An interesting read by a U of Michigan Recruitment Chair
 

Has anyone else read the U of Michigan's Recruitment Chair's take on her chapter's membership selection process? I graduated well before the advent of social media so our process in the "olden days" was certainly different. I guess this mirrors the all too common pnms who base their rankings entirely on superficial "tiers". Sad so many chapters have come to this. I do find her introspection at the end interesting.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...Z6xthshRM/edit

What horrifies me most is her claim that the national organization is actively involved in the process of ranking PNMs by looks and sorting active sisters into bump groups based on looks.

I thought that her terminology made it definite to which chapter it was, or is that still speculation?

This is long ago enough that I don’t think I’m telling tales out of school, but our chapter and system was small enough that every sister (in my chapter anyway) voted on every PNM. I would have felt so - I guess disenfranchised is the word - to only be able to offer my input on such a small fraction of the women we were inviting into the chapter. But obviously this wouldn’t be expedient at large rushes, and when you only know what you know, you don’t miss anything.

If you look at UM on that "other" website, the name of the chapter is revealed.

I'm very much old school. We discussed and voted on EVERY rushee (told you, I'm old school). It was not left to a committee, it wasn't left to an arbitrary number system, it was not prearranged.

I wonder how much of this is factual and how much of it is like the book "Pledged." I can't see any national sending someone to monitor each and every chapter's recruitment in order for National to determine who stays and who goes. If everyone is only based on their superficial appearance, why are there so many diverse chapters across the country? Not just by race, but body build, hair color etc. Something does not seem right to me about this article. As I said, maybe its just because I'm VERY old school.

DaffyKD

I wonder how rampant stuff like this is at the "big" competitive greek systems. It makes me wonder about what was going on behind the scenes at my school during recruitment. Of course, that was 30+ years ago and we didn't have a computerized system like they do now.

I believe all sororities have rating systems, this is an effort to rationalize recruitment, (I think is it called Values Based Recruitment.) So the chapters don't just emotionally vote. That being said, as much as we try to do rational decisions based on facts, emotions often overrule. So, putting a ranking on will this person fit in or contribute to the chapter can be usefull if the ranking is based on rational judgement.

I am sure most chapters also determine who are their strongest rushers. And you don't want to overwhelm the PNMs with ratios of 5 to 1 in the later rounds. However, this past month I did spend quite a bit of time with a chapter during recruitment and did notice the actives that were "not needed"in the recruitment room were the ones that have fuller figures. This saddenend me, I wish the chapter coupld have worked harder to make everyone feel valuable during recruitment.

Now, to a National org actually having the chapters pre rank based on looks? and then having an alumna be the enforcer? If this is true, I would be shocked and appalled. I do realize that ranks and tiers are TOTALLY based on looks, and the chapters are trying to appeal to 18 year-olds, who value that far more than they should.

Rating systems on various components have been around a long time. “Values Based Recruitment” is a silly buzz phrase that basically means get rid of the frills and have nothing but 3 hours of deep and meaningful conversations with rushees. (I’m sure someone is going to jump on me for being so cynical, but I just read 3 articles about it and I couldn’t find a clear and concise definition of what exactly VBR is and how it’s conducted.)

but your are forgetting that they added a CRAFT to embody the philanthropy!!!

Oh yes, silly me 🤣

The specific issues I have reading it again:
-the preranking of every PNM based entirely on their perceived attractiveness
-forcing sisters to rank each other based on perceived attractiveness, so that only the "best" sisters talk to the "best" PNMs
-the ranking of PNMs after each round based on how much they "fit" into the chapter, which by necessity means that the pledge classes recruited each year are all going to be homogenous in many meaningful ways
-the national orgs' endorsement of all this through the presence of their consultant, especially when she removed PNMs the chapter would otherwise have wanted to invite back

I imagine every chapter scores women in some way based on their conversations-I know mine did. That isn't controversial to me. What is controversial is the way in which it was done based entirely off of looks and ignored who the chapter members actually wanted to invite back. I know that no matter what a PNM looked like, if we'd wanted her as a member and she was otherwise qualified no one from our national organization would have stopped us from giving her a bid.

This situation feels similar to ones with local orgs who broke off from NPC sororities decades ago because they were not, at the time, permitted to extend a bid to a PNM of another race/religion. I can swear up and down that my own chapter has always been diverse in race, religion, wealth, political thought, major, etc since I joined but I know that was not always the case. Chapters of my organization in the past made the decision to disassociate from our national body in order to bid a WOC, but if my chapter were faced with a similar challenge from our HQ, would we make the same decision? I truly do not know. I have to imagine a decision that serious would be nearly impossible for a group of collegiate women to make (Harvard comes to mind), and if this chapter's situation is accurately reflected in these posts, I can understand why the actives didn't immediately surrender their charter.

I think making a decision like that also has a lot to do with whether the campus will be behind you. Call me cynical but I have a feeling that even if these women had decided to surrender their charter and explained exactly why, even if they had alumnae and school support emotionally and monetarily, no matter how much people might admire that reason at the time, in a few years they would be derided as “irrelevant” because they weren’t national and didn’t have a house.

^^I agree completely. Recruitment, for me, was a time that our chapter really pulled together to accomplish one of our most important challenges of the year. I liked being in rotation groups with women that I might not have known so well and getting to know them better during all those long days. I felt we came out of the process closer than before (maybe a little case of ptsd :)). I would have been heartbroken if I had been relegated to a service job or positioned to keep the "undesirable MGs" busy. How hurtful to put those you care about into that position.

They let me work "behind the scenes" my senior year because we had plenty of actives to rush. I know my appearance probably factored into it - I had put on a few extra pounds and I was dealing with some weird haircut issues. I was also not a strong rusher. And I admit that freely.

I could set up chairs and tables, I could get up at zero dark thirty and iron tablecloths, inflate hundreds of balloons, sweep the front porch. I wrote song parodies and made costumes and sets for skits, and I was a solid officer on Exec as a Junior. But I couldn't do chit chat. Plus, the hair.

I remember asking if it was my weight, and they told me no. Which was a lie of kindness. And I was so glad to get out of the first few rounds I didn't press it. I do remember hanging out at the apartment of one of my pledge sisters a few months later. One of them commented that with the new pledges being so different, none of us would be offered a bid in our own sorority if we were rushing. That is how much it had changed.

I think social media does a huge disservice to PNMs. And actives, too. Every wants the fully curated pinterest-perfect experience.

What they don't see is the night you chewed out your roommate for borrowing your lipstick without asking, or the extra long chapter meeting a night before the make or break calc test. They don't see the work that goes into making events a success. They don't realize that they are going to be doing that same hard work in mere months.

And I guess my big question is, Freshman 15 aside, how can someone who was a ten at your pref party be a three after they initiate?

I have a bad feeling this is more true than not.

I read it. I can see this being true.

Also, sidebar comment, I really don't see the issue with some frills for recruitment. No frills gets a little ridiculous when chapters are only allowed to have cut fruit, because not everyone can afford a melon baller for round fruit *eyeroll*

Round fruit. Convincing women that one sorority is better than another since 1851.

It's all relative. She was a 10 compared to the general PNM population, but after joining, she was in a different stratosphere of beauty where she is no longer a ten.

We had a woman that we asked to run the kitchen and "behind the scenes" stuff for all of recruitment. Not because she wasn't beautiful or wasn't a good conversationalist or because we didn't want her out among the PNMs, but because her major was events planning. And she ran that kitchen and behind the scenes like nobody's business. between rounds they flipped the house to clean up refreshments and get the next round set up like professionals. Then she graduated. I'm searching for another events planning person for this year...
my point being, in some houses it might be based on skill rather than appearances.

Hilarious!! :)

None of this is that shocking to me. It isn't how my sorority or national organization runs recruitment, but as a current advisor, nearly all of the chapters on the campus that I advise at have national reps at the recruitment process for the entire time.

Signature worthy material!

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.W...=0&w=300&h=300

I haven't a clue how recruitment works. I went to a non-competitive school, and my chapter size was 22.

I *do* recall Delta Gamma stressing then, and reiterating a few years ago, that selection of new members is a privilege afforded *only* to collegians. How well that translates in actual practice is outside my knowledge, but I remember it from 45 years ago because it was that important to me.

I can see these claims having more truth than not.

A few of the Leadership Consultants are always traveling around.

If Michigan typically has rush at the end of September to beginning of October, then that's a little later than the typical time for a million rushes in the fall. In that case, I could see a national organization deciding to prioritize sending someone to Michigan's recruitment over a chapter that doesn't have anything special going on.

This is not Panhellenic of me, but it is my personal opinion. I'm just going to go out and say it. I am not pointing fingers and I don't care to discuss any specific thoughts on this, but I have noticed that some organizations do seem to have a lot of similarities re: reputation at a fair number of campuses from what I have seen and heard.

Yes, every sorority has more popular chapters on certain campuses and less popular chapters on other campuses, but it's not true that all GLOs are extremely, extremely diverse across the whole board. There are some organizations that tend to be more popular in general than others, and I think that their recruitment strategies certainly have a part to play. I do believe that GLOs tend to pull more similar than diverse girls across chapters. GLOs do recruit based on "values" of the organization after all.

I obviously don't have statistics to back this up nor do I know every chapter at every campus. And there are other variables at play too, I'll admit. I have made certain observations that lead me to think this way, but I'm certainly no expert in this.

For example, since we are discussing looks, I'll go out and say that if a GLO is known as the "hot sorority" at quite a few campuses...then I have always thought that it is likely someone at the top is prioritizing looks during recruitment.

I don't think that it necessarily has to be as overt as described in the document, however there are various ways that this can be done. I am not at all surprised if that is the case at some GLOs.

Ding ding ding.

Like you said, tiers are generally based on looks. And they are in part determined by what fraternity brothers think of the girls.

So if a sorority prioritizes PNMs based on looks --> overall more attractive pledge classes --> overall higher "ranks" on multiple campuses --> more people want to join due to the reputation/exclusivity of the chapter

It is appalling, but it is also smart.

Am I the only one who couldn't get past the first couple of pages? I wanted to take a red pencil to that document and edit the hell out of it. "WHAT IS THE POINT?" I kept screaming at the screen. So much blah blah blah blah blah... even went to the end and still couldn't figure out why the younger sister got released, or what exactly the problem(s) was(were). Dear Lort. Please don't tell me I have to read the whole thing. UGH. Times like these I miss Drolefille.

*shrug* Don't have that kind of time.

And 33, another priceless statement from you. "Round fruit" indeed. ETA: I stand corrected. ASTAlumna06, you are the bomb. I dedicate all my round fruit bowls to you in future. Thanks 33 for setting me straight (again).

ASTAlumna06 name checked the round fruit, not me. I bow to her eloquence.

At the biggest Greek schools near me, the tiers are not based entirely on looks. There are a few middle-tier groups that are considered the "hot" chapters, and they are sort of looked down on (especially by the top tier) because they don't consider social status, "old money," grades, etc. I'm not saying the "top" groups are a bunch of old bags, but a lot of them are not the cutest, just the most impressive.

At my university, "tiers" definitely considered attractiveness, but a chapter needed to be well-rounded and couldn't rely on beauty for superiority. Chapters that had a reputation for "only" being hot and liking to party and had the lowest GPAs to support the stereotype were frequently criticized for not being more involved on campus, not being more academically focused, etc. Of course, plenty of members of those chapters were in honors societies and made the Dean's list, because stereotypes are just that.

I'll also add that schools like UMich aren't accepting unintelligent students. All the incoming students were involved in extracurriculars and are stellar applicants with an average GPA above 3.8. I doubt even the girls in the "hot" house are somehow significantly less intelligent than the girls in the "smart" house, but someone has to have the lowest GPA - which, to be fair, I don't know the GPAs of the UMich chapters so maybe this chapter also has the highest GPA!

me too
 

Totally agree...she lost me with all of the words and repetitive rants about scoring PNMs based on appearance...plus her claim that Michigan's CPC does not allow ranking or scoring of PNMs.
:confused:

All chapters have some way they rank their PNM's. If you didn't how would you release some of the pool? But to pick solely on looks?

I believe that this is Very True for one GLO at my school. In fact, I believe I witnessed it during recruitment. A women with a clipboard walking up and down the line of PNM's. I have also heard rumblings from Alumnae about their GLO only picking the pretty girls and lots of legacies being not chosen.

It doesn’t even make sense because Panhellenic can’t tell individual sororities what criteria to use (except for things that apply to everyone like being a full time student).

The google doc correctly outlines, in detail, how Alpha Phi recruits. It is a method designed by the current president of Alpha Phi who proudly gathers the ELCs around her to teach it to them before she visits our chapters.

I call on all Alpha Phi alumnae who are completely disgusted with it to write to the current Committee on Leadership who are slating the people for our next Board that will be elected at the next convention. Deliver to them the message that we need wholesale change of the Fraternity Board, the Foundation Board, the Panhellenic Delegation, and the Executive Director (interim, or not) needs to go. Return the Fraternity to a respected place in the greek community.

If you are advising collegians, share the google doc with them. Have a discussion with them. If they agree that they don't like it, they too can have a voice. Have them come to their next regional conference prepared to raise their hand and say that they don't agree with the hazing of our own members, the blatant disregard for our stated values, and not being allowed to truly select their own members.

If they don't make serious changes, meet me at convention for a floor fight of epic proportions.

sororanon I can only imagine the heartache you must feel watching an organization that you admire and love being led down a path so far from the vision of your founders and that which you experienced. If this were my beloved organization, I know I would feel the same way. I admire your courage and dedication. Best of luck.

As a sister, it’s very difficult to watch this happen. Sometimes it makes me wonder if it will ever change for the better.

Nothing can change unless there are enough people willing to work toward and facilitate such change.

Nothing can change with institutional barriers that prevent the people in power from being removed. This organization has a secret sorority behind it. They recruit their new members through the ELCs and certain other volunteers. Every barrier imagined has been erected to prevent any challenge to their authority.

I agree.

Wow. Just WOW.

Hi, I volunteer at a collegient chapter. I have seen the described process played out. The ELC told me and I quote “we are only recruiting for looks.” I have been on the verge of quitting nearly every recruitment. Looks are definitely valued more than brains or other attributes. I’ve complained repeatedly and been told it is a sacrosanct program and had my hand slapped. I love the girls and my fellow advisors but beyond that, hmmm, no.

It breaks my heart to hear all of you confirm what was said. I believe you all and I feel for you that you are confronted with sisters who clearly do not share the values you do. It is disappointing that the national organization has sold their souls to the recruitment devil and I hope those with cooler heads are able to take charge and put an end to these practices.