short-term financial gain.

So my question is this: has anyone else noticed a similar trend of "quitting the brotherhood is no big deal" in correlation with a shortened associate membership program? Or has this always been an issue in other fraternity chapters? Any thoughts on ways to turn this trend around?

Men and women are different, but back when I pledged in the 1980s, we also had a 6 week pledge program. We had a 100% initiation rate and very few self-terminations.

We also had +/- 40 sisters and a smallish campus. To my knowledge, most of the guys initiated their members within the semester (no holdovers over break) as well.

If 6 weeks is not enough FOR YOUR CHAPTER to impart the following information:
-all pledges to know (at least in passing) all brothers;
-basic history, symbols, etc;
-familiarity with what each office does;
-familiarity (name and gender) with ALL the other Greek groups on campus;

THEN 6 weeks is too short.

However, if your only reason for wanting to keep it a semester long is the "back in the day, WE did it this way" reason, that really doesn't fly, and really never flew.

6 weeks is not too short of a time for pledges to understand a lifetime commitment, IF the program is effective and IF the current brothers are showing THEY are committed as well. If the current brothers are big sacks of poo, a semester long program isn't going to help.

Another reason that more groups are moving to shorter new member periods is to help lessen the risk for hazing. Having said that, it is possible with some groups that shorter new member periods can be the result of the fraternity's own insurance policy they must follow in order to be covered.

See, I don't think this is a legitimate reason.

The "new brothers/sisters" can be hazed just as easily after they're initiated. If a chapter wants to haze that badly, it's going to do so. We always heard about the locals at a local church sponsored college hazing like crazy, and their pledging was only 2 weeks long.

When I pledged in the 1980s we had a three month pledge period. I thought it worked quite well. We might have a couple members drop out over the semester for various reasons. Once initiated though, dropping out was pretty much unheard of.

Of course since then most of the NPC sororities have moved to a shortened (6 to 8 week) new member period.

About 8 years ago I was on House Corp for another chapter of KD and I noticed a very high rate of drop outs both before and after initiation. I thought it might be a different campus/chapter culture. I also thought it could be the shortened new member program. I had an opportunity to speak very briefly with KD's National President about the drop out rate and the shortened program. She told me that since the pledge program had been shortened the drop out rate of initiated members had gone up astronomically. (I wish I could remember the exact percentage she mentioned.) She added that it wasn't just with KD but pretty much NPC-wide. Unfortunately, we didn't have time to talk more about the issue. I certainly had several more questions to ask.

We're all still producing outstanding members so I suppose a longer pledge period isn't an absolute necessity but I'm troubled by the number of drop outs especially since they are dropping out after having been initiated. I tend to believe that the importance of the commitment isn't coming across as well anymore.

Just my 2 cents.

Yea, I was going to say the same thing.

Going from a semester down to 6 weeks can just mean "get more hazing bang for your buck" to the ones that want to do it.

Very interesting, and not surprising given my own experience. What puzzles me is this: if this phenomenon is so common, then why the insistence on maintaining the shortened associate membership program? Why not move back to a longer program to alleviate this problem?

I have seen no evidence that the shorter program has led to any increase in numbers or quality of overall membership; quite the contrary. I really wish I understood the rationale of doing this besides "everyone else is doing it", which seems to be the only reason I've heard so far.

I wonder if the shorten program just happened to coincide with the higher drop out rate. Do you suppose it could be a generational problem?

I wish I had had the opportunity to discuss the matter further with her. I certainly would have asked why we continue with the shorter pledge period and what else may be causing the drop outs. Personally, I have no idea.

As for whether or not it could be generational, I'll leave that up to the GC intelligentsia.

If it is a generational issue, the problem is not the shorter pledge period in and of itself...the problem is that once members are initiated, they don't feel they are getting a good value for their money. And no, I'm not being like that dick from Campuspeak who says if you drop out because of money you don't love your GLO. I'm talking about the people who are completely able to pay for it and say "well, here I am...I'm a member...my life is still pretty much the same as it was before I joined. Why did I bother?"

We are social Greek organizations. If you aren't getting an improved social life from your membership (and by that, I mean friendships with your brothers or sisters and social interaction with other Greek groups) you'll probably quit. Social life in Greek organizations isn't what it used to be.

If we aren't going to be social - as in, what the average college student defines as social - we should stop defining ourselves as such. If we want to be purely philanthropic groups, we need to follow that path and jettison the chapters that don't agree. You can't have it both ways, and GLOs have been trying to do that for quite a while now.

Many schools erroneously think a shorter pledge program cuts down on hazing. Since they are our host institutions, we have to play their game, whether we like it or not.

I don't think that it's the shortness of the program, but the content. We had a very simple (nationally produced) book that all pledges were issued...but it also had a list of all our chapters, all the NPC and IFC chapters, and everything else I mentioned in my response to you above. It was a super handy reference and I still use it. Our current NM manuals (which are actually part of a lifetime membership program) are probably 5 times bigger and more full of "exercises" than information, IMO. Naturally some people are going to memorize more quickly than others...and some groups are going to have more history than others...and some chapters are going to have bigger Greek communities with which to familiarize themselves than others...which means that each GLO AND each chapter should be able to pick the amount of time that works for them.

The insistence on not setting apart pledges and trying to fully integrate them into the chapter more quickly really doesn't help, either. It's like kids don't have Driver's Ed or practicing anymore, they just are supposed to hop in the car when they turn 16 and know what to do.

I would certainly support a move to lengthen the new member period. I have not seen that the dropout rate has increased, but I am discouraged by how many girls don't know a good bit of basic information.

Because they don't have to. There is no consequence if they don't learn it. That has nothing to do with a pledge period being 2 weeks long or 20 weeks long.

Absolutely agree. We barely ask anything of "pledges" anymore. It's what is done with the time they have that makes a difference.

The drop out rate I talked about with the KD Pres. could very well have a great deal to do with this new softened approach to "new member" programs rather than just the shortened period. I think the shift happened for both around the same time. I wish I could have had that discussion with her.

That, plus the retention of seniors who rushed and pledged the moment they set foot on campus, and have gotten burned out.

Agreed.

Our NMs have to meet certain minimum requirements before they can be initiated. A portion of those requirements can be met by attending chapter or by joining committees (they're obviously not allowed if anything ritual is going on, but they can at least get a whiff of the business aspect of being a sister). This way, they have a decent understanding of what it means to be a full sister, before they actually become full sisters.

One chapter at my school ran a 4-week NM program during my freshman year. They met quota, but fewer than half of that class were still affiliated when we graduated.

First, I have a question: when did the shift from longer NM periods to shorter NM periods begin?

I ask because I wonder if maybe-just maybe-the economy of the last few years could be a cause of larger post-initiation dropouts. But I don't know when the NM period went from a semester to a few weeks, so I could be totally off-base.

I know some people who dropped during the NM period (several different sororities. I hate to sound clueless, but I only know-like, actually KNOW well enough to comment-three guys in fraternities, and I know they're all still in their respective orgs) because they realized the time commitment was too great. Unless there are groups out there where the time thing really just doesn't get mentioned until after initiation, I don't really see that as the problem.

Another thing I've wondered about-and this is just speculation, and I hope I don't get jumped all over for saying this, but it's something I've thought about-how big are the groups we're talking about here? I mean, there've been monster pledge classes in the last few years. I just think that there may be girls who drop after a certain amount of time because they just don't feel like they can make any headway in such a large group (I don't just mean leadership-wise. How can such a large group mix with a fraternity? What about sisterhood activities?). I can't really speak to it because I'm not in something very big, but I can only imagine that, with a huge group, someone could get lost in the shuffle. But this is all just speculation.

One last idea: maybe new member programs aren't targeting the important information. Maybe, if retention really is an issue, the new member program needs to address the lifelong bonds of a fraternity or sorority. My best friend and I just had a conversation about how most people our age are very focused on what's going on right now. Today's Wednesday (yes, it's very early Wednesday, but it's Wednesday nonetheless), and I've barely heard discussion of anything going on beyond Friday (she hadn't heard discussion of anything beyond the weekend, either, and she goes to another school). The concept of "lifetime membership" or, well, anything lasting a lifetime seems intangible to this generation because everything gets upgraded and re-released as new tomorrow, the next day or the day after. The concept of lifelong membership thrills me, but I get how some people just don't get the "lifelong" part.

Ok, I don't know if anything I've said links to anything else I've said. I just had some ideas/questions and the title of the thread intrigued me.

MW brings up finances, which are really important. NM's in my chapter got hit with a lot of stuff up front (badge fee, initiation fee, parlor fee), and if they had trouble, we'd put them on payment plans to space it out more, but if someone really can't pay, they can't pay. I hate to say it, but GLOs cost money, and if someone is really not in a financial position to be in one, we shouldn't delay the inevitable.

I thought for sure this would be a conversation about accelerated associate degree programs (16-18 months) and was going to say "yes, I do think that many people who can't hang with being in class 38-40 hours a week drop out quite often."

MW, I don't know about any other sororities, but Kappa Delta changed to a shorter NM period at their 1993 convention. I do not know how the NM period works as I had been a alumna for a long time before the change. I do know that at least one chapter does do something with one of the local alumnae chapters so that the NMs can be introduced at a very early stage to the long time bonds that are formed. My AC will be meeting with some of the girls (initiated members and a few girls who became new members 2 weeks ago) for lunch on Saturday. We will do a Founder's Day event and share how KD is a long term part of our lives.

DaffyKD

I hold a position where I have access to my chapter's member database. The increase in resignations increased dramatically in the immediate years after the shortened iniation period was instituted and has held steady since that time. I won't release the exact numbers, as I feel that should be member info only, but suffice it to say that I think there is a statistically significant link.

For context, this is a chapter where total was 120 in the 90s, now 150. Dues are not astronomical, as the chapter houses are owned by the university and the 36 students who live in them pay the housing portion of dues. Any student who worked even 10 hours a week would be able to cover her dues each semester.


I pledged in 1992, and my Theta chapter was among the very last to switch to a shorter new member period. By Fall 1993, when we switched, I believe all Theta chapters were shortened. At that time, ADPi nationally had completed (or almost completed, not sure) their switch. None of the other 8 chapters on my campus had switched, but many of them were being encouraged to do so by their HQs. I suspect the switch really ramped up by the mid 90s.

When I was in the chapter I was in charge of Initiation one year. I tried to give the NMs a test about our history,founders etc. and was told I could not. Giving them a test was considered hazing and we were very good about not hazing. Ever since then I have felt the NMs (and later as actives) knew very little about what our sorority on a local or national level really was about.

That sounds like a really good way to reinforce the concept of lifelong commitment.

DaffyKD doesn't know (as she says in her post), but this leads me to another question: what is the difference between longer and shorter NM programs? That sounds like a ridiculous question, but did groups cut large amounts of information from their educational programs and things like that? How did they shorten them, and what did they lose in the shortening process? Did they have to cram so much in that the girls just feel lost?

Obviously, that's a tough question to answer, and you can't answer in too much detail, but I'm curious how NM programs changed once they were shortened.

I don't think it has anything to do with the shortened new member period. I think that this might be why we see more women resigning as members, but I think the more girls were resigning as new members early. I think MW hit it on the head when she mentioned the generational shift to a very now focused group in combination with huge recruitment numbers. I think there are a lot of girls who walk in on Bid Day and expect to have 100 new best friends, and when they aren't suddenly Miss Popular Elle Woods they are disappointed. They set their expectations so high that when we don't meet them or they don't get their first choice they get unhappy. RPW helps more women get placed, but still a lot of girls get their second choice, and its getting a lot harder to help them find their way and be happy in the chapter.

On the one hand we encourage women to go through recruitment to meet people, but some of them, once they do, that was really all they wanted to do. Others like the idea of a sorority, but once they found out about grade requirements, study hours, philanthropy hours, and that sorority women are expected to behave like ladies, they lost interest. Throw in a tough economy and that can be one more thing they are trying to juggle with college.

When our group shortened the NM program, it took out some of the "getting to know you" activities, and switched to a more focused, meeting type format to cover specific important historical or philosophical ideal material. The problem is it is a kind of seminar format with outside reading, and before it was more like history class or learning with games. We have to be more organized now for it to work well. Several Big/Lil sis activities are now combined with chapter meetings. We actually have more than one option so that you can extend this out a little - say skip a meeting for Greek week when the girls will be doing a lot with the chapter anyway. The meetings are more focused on the new members and less on becoming involved with the chapter.

If you go and look at the chapter myths thread - famous people that aren't really Greek or weird legends that can't be true, I think a bunch of that springs up from the girls not really retaining that information when you have a really short pledge period.

I can't help but think that the changes in demands on students since we went to the shortened NM period in the early 90s, as well as the explosion of opportunities for students combined with changing student demographics have affected member retention across the board. For example, there wasn't a single member of my chapter during the four years I was an "active" who participated in a study abroad or semester-at-sea program. Today, the same university actively encourages every student in every major program to study abroad and even requires it for some majors. Few students lived on campus in university housing. Today, the univ requires most frosh to live in the dorms they built, and they offer incentives to sophs to stay living in the dorms even though the cost is far above living in Greek or off campus housing.

Almost every member of my chapter worked part time, but few took more than 12-14 units per semester. Most students expected to be on the 5 year plan, or more if they intended to get a teaching credential or professional license i.e. CPA, real estate, nursing, PT etc. Today I see fewer students are working while in college, both because there are fewer jobs for college students and there is a lot more pressure to graduate on schedule in 4 years because the cost of tuition and housing has multiplied exponentially. Financial aid makes it possible for more kids to go to college, and increasing enrollment has resulted in big recruitment numbers and opened up the doors for a more socio-economically diverse group of students to experience Greek Life. That's great, but overall GLOs haven't really adapted the programming or the member expectations much to mesh well with the broad group of students who are our members today. Even though we've made modifications to recruitment and the new member period, overall we're all still pretty much following the same model we were in the 1950's when most members were more alike socio-economically than they are today. So maybe we shouldn't be that surprised that what worked 50-60 years ago, or even 20-25 years ago, does not create the same results today.

AMEN!!! I agree that the Big/ Little program is absolutely key to retention, a cohesive chapter and even involvement as an alum after graduation.

I think that the girls who would drop out solely because of a ginourmous pledge class size are girls who were led to expect (by moms or sisters who attended VERY different type schools) a completely different experience. Ditto girls who were raised hearing about SEC size classes and then come to the Northeast for school and are flabbergasted by their "big" pledge class of 20.

The softer (I won't say shorter, because for many chapters, it HASN'T become any shorter) approach to pledging begain in the mid 90s. Greek life was in the toilet and I think this was a desperate attempt to retain members. It has backfired completely, IMO.

Much of what has been cut out has been the time available for the women to get to know the history, and also to get to know the chapter members (through interviews, coke dates etc). It's pretty delusional to rush the way that we do, and then not carry that on into pledging, i.e. "you joined not because you love the philanthropy or our values, but mainly because you liked the girls you met at this particular chapter. However, continuing to build that relationship isn't really going to be part of your pledging - everything is going to be focused on the national organization." In other words...the NPC groups are trying to rush like they always did, and then thinking they'll be able to get the kind of member loyalty the NPHC groups have. It doesn't work that way.

See, that's the thing. We didn't get any gifts from our bigs (that's a lie: we got a small gift during the reveal, but it's not like we got gifts throughout the week). Instead, we spent the week "getting to know" our bigs (without knowing who they were, obviously). I liked ours a lot, actually. I felt like, even though my big and I were close before, I didn't really know her that well until big/little week. But we also learned a lot about each other's bigs and our other "family members." In short, our big/little week was centered on bonding and getting to know each other better. It was really enjoyable and I remember leaving the revelation and thinking, "wow, I am so glad I got to know this group of girls!" I seriously loved them a million times more after that week. I don't know if I would have felt so close to everyone if I'd just gotten a bunch of gifts.

Wow, definitely. I mean, during rush, you're supposed to get to know the girls. You aren't supposed to become an XYZ because Heal the Bay is your favorite charity, nor are you supposed to fall in love with ABC because their values and mission closely align with your personal views. You're supposed to find the place where you fit best. But then, when you're a new member, as you said, it's all about the history and philanthropy and values. That's quite a disconnect, actually.

Admittedly, I'm the researching type (no duh) and I actually made charts with the name, founding date and location, colors, symbols, mascots, jewels, flowers and philanthropies of each sorority on the USC campus (I did one for Berkeley, too, because my best friend goes there and I hoped that she'd rush. She didn't), mostly so I didn't wear something I shouldn't wear (like anchor jewelry or anything with a fleur-de-lis), but also to familiarize myself with the histories of the groups. Most of my friends who rushed were kind of shocked to discover that they had to learn about the orgs they joined (not SC people; high school people).

There's definitely a disconnect, but I would assume that this disconnect would cause more dropouts right off the bat (like, the day that new members start new member education), rather than after initiation.

You know, this just reminded me of something...during rush, you put the girls you want most with the best rushers, but during big/little pairings, everyone gets a little, so some "littles" are left with the girls who were not great rushers. But only one of them was my little; the other actually went to someone who had been on the computer committee. I took the other girl out for coffee or something shortly after the reveal, but it's just not the same. I would guess that maybe one-third of my class preffed more than two-thirds of the class below us.

This isn't to say that someone can't be a great big if they are a lousy rusher, but the better rushers are more likely to make the little feel like an insta-friend.

Someone mentioned the getting to know you activities that were dropped. In our Chapter they were called "coke dates". All pledges had a little book and they had to meet with every active in the Chapter and ask her questions. This took sometimes weeks, but it was a good investment IMO. This is now considered hazing.

In the early 80's the programs were very structured with exams throughout the program on different aspects of the sorority. You then had to pass a big exam at the end AND your grades had better be at or above the requirement to get initiated when you came back in January.

When you spend a semester to get initiated instead of 6-8 weeks you have a bigger investment and in my opinion more of an ownership of the Chapter and process. I do think the shortened period does lead to people quitting, not staying involved and really missing the true essence of sisterhood. And I do seem to remember the big push for a shortened period was hazing. My opinion on hazing though is that Chapters either do it or don't. Hazing, I believe, is based more on the traditions of the Chapter as a whole and there are still Chapters participating in hazing with shortened periods. One had their Charter pulled last year for it.

In my Acacia chapter, the pledging process still take an entire trimester and our initiation week was after the break also beginning with week 1 of winter term.

From what I can understand, it all depends on how much stuff you can get done with the amount of time you have for the pledges to go through their pledging process. If you can fit in a lot of activities that allow you to dor more bonding and get to know each other better, then you're set. Sometimes you might have an entire term, but if the house doesn't take a lot of initiative to start planning events and activities, then it'll be harder to get a good grip on the pledges who are potential members of the organization. Having more time leads to more potential of creating a stronger bond with the house, but utilizing the time you have is all that matter in my opinion.

As for hazing, it's pretty subjective. I mean, I've heard of certain houses that holds "pledge meetings" and "pledge education" where they get to learn more about the house/organization and stuff like that, and some people think of it as hazing if it's forced onto the pledges and it's an absolute requirement for them to attend it. I think it's pretty silly but that's just my opinion, the pledges are pledging the house for a reason and if it's not important for them to be there to learn about the house that they will about to become a part of then what's the point of pledging in the first place?

The thing is, nothing says this has to be done before initiation. I think it would be great if the older girls planned "coke dates" throughout the first semester or year or whatever. That would help to cut down on the "I just initiated and don't feel connected" that we see so often.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it has less to do with the actual length of the pledge period, and more to do with the way you pledge, initiate, and then....nothing...In housed chapters, you generally don't move in until the following year, and in unhoused chapters, you may not start to hold offices and stuff until later. I think a short pledge program is fine (if it really does cut down on hazing), but then it needs to be followed up with a new initiate program or something.

I know some NPC's are trying to restructure their member ed. to go all four years, and I think that's critical. How about NM programming, then New Initiate programming, then minor officer/committee member programming, then e-board programming, then senior programming? That's oversimplifying, but I think we have just as much trouble losing seniors as New-I's. Seniors may not leave, but they pay their dues and only show up to totally mandatory events.

I think SigEp really does a great job on this stuff in their Balanced Man program. I don't know much about it, but maybe it could be emulated elsewhere.

In AXiD, we had something similar. We had to interview and get a signature from every active sister (at the time, there were 56). In addition to basic interview questions, we had to add our own "fun" questions.

The interaction had to last a minimum of 10 minutes, and could consist of any activity - lunch at the cafeteria, hanging out in her room, etc. It forced us - though I don't like the word "force" - to meet and at least get to know each member on a basic level. Twenty years later, I still remember little bits of facts such as middle names and hometowns. Sometimes, an active would give us a "task" to earn her signature, usually something silly like bringing a note to someone else and waiting for a reply or singing a song, or answering a question about fraternity history.

There were also requirements for things to be done as a pledge class, which essentially ensured that we spent time together.

Obviously, there is room for these sort of things to get out of control and be labeled as hazing, but I think that these type of "requirements" gave us plenty of opportunity to get to know each other.

Not NPC, of course, but we did very much the same thing. In our case, it was a hat that had to be signed. By the end of the probationary member period (about 6 weeks at the time), your hat had to have the signatures of all active brothers. The only brother who would offer to sign your hat was your big brother. For all other brothers, you had to approach them and at the least have the kind of conversation you describe to get to know them. Some brothers would sign the hat at that point, while others might say something like they'd sign the hat when you gave them the answer to a fraternity trivia question. That sent you off to learn more about the Fraternity.

It's been decades, and I still have my hat.