Expansion - evening things out?
 

At the request of DeltaBetaBaby :) this is a topic that was touched on in another thread.

As we've seen on GC, there are large GLOs and small GLOs within each conference/council. Sometimes the difference between the biggest and the smallest is immense. It also seems to go on and on - i.e., the large get larger and the small get smaller. The question is, should NPC/IFC/NPHC do more to help the smaller groups (which are often the ones that joined later) "catch up" as far as chapters and resources - i.e. expansion caps for larger groups, support for the smaller groups, etc.

I want to hear what some others have to say before I put in my 2.5 cents.

Not by forcing each others NIC chapters to vote for NIC colonies when they come up for membership in IFC, then placing sanctions if they refuse... thats for sure.

Hm, schools choose GLOs for a reason. It's not just "X is supposed to be prestigious." The longer I'm around Greekdom, the more certain national organizations at the national level impress me with their disorganization. And it's not all a matter of resources (like A can pay more staff members than B), but a matter of policy and forward thinking or sticking their own heads up their collective butts.

And beyond "good or bad," GLOs have chosen to focus on certain areas for expansion. AXD is one org, for example, that has been excellent at expanding to small campuses with a small number of sororities. That is not all we do, but that is where a lot of our current expertise lies.

Just because we're all in NPC (or whatever council) doesn't mean we're all equal or that we can force equality. Are we all supposed to shop at K-Mart because it's unfair that bargain shoppers prefer Wal-Mart and Target? Sororities are a free-market system as well. It's up to the particular GLO to make themselves a desirable expansion option.

This sums it up so perfectly.

I can't even comprehend a system that would be fair if caps were to be put on expansion...I mean Beta is expanding at the request of Universities - much more so than out of interest groups requesting affiliation. I'm sure the opposite is true for other orgs.

I also think that if caps were put on, it would only be able to work for NPC, not NIC. (I'm not sure of the dynamics of NPHC, so I won't venture a guess.) NPC could work caps b/c of their position of passing more "legislative" type bills that have to be followed by chapters of member groups, and in NIC the bills passed amount to little more than reccomendations for undergraduate chapters.

In the end, I think that there is enough room for all, and that the smaller groups won't go out of existence unless they so choose to (unlike K-mart!).

But I think that, for example, AXD didn't choose their particular market because they're good at it . . . they became good at it because that was the type of school that they were best fitted to expanding to, they ended up expanding to that type of school fairly often, and THEN decided to focus on it. The whole "niche" perpetuates itself.

Also, I think a more accurate comparison would be to the world of sports . . . let's say the Yankees are akin to Chi Omega, and so on down the line until you get to the Twins and the Tigers, which are Sigma Delta Tau and Theta Phi Alpha. The Yankees are always going to win the World Series because they have more money to spend. And Chi O is almost always going to win out over TPA at the more prestigious schools. That's why other professional sports have salary caps . . . to even out the playing field and make it so every team has a more or less equal chance at winning the championship.

The difference between the KMart/Walmart analogy and that of the NBA is that in basketball, all the teams are trying to help each other stay in business, whereas the stores are actively trying to put each other out of business. And I think the NPC is more like the NBA than it is like the world of commerce, because we do want all the other organizations to succeed (although generally we want them to succeed a little bit less than our own organization :D ).

Personally, I feel that unless SOMETHING is done, pretty soon the smaller NPC sororities will start to die off. Although I'm not sure if expansion caps are the best way to do it, or what WOULD be the best way to do it if they're not, it's pretty clear something does need to be done or we could start losing TPA, SDT, AEPhi and other smaller groups.

This is a really interesting subject.

I think that the top 10 or so groups are so busy battling each other for top dog that they put it before helping the others. For example, Phi Mu does not want to cap off its expansion, because we are so busy trying to catch up with ZTA, ChiO, and DZ.

On the other hand, I am not really sure what can be done to help the smaller groups. If we equate expansion to formal rush, maybe you would limit the amount of money to be spent on presenting and the number of representatives who could come.

Bottom line, though, without the resources to back it up, no expansion is going to be successful.

As far as the NPHC goes, our organizations have closer historical ties than many NPC or NIC do, so at a particular school we may be more likely to help another NPHC org come on. Overall though, I don't think caps should be put on larger orgs to help smaller ones. If people like your org they'll join, if not they won't. People shouldn't be kept out of an org they want to be apart of just because they're large and be forced to somewhere else. Just my .06 cents

As what many of you would call a smaller sorority, I think Delta Phi Epsilon has so much promise for the future with our forward thinking leadership and programming that our size will not dictate if we are here in 20, 50 or 100 years. The answer is of course will be, because we provide new and innovative programming and experiences for our collegiates. Even if we aren't at UT Austin anymore, we may get back one day! We're expanding often, closing less, and working our own chapters from within every day to make them fabulous.

I agree with sugar's baseball analogy somewhat, but I also think it's up to each organization to make themselves better. Chi Omega and D Phi E are not going to compete for the same chapters for a very long time, but we will on day :) (P.S., one of my best friends is a XO!). Don't take it personally. D Phi E offers things that XO does not, and vice versa, and we'll both have our places in the Panhellenic for many years to come. They say by the year 2015, there will only be 15-20 NPC sororities, and I agree, but I know one will be D Phi E!

Do you think that 6 to 11 NPC sororities will fold? Why? Numbers, money, lawsuits? Or will they merge as they had in the past?

These questions are open to anyone, not just shadokat.

I can think of several reasons GLOs might fold, although that doesn't necessarily mean they will. Expanding costs money - over-expansion plus a risk management lawsuit could put a chapter over the edge. Not expanding is a problem too, since chapters do fold from time to time - and it takes more effort (and money) to keep a struggling chapter open. (If nationals is monitoring you and sending you lots of consultants for whatever reason, the bills can add up fast.) Without expansion, you'll shrink.

Although mergers have historically been more common than straight-out GLO closings, I think that time may be at an end. First of all, groups need to be fairly compatible in terms of beliefs and traditions, so that limits their options. Secondly, GLOs had fewer chapters back in the heyday of mergers - many of the ones who were absorbed had maybe 20 chapters. Does a GLO want to give itself the burden of 50 or 100 new chapters that come with no money - and alums who probably aren't supportive? They might as well be signing their own death warrant.

On another note - as Shadokat said, size isn't the most important thing. I do think being mega-huge is perhaps some protection; but financial stability and good leadership are more important than anything else, and plenty of the "smaller" GLOs have that.

And what would happen when/if an NPC group dies out?

Its different now than back in the beginning, even the smaller GLOs have a lot of members/alumna compared to early days of NPC.

For sake of argument, I'll use XO. If XO folds, does that mean all the alumna groups do too? Clearly there'd be no national resources, but should that stop members from keeping it alive on a more grassroots level?

I don't know ... Iota Alpha Pi closed in, I think, the 1970s, so they should have plenty of alums alive ... but has anyone heard from them in recent years?

on a related topic
 

I found this when searching for Iota Alpha Pi. Kind of makes you sad to think groups were there for years and years and then folded....seems like the 1950's were pretty bad years....

Closed U of Toronto Member Groups
Kappa Alpha Theta - Sigma Chapter (1887-1941)
Delta Gamma - Alpha Gamma Chapter (1913-1976)
Delta Phi Epsilon - Zeta Chapter (1924-1958)
Iota Alpha Pi - Kappa Chapter (1926-1956)
Alpha Epsilon Phi - Alpha Alpha Chapter (1927-1955)
Alpha Delta Pi - Beta Zeta Chapter (1929-1943)
Alpha Chi Omega - Beta Iota Chapter (1930-1953)

It would probably be like if McDonald's ceased to have a national base. There would still be locations that would continue doing everything the McDonald's way. There would probably be locations that over time would change this or that. There might be locations that said forget the whole thing, and close the building.

I don't know how to say what I mean - if all the chapters continue to operate in the way Chi Omega HQ would dictate, even if there IS no Chi Omega HQ or governing board, you would still have a national sorority. Does that make sense?

I guess it is similar to a chapter of a sorority closing. They are no longer chartered ABC, but they met and were bonded in the sisterhood of ABC. The sisters, who became alumnae with the revocation of their charter, want to continue their friendships and community service so they form a volunteer group. They continue to meet weekly, but with a different name. Their meetings might still operate as they did when they were active sisters. Eventually, the sisters/alumnae graduate and the volunteeer group takes on a life and identity of its own, or it dies out. I guess that this is how it would happen on campuses nationwide or internationally.

I sincerely hope that the prediction that only 15 to 20 NPC sororities will exist by 2015 is incorrect. I would not be surprised however if some sororities do close completely. Haven't three to five NPCs closed already since World War II? I know that some merged with other existing NPCs. Perhaps that it what the future holds in store. All it takes for the complete termination of any NPC sorority is a risk management tragedy and enormous lawsuits which could result in a bankruptcy.

On a related note to DGMarie's post--

I have a yearbook for Univ of So Cal from 1947

In 1947, we had the following NPC groups:

AXO
ADPi
AEPhi
AGD
AOII
APhi
XO
DDD
DG
DZ
GPhiB
KAT
KD
KKG (new in 1947)
Phi Mu
Phi Sigma Sigma
Pi Phi
ZTA

Now it appears each house had less than 75 members.

When I was at USC in the late 80s we had the following houses, but all were 100-140 members, more or less, except one group, who had about 11 members and folded while I was in school.

AXO
AOII
ADPi
APhi
XO
DDD
DG
GPhiB
KAT
KKG
PiPhi
SK chartered in 1988

AGD closed in 1986-87 school year. :(

The newest chapter at USC is Kappa, chartered in 1947. Talk about a hard campus to be a newbie on.

Now of the 12 groups including SK charter, only 9 remain, but houses are at 150-200...

So seems like there's roughly the same amount in the Greek System but in fewer houses. I know USC needs at least one more house to make pledge classes manageable.

Lauradav could weigh in on that situation, for sure.

I think this is a very astute observation. Orgs that have deeper pockets, bigger Foundation funds, etc. can go onto a campus with promises of palatial homes, more on-campus visits, etc. I won't say this is a bad thing. But if all orgs came in on an even playing field, knowing that it costs $XXX to start at ANY campus and the chapter must put in $XXX amount over the period of their colonization, everyone may be able to be competitive....

I wonder, and this is JUST a thought, what would happen if you went into a presentation and you couldn't name the org you were with until the choice was made, like a double blind choice??? JUST wondering...

I don't know that AZD's necessarily bad at expanding on larger campusses. I mean, they've been at OSU for a long time, for example. And I think that we've been over and over on GC the point that different GLO's are better for different sized universities depending on a number of different variables. As far as putting a cap on extension, well, size isn't everything. Strength of the GLO is just as important. We pass threads around asking how big everyone is, knowing that this isn't all that matters. It's the same problem that we have on campusses, too. "Well, ABC here is the biggest so they MUST be the best because if XYZ were the best than EVERYONE would want to join it." Then girls get into ABC and find out that the sisterhood isn't as strong, or they are having problems with girls not wanting to participate in anything, etc... Anyway, I think that's my soapbox speech for the day.

The Administration would like to see at least 2 more chapters at USC in the near future. IMO we could use 4 more in the long run. The probelm is that to come on and be successful the men's groups need to change their attitudes toward the new women's groups. The other chapters drive the new chapters off campus. At the same time, coming onto a campus like USC requires a HUGE investment of both time and money. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Well being from one of the "smaller" GLOs I would have to say that I don't think the # of chapters you have has anything to do with how strong an organization you are. I mean sure maybe XO with around it's what 200 or so chapters has more money to play around with than Phi Sig who has 111 chapters. But I don't really think money is the main problem unless it comes to being able to buy a house or not. I don't know what can help smaller orgs get a few more chapters... all I know is as long as we do get STRONG chapters, no matter if they're in the deep south where they'll most likely be strong no matter what since people just WANT to go greek there for some reason, or if they are at a school that doesn't have that strong a greek system as long as people are joining the chpaters that do exist, smaller orgs are not going to die out, and I kind of take offense to people who are saying that they think that smaller orgs might "die out" with out even knowing the health of our national orgs. It is a good discussion question from the standpoint of wanting to get more chapters out there for smaller groups, but don't assume if we don't that we'll die out. :D

Hi all--

Check out the rush forum. I posted a question there related to this topic. :D

lauradav, I think that the problem you mentioned (the negative attitudes of men's groups) unfortunately is a problem at many schools when it comes to expansion. :( Hopefully USC will be able to overcome this challenge!

.

I have to disagree with you on this one, Glitter. Although we dearly love our GLOs, they are also businesses which require money to operate and remain on the cutting edge.

Housing is not the only area that requires money. Expansion costs a lot of money--publication packets, travel expenses, recruitment expenses, the cost of having a Leadership Consultant with the colony full-time. That's not cheap.

All your leadership programming costs money. Conventions and Leadership Conferences cost money. Printing your publications (like the magazine) is enormously expensive. I haven't even included the costs of your day-to-day operations of Headquarters Staff. Just think about how much the organization spends on mailing costs every year! Yikes!

Unfortunately, in many ways that old saying is true: money makes the world go round.

I've actually been able to see the financial spreadsheets of many fraternities and sororities (amazing what you can find on the internet) and I was stunned to see many of them operating in the red. Some Foundations are running on fumes. :(

I don't know what we can do to even out the disparity between the larger and smaller organizations, but you can't delude yourself into thinking money doesn't matter. And before any of you go running off to find your Foundation's spreadsheets to make yourselves feel better about how financially stable your Fraternity is...keep in mind what Cream said. EVERY SINGLE fraternity or sorority out there right now--I don't care WHO you are-- is only ONE or TWO risk management lawsuits away from filing for bankruptcy. If that doesn't sober you up fast, I don't know what will. :(

I agree that on the individual chapter level that money doesn't mean much . . . of course you can have great sisterhood even in a tiny chapter. And you can have great sisterhood even if your nationals is one of the weaker ones -- that's not what's being debated.

The fact is, money can do a lot. The larger chapters can afford to have paid, full-time workers . . . some of the smaller chapters can't. The larger chapters can afford to have more paid travelling consultants, thus having a better chance of catching risk management violations or just having a better chance to work hands-on, in-depth with problems a chapter may be facing. Groups with more money can have more elaborate programming. (You know, the national HQ who hires a nutritionist to flesh out their "healthy living" program, etc.) And I'm sure there are lots of examples I'm forgetting.

I'm not saying that money is the ONLY thing you need to be a successful national sorority -- as pointed out above, if you have innovative programming and are offering something that the larger sororities don't, you can definitely compete with them. But money definitely helps. And as long as the bigger sororities are the only ones at schools with large or prestigious Greek systems . . . the bigger sororities are getting more members. More members = more dues, more alumnae dues and more alumnae donations. And the gap between the biggest and smallest sororities will only continue to grow. That's why I think some of the smaller groups will start to "die off."

Oh, and I wanted to bring this point up:

Think of formal rush. Apply that theory to the bigger, nation-wide picture. In formal rush, we do have "expansion caps" -- total and quota. We have limitations on how much you can spend. And we do this because the NPC supposedly concentrates on inclusiveness and we want everybody to succeed as much as possible. So why aren't we applying this on a national level as well?

Again, I'm not necessarily advocating this, just questioning.

This is a GREAT question and I've had the same discussion with other Greeks. If NPC seriously wants to be inclusive and have everyone succeed as much as possible, then it seems to me that NPC has a moral obligation to level the playing field. If they're not committed to doing that, maybe they should cut everyone loose and make it a free market expansion system like the NIC. (Of course, this would probably hasten the collapse of those 6-11 NPCs shadokat was talking about.)

I think it will be a cold day in h*ll before we see either one of those options happen, but I don't know if you can call the present way of doing things fundamentally fair. I LOVE the NPC, but as a fair-minded person...I can see where smaller sororities think that NPC is talking out of both sides of its mouth.

Please don't flame me, because I'm looking at this on a theoretical level. This is a GREAT topic, BTW.

I'm not sure I agree with Greeklawgirl. It's like saying a market system must be totally communist or rampantly free-market no-holds-barred. But why? The US and Canada have free markets, but we do have some controls (no child labor ... minimum wage). Why does the NPC have to go to either extreme just to prove their commitment to a level playing field?

Besides, I'm not sure NPC's goal is to have every member org succeed equally. Yes, I hope most members think that would be a good thing, but it isn't the *purpose* of NPC. If the NPC believes in equality, it believes in equal access to the tools required to achieve equality - just how "all men are created equal" works in the US political system. It means we all get to go to school; it doesn't mean we all are guaranteed great lives.

I realize this argument opens me up to some guy saying, "OK, why don't you argue the same way for formal rush, then, and oppose quota?" - so preventatively, I just don't, so there.

sugar, name one sorority that doesn't have a paid staff, leadership consultants and a magazine, for starters. They all do. I'd love to see the financials you speak of as well.

FuzzieAlum, I don't want you to think that it has to be an either/or option. Obviously, there are *many* gray areas when it comes to trying to shore up the disparities. What I mean to say--and I probably didn't express myself very well--is that I can see both sides of the story. I wish I knew what to do to make EVERYONE as successful as they possibly can be. I'd be rich and on a tropical island by now if I did! ;)

A quick look at sorority websites led me to two chapters - one with six times as many paid staff members, excluding traveling consultants, as the other. Yes, one was bigger, but nowhere near six times bigger! Assuming that neither org is making really dumb financial decisions, we can conclude that the bigger chapter has a lot more resources per member.

This doesn't mean the bigger one is better, or even that the smaller one isn't adding as many new chapters as the bigger one, or that an expanding school ought to pick the bigger one - but that if a lawsuit hits both of them, the big one will be able to do a lot more cutting back to prevent entering everyone's least favorite chapter, chapter 11.

I believe there was a post a couple months back about Phi Sigma Sigma having an international HQ that was heavily dependent on volunteers. In fact, I believe only one of their HQ workers was paid . . . the rest were volunteers. I would imagine there are other sororities that are run similarly. However, I cannot imagine this being the case for the larger ones.

To use travelling consultants as an example:

My sorority, Delta Delta Delta, has 8 travelling consultants for our 135 chapters, which comes to less than 17 chapters per consultant. Theta Phi Alpha, the smallest (I think) of the NPC sororities, has one travelling consultant for its 38 chapters. If your chapter needs help, which HQ is more likely to get it to you faster?

I never said anything about magazines or finances . . . I think that question should be directed at greeklawgirl, who posted above me. And I don't believe anybody said anything about a group not having a magazine or leadership consultants -- just that they are expensive.

As FuzzieAlum pointed out, the more stable your financial situation is, the less likely you are to be put out of business if you're slapped with a lawsuit. And as Greeks, we all know that lawsuits are a constant threat.

So basically what this all means is, once you're an alum, remember to give to your org if you can afford it!

Applause, applause, applause! Even if it's only a few dollars a year, donate what you can to your organization. Every little bit truly helps.

In addition, if you are in a city or town with an alum chapter, please join it and pay dues. You may not attend a single function but if you can, join anyway. If there's not a local alum chapter, consider starting one or join your GLO's "Alumni/Alumnae at Large" program (AOII's is now called "Always AOII", and you can join it in addition to your local alumnae chapter!)

End of commercial for alumni involvement!
Christin

I've tried like 6 times to reply to this, and it keeps not sounding right. I either feel like I'm whining or bitching.

I guess I will just be Pollyanna and say I wish we could all just concentrate on building sisterhood and friendships and contributing to our world, rather than having to worry about totals and houses and paid staff and money and all this business crap. I wonder if our founders had any idea that all this would be part of our sorority experience?

sugar, my apologies for directing my request at you when it was greeklawgrl who made the point. She sent me a PM with the info. Thanks greeklaw!! :) And again, sorry sugar :)

You know, I have a feeling this is what our founders intended. How many sororities were founded with the intent to go national from day 1? How many were founded because they wanted to improve on the other options available on their campus? It was a competitive, let's-grow-as-much-as-we-can from the get-go for most GLOs. Maybe the founders didn't envision paid staffs and houses, but my sorority's founders at least were still alive by the time those things came along, and they didn't say a word against them, but happily kept going to convention and serving our fraternity.

Look at our goals - how many GLOs have something about aspiring, achieving, goals, reaching your potential, being leaders, etc. in them? That's not friendship or sisterhood or serving the world, so to say that's all we're about isn't true for most GLOs.

That is a common misunderstanding with our Org....we actually have about 5 or 6 paid staff at our Central Office, it's just our Executive Director of CO is the only paid member of our Supreme Council....

Yes! This is a problem! We haven`t had consultants the last 2 years...they're revamping the program, so we will have "field staff" next year.
But in the past we've had 2-3 travelling consultants for 100 chapters! (well we have 110 active chapters now), So some sisters really haven't ever seen a consultant.

Of course the idea of national "caps" is somewhat appealing, but I don't think it would work. Phi Sig is considered a smaller group, but I don't mind that...we have a lot of chapters out there, just not at Big Schools. And according to Ariesrising's Greek Pages (my only resource for this kind of info) Phi Sig is actually kind of average when in comes to chapters. If we add a colony a year that's great.....I really do not feel the threat that a smaller NPC group is going to disappear due to failure to expand

Expansion is a wonderful opportunity, but IMO, our focus she be on our current active chapters and their well-being for the moment.

Warning: really long post.

No problem. :)

We were taught, during our new member period, that Tri Delta was the first sorority to be founded with the plan to become a national organization from the get-go. That means that the sororities that were founded before it -- ADPi, Phi Mu, Kappa, Theta, Pi Phi, Alpha Phi, DG, Gamma Phi, AXO, and Sigma Kappa (am I missing any?) -- were not founded with the idea of being national from day 1 (although some of them became national quite quickly after their Alpha chapters were established) . . . and I assume that some of the sororities founded after Tri Delta were also not planning on it. That doesn't mean there weren't a significant amount of sororities who were founded with the intent of being national, but I'd bet it was only around half, possibly less, of today's NPC sororities.

And yes, most of the sororities were founded in a competitive manner -- but that was before they entered the NPC. And I don't see how reaching your potential or acheiving things automatically means competition. You can reach your potential without stopping others from reaching their potential.

Interesting points, though.

Again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I think the NPC has to revise its ideas about what its purpose is if it's going to advocate teamwork and inclusiveness while still encouraging a market of competition and division.

Thanks for letting us know . . . it's always good to clear up misinformation. And 5-6 paid employees is a LONG way from one.

Two snaps and a swirl! greeklawgirl mentioned something similar - that the NPC has a moral obligation to try and level things out. It's pretty hard to teach unity at the collegiate level and tell them to help new colonies, assist chapters in trouble etc, when on the national level it isn't happening. I am not saying I want a truckload of money dumped at our HQ's door (although if somone wants to do that, it would be fine) but I think NPC as an entity could be doing more than what it is.

On the other hand, no one MADE ASA join the NPC. No one said if we didn't join the NPC we would disappear. But I think that was what we thought would happen, so we did. We had a chapter at UCLA that closed in 1951 - same year we joined NPC - I'm guessing it was full of people already in other NPC groups. I think we could have stayed around without NPC, but we would be a different kind of sorority. Would that be better or worse for us? There's no way to tell.

warning, do not write reflective posts while listening to Desperado. it's really depressing.

How does competition mean stopping others from reaching their goals? There's such a thing as friendly competition. Yes, in some competitions, only one group wins (Greek Week) but in other competitions everyone can (formal rush). All I'm saying is we love to talk about sisterhood as if it was the only thing any of our organizations stood for, or the most important. It's certainly not the only thing; self-improvement is another big one, as is the success of the group, because you can't have any group values if you no longer have a group.

The NPC was designed to make competition for members orderly, period. Everything else came later. But that's not the same as saying it was designed to eliminate competition for members! The NPC is not and has never been about inclusiveness above other things. In fact, I'd say it's pretty far down their list. We are all assuming that the NPC wants us to be equally successful - but I've never heard anything like that from the NPC. The NPC exists so we can all get along with a minimum of friction and to forward the system as a whole. They're happy if a new chapter opens, but they don't care whose it is.

This might sound cynical, but the fact is the way GLOs are run is pretty far removed from the warm and fuzzy stuff of preference and pledging. It has to be, because we couldn't survive on warm fuzzy feelings.