Same-Semester Initiation for Fraternities
 

I'm an IFC Advisor at a small, private university. As of right now, the university requires same-semester initiation of new members and does not allow any carry-overs. I am interested in revisiting this requirement and looking at whether or not to make some changes. I can't just say that we're going to do it, though. I need to have done some research and go to my Associate Dean with information.

I am a proponent of this requirement on campuses where hazing is a problem, and most people I talk to share a similar opinion. At our campus, however, we don't have a hazing problem, and we don't have a setting that would promote it (no chapter houses, lodges, etc).

1/4 of our new members this semester, who have already been initiated, would not have been if grades had been posted before initiation. They didn't meet national organizations' requirements, and they would be deemed ineligible to sign a bid if they were to go through recruitment again. Chapters complain about this as well as the financial burdens that some have, trying to come up with an initiation fee by the end of the semester.

I would like to see if there are other ideas or opinions out there-especially from other campus personnel or hq staff members. What would be pros and cons of making a change or keeping things as they are?

I know that half of our chapters here at Otterbein (sororities and fraternities) are rushed, pledged and initiated in the same quarter (we work on quarters, not semesters...10 weeks per quarter). Our girls are rushed and pledged during winter quarter. If all goes according to plan, they are initiated one week before finals week, to allow study time. THe other half stop pledging activities one week before finals, allow the n.ms to study, then after spring break, they finish pledging and are initiated usually the 2nd week of spring quarter. It's either a 6 week or 8 week pledge period. However, we did have one fraternity just initiate their n.ms about 2 weeks ago...which would make it about 10 weeks for them. It's their perogative though.

However, the initiation date should NEVER be set in stone. I don't know about NPC/NIC chapters, but we have the option of extended an entire class' new member period (sometimes called "plactive" (somewhere between pledge and active) status) in case of a) chapter emergency b) conflict c) schedule conflicts d) class unpreparedness. The bottom line is that we do not want to initiate members until we are certain that they will be able to act together as responsible, mature, and contributing members of the active chapter.

I'd be against having a campus rule on when we must initiate members for that reason alone..it would force chapters to initiate members who are not ready and take the decision away from the N.M. Educator and exec boards. Ultimately I think it would have the potential to be detrimental to chapter membership...new members who didn't quite get the mechanics of cooperation, togetherness and other chapter values during their pledge period could make for dysfunctional chapter interactions.

Just a thought.

Why control that aspect?

I really don't see the point. Let the organizations decide when they're ready to initiate. My chapter, for example is the only one that I know of that always waits until the next semester to initiate -- we want to make sure that the pledge class makes grades as they are our #1 priority.

I strongly disagree with initiating anyone in the same term they pledged for the single reason that you haven't seen their grades yet, so you don't really have any proof of their level of responsibility (people can say they have straight 'A's all they want, but need to be able to put their grade report where their mouth is). A number of pledges of my chapter who might otherwise have been initiated were depledged on the grounds of not putting school first. Students are at the university to get an education first; everything else is secondary.

That having been said, I also strongly believe in promptly initiating those who do meet all of the requirements (i.e. right after grades are posted, presuming no other requirements for initiation are pending).

(ETA: looks like ktsnake beat me to posting, but I agree with him)

er..I should mention that my school does deferred recruitment...not until winter quarter. So we have first quarter grades to go on.

If you think knowing grades are important prior to initiation, then I'd say deferred recruitment (Spring semester) is one of the better options.

I know if my pledge period had been extended over the holidays, I probably would have dropped. Waiting that long makes people lose interest or feel like they're never going to get to be part of that organization.

Phi Alpha, SAEAlumnus!

I am from a chapter that was a test pilot for the Minerva Project, now the True Gentleman Initiative. One of the main premises of this involved same semester initiation, and it bit my chapter in the rear. We were initiating goose eggs. My home chapter has since gone back to waiting for grades before initiating.

I agree with AstroAphi, though, in that some of the zeal is lost. Isn't it a more realistic, though, for a chapter to not vote someone in due to bad grades than it is to expel an initiated member because of them? I know that waiting can lessen the excitement, but if you want to go through with it, isn't it worth the wait? This helps get rid of some "dead weight" before the chapter has extended full membership and privileges.

What about the finances piece?

By the way...we have deferred recruitment for freshmen with less than 12 hours. We require a minimum previous semester and cumulative of 2.0, but they're not all making that during their pledge/new member semesters.

If they're not making grades during their pledge semester but have made grades previously, then perhaps the organizations are expecting too much of their pledges.

I'm not saying that you should be challenged somewhat to join a GLO, but we are at school first and foremost for grades. We don't want someone in there who doesn't take school seriously, but we can't ask too much of someone either.

Alpha Gamma Delta requires that new members are initiated within 8 weeks of their new member ceremony and I've had women ask these kinds of questions often. There are things you can do to ease the financial burden, such as: Figure they will be members for 7 months and therefore owe dues for those 7 months too. Rather than requiring the new member fee, Initiation fee AND the first 3 months dues prior to Initiation, make sure you get the new member fee and initiation fee from them on time and split up the total amount for the 7 months of dues over the next semester. That way it's more spread out and won't hurt quite so much.

If you are continually having trouble with new members making grades, select members with higher high school GPAs, pair up study buddies with new members and initiated members to help make sure they will succeed and/or ask for progress reports. They could have a form that they need a professor to sign a week or so before Initiation indicating that they are earning at least a 2.0 in each class. Also, make sure that you are focusing enough on scholarship during their new member period and not overscheduling them. Find out their test/paper schedules and put them on a big calendar and avoid doing a lot in a week where many of them are swamped. We do this for members and new members and call it a crisis calendar. We then avoid planning events when more than a certain number of members have tests/major papers due. Engage them in workshops on good study habits, note taking, etc.

We can carry over a new member under certain circumstances as long as we follow the proper process for doing so. I can't see holding over an entire group because some of them must have met the requirements for initiation. For us, delaying Initiation would also mean delaying elections which could also cause problems in registering for our leadership conferences, which usually has to be done in early December. You have to know who the officers are to figure out who is attending. Eliminating the opportunity for the new members to be officers greatly reduces the number of women who get to serve in leadership positions.

I am from a day when it was delayed in the fall semester but not in the winter and I do understand the desire to have grades in but I respect our new rules and try to find ways to help the chapters work with them.

Dee

I believe the NIC passed the Genesis project initiatives which included a ten week (it may be 12 weeks) maximum pledge period. (On a side note, at our national conference this last summer we had a business session that lasted until 3am debating whether we would go from anywhere from 8 to 12 weeks programs. We went to 8 after several hand counted votes. It took forever.)

If grades are such a big issue for not implementing this, the easy thing to do is have 2 active members take a new member to each of his professors and ask what kind of progress the student is having so far in the semester and then give a best estimation of a grade.

If the kid comes back with all A's, he's probably not going to have a problem. If he is on the line of the required gpa, the chapter has the choice of holding him back or allowing him to initiate. If, after final grades are posted and he made it, then initiate him the next semester. There is no rule (or at least shouldn't be) that you can't do more than one initiation a year.

now here's a question...would you hold back an individual, or the whole class?There is of course "all or nothing"...they either all initiate or no one initiates until the class is ready, thinking that it is important for the group to work together to get their requirements met. Letting individuals initiate would create animosity and discourage team building? Or, initiate on an individual basis , based on each individuals performance in the group and in their own projects?

You realize that this concept is completely foreign to NPC sororities. We would never be allowed to do either of these based on their pledge performance.

INDIVIDUALS WHO DON'T MAKE GRADES OR WHO DON'T PAY OFF BALANCES WOULD BE THE ONES HELD OVER AND POTENTIALLY INITIATED AFTER SPRING SEMESTER. ALL OTHERS WHO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE INITIATED IN EARLY JANUARY, AFTER GRADES ARE POSTED.

SORRY...REPLIED TO THE WRONG ONE.

INDIVIDUALS WHO DON'T MAKE GRADES OR WHO DON'T PAY OFF BALANCES WOULD BE THE ONES HELD OVER AND POTENTIALLY INITIATED AFTER SPRING SEMESTER. ALL OTHERS WHO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE INITIATED IN EARLY JANUARY, AFTER GRADES ARE POSTED.

Our chapter has had new members over winter and summer breaks. In the past two years we have had COB events after spring initiation, and we initiated the girls we got from those COB events at the very beginning of the fall semester. This spring we had one girl who had a family emergency the day of initiation and had to rush home. Clearly she wasn't initiated with her new member class and will be initiated the first week in September with our other new members who just received bids. This past year we had COB events between Thanksgiving Break and Winter Break. I'm not sure how this worked, but even though they had bids, their new member period did not start until the end of formal recruitment in January. They went through everything with the girls we got from formal and were initiated in April.

I couldn't imagine not initiating someone because of grades. I thought that's why the chapters received grade information on each of the PNMs. Then it's the chapter's fault if they decided to bid a girl and take a grade risk.

First, we are required to give our new members their initiation date when they receive their bids. I was under the impression that this was not just AST but NPC. (We were the only NPC, so I'm not totally sure) It was ment to get at hazing issues of withholding initiation.

This is how our recruitment worked. We could rush, but not bid first sememster first years. We would start rush in September and have events through the fall. If we had enough soph-sr interest, we would try and do a class in late October with their initiation right before fall finals. After winter break we would bid the first years (sometimes have an event or two before they went out) with initiation before spring break. Around the time of their initiation, we could usually manage a second class, there was about a week or two of overlap where both classes were pledges. The second spring class was initiated before spring finals. Then to complicate it, if our end of the year events were going well, we would try to get bids out and pin another class which would be held over the summer and initiate around fall break.

We had our strongest classes from the last two classes suprisingly. The biggest issue is keeping the summer hold-overs interested and connected because they are new. Then you also had to start the year with tons of energy so they would feel swept up and excited about it all. This was an issue for some because they had three months at home where people were not totally supportive of GLOs and so some did change their minds. This was the same issue we had over winter break when we could bid first years right before break but not start classes until after break. We have the 6-8 week requirement, but that requirement is 6-8 weeks of classes. for example, spring break didn't count as a week, because you can't have NM ed classes while everyone is gone.

We had some issues with women and grades, but our school was not always supportive of helping us with information. We could not have taken our nms to their profs and asked about grades, that would have been keboshed pretty quickly. We had to trust them to give us their correct GPA and then we only found out the actual once they were members and signed the grade release form. It was archaic, but even the grade release was a huge step for us to get.

Does anyone know any more about whether or not fraternities on your campus initiate before grades? I'm aware that NPC has a lot more established rules than any fraternity does, and I really think that trying to connect fraternity and sorority policy on same-semester initiation is like comparing apples and oranges, especially since Nat'l requirements and policy differ so much among the fraternities. NIC doesn't legislate how the fraternities operate, letting the organizations decide this for themselves. They recommend changes, but rarely, if ever, mandate them. I will be looking at the Genesis Initiatives.

I don't have any problems with the NPC policies...the organizations know that they have to abide by them. Working with fraternities, with a much less structured process, beginning with recruitment, leaves you to make more decisions, and I'm trying to come up with the best one I can.

For those chapters who do not have deferred recruitment, this can be an issue. Girls may have a great GPA from high school, but not have good study skills and completely bomb their first semester in college. And some NPC's new member programs are so short, girls can't really get an accurate representation at the time of their initiation of what their final grade may be.

I think Dee has some great suggestions in how to keep that from happening for those chapters with shorter New Member periods who find New Member grades can sometimes be an issue.

My Gamma Phi chapter does something that might work well for you in this situation. New members are required to turn in a list of their grades from their professors at midterms, and those who do not meet the grade requirements at that time are required to get weekly checkups from the standards and/or scholarship chair, and then turn in another set of grades the week before initiation. If they haven't met the grades at that point, they are told they will not be initiated with their new member class and we will wait to see their semester grades. If they made grades for the semester, we initiate them before spring recruitment begins (we have spring and fall, much like many fraternities). If they still haven't made grades, we give them one semester to try again, with heavy academic supervision and little "fun" sorority involvement, and if they aren't making grades again, they're gone. It has worked really well for the chapter and shows the new members we're serious about scholarship.

My chapter also does a grade check. However, some of the grades that professors give out during grade checks are not all that accurate. For example I had professors just say I think you have a B, because they don't really keep a accurate count of the points earned at all times(I mean that they really don't tally the grades until the end). I have also had professors not give a grade because the midterms aren't finished being graded or for other circumstances. We have had girls who met grade requirements from the grade check but then did not make grades the next semester.

Using the numbers from the first 12 hours under deferred recruitment is flawed I think.

Joining a GLO takes a significant time committment. If we are truly committed to our members' grades (or having members with good grades), then we need to judge their abiltiy to perform academically while under the stress of being a pledge/new member.

Some only require a 2.0? Wow.

My chapter requires new members to make above the all-men's GPA (usually around a 2.6).

If the current policy is aimed at reducing hazing, you might consider requiring chapters to submit their pledge process calendar to your office in writing, and to inform their pledges of their initiation date assuming that they fulfill the requirements.

We don't have problems with grades. I always wonder why a fraternity wants to expand into a school with bad students given the higher risks and lower prestige.

But, anyways, what is the point of a lengthy pledge period? You can tell how they are doing in their classes, they write their checks, they pass their tests and then what? They should just wait? Perhaps the brothers will bond with them more over 4 months as a pledge than 2 months as a pledge and 2 months as a brother?

-Rudey

From my experiance a short pledge period is usually a bad thing especially if there was a transition from a long pledge period into a shorter one. Let me explain some, if you were pledging previously for 8 weeks, and then switch to 4 or 6, there's a high possibility that all 8 weeks worth of crap is going to be crammed into a 4 or 6 week period.

I say pledge um all for 12 weeks, pledging activities only allowedon sat/sun/mon, mandatory study hours during the week and monthly proffessor reports for all classes.

At my big Midwestern school, only one fraternity that I know of initiates before grades are available, and they are the only one without a chapter house. The rest (nearly 20) wait until grades are posted. Since we do nearly 100% of our recruitment through the summer (again only the non housed chapter has any sort of substantial school year recruitment) we actually have a 17 week pledge period, with initiations held either the first or second week back from winter break. Our pledges can also live in the chapter houses from day one. Thus, part of the financial burden is mandatory because they're living and paying for the chapter house and facilities.

I am 100% for waiting until grades are posted before any sort of initiation or pre-initiation ceremonies are conducted. It's easier to stop someone from initiation than to kick them out and it's a lot less stress for everyone.

I would make sure that the chapters inform their new members that initiation is contingent on achieving a minimum GPA, and that new members who don't reach that will be carried over according to each individual organization's bylaws and constitution. Those members who succeed without any problem initiate as soon as possible after grades are posted and school is back in session. The whole class is not punished for the failings of one. I don't think it is a good idea to have the possibility that pledgeship is extended due to sketchy terms like "class unreadiness" -- if the expectations are clear and are met, then they initiate.

I would also say that I'm VERY much against the whole "shortened" pledge program for all organizations (within reason - any thing much longer than a semester is overkill). On my own campus one NPC group (a very large one) waits until grades are posted at semester before initiating - our sororities have recruitment the week before classes start in August so they also have a semester long pledgeship while other chapters only go for 6-8 weeks. From four years of seeing how the sororities function, I can tell you that the sorority that waits for grades has much higher retention of older members, higher involvement in chapter activities, and far less clique-ieness than any other sorority chapter. Every other chapter has far higher numbers of ladies that don't stay in the chapter for four years, transfer, only show up for football games or formals, or don't have any of their best friends in their chapter.

I realize that there are issues over hazing and such, but I don't think that shortened pledge periods are necessary nor sufficient to address the problems of hazing.

I agree with you.
Our university standard for joining any Recognized Student Organization is 2.0. Due to NIC standards, we may change that for fraternities...not sure how that will fly, as exactly half of our chapters are NIC. I don't think that the university will raise the standard for all RSOs.
I will be bringing this up with chapter officers. What you mentioned as your organizations all-men's requirement is listed as an NIC Standard...that would raise the bar to a 2.888 here.

What is great about Frosh Fall Recruitment is that The reason that they are in College is they passed certain recuirments to even be there, GPA.

LXA would like to have a shortened Associate Program to have New Associates Initiated. I dont agree! Getting Mid Terms is fine, but what about learning about The Greek Organization and study skills? Is the reason still there among us about getting grades and Graduating? Granted it is the long haul. But, I want some New Associates to know about My/Our Fraternity.

We have a different Program with The New Associate Program where they can participate, but, still need to learn about Our History of What, Why and When.

PSU still does this with all GLOs. 1 Sem. Upon returning you will be Initiated.

Shortend yes, get Mid Terms and Maybe Initiate before the time of burn out sets in.

i'm a Greek advisor too and in Texas. If you want to talk more, send me a pm. most of the fraternities at my campus initiate same semester. sometimes they will hold someone over if there is a problem (he didn't attend many functions, had personal problems, financial problems, etc). It seems the NALFO chapters are more likely to hold over an entire class, whereas the NIC are more likely to hold over just a few guys, unless there are other problems in the chapter or with the nm educator that would otherwise cause them to not be able to inititate.

if there are many problems with first semester freshmen not making grades, maybe the chapters should decide to not take in many or any freshmen, but i believe that should be left up to the individual chapters. i'm not a big fan of long nm periods (especially if it extends over a break) for most of the reasons already stated. some campuses will not allow mid-semester grade checks and some faculty will just not give them out.

i agree with a lot of what Dee said. I would also like to add this....how many people here or in your chapters have had a bad semester with grades? one semester does not make a bad person. i have been a chapter advisor and it is frustrating to get grades and see people doing poorly. i also remember that grades do not make the person. we have had members who are wonderful in all aspects, but struggle with grades. many of them had learning diabilisities and were working with the counseling center or their doctors to make improvements. there were members who were just lazy or liked to party too much, and they were removed from the chapter. it is sad and we often would have liked to not wasted our time. with freshmen it is also difficult to tell what their personality may be once away from home. i know of one girl who was just the sweetest thing and from a small town and probably never did anything "bad" in her life. she came to college, cut her really long blond hair, dyed it, got a couple tattoos and piercings and started wearing really short (nasty, really) clothes. started drinking and doing drugs. who would've known that would happen? she seemed so nice and sweet during recruitment.

it does take some time, but it's not something that is easy to tell when you meet a person....you can't judge a person's ability to study on high school gpa and college gpa is a little better. you should look at the entire person and what qualities they can bring your chapter. grades are something that can be worked on, lack of values cannot (or can be really difficult).

grades, studying and academic achievement should be stressed at all times, not just the nm period.

sorry about the length....i guess i got carried away!

I have to strongly agree with you. I SO wish we would go back to not initiating until we had grade reports. I consider it a barrier to entry, and not hazing in the least.

The students are there to go to school, we should be making grades a priority.

And I speak as someone who was a pledge for an entire school year because she did not the grade point to initiate after the first semester of pledging. I have only myself to blame for that.....

Some NPC groups require that the new members are initiated within the same semester they pledge. At Ole Miss the majority of the fraternities initiated in the fall semester but some do hold over until spring semester.

First, I realize that I speak as an NPC woman, but I wanted to throw in my 2c about this practice.

For us - professors are VERY much against doing ANY kind of mid-term grade reporting. We do use a form that lists the name & contact info for myself, my CP, and my VP Intellectual Development. Often times they will refuse to give it back to a member because they are not required to give them this information (which is crazy to me!) -- but they certainly would not give the info directly to two other students regardless if the student/member is there or not.

Sigh... it would be a wonderful thing to be able to hold for grades, but as it stands now, XO are the only ones on campus that do that. We have the 6-8 week new member period starting with bid day.

I was the first class at my school to be initiated same-semester. We had an 11 week new member policy, and we were in a LOT of study hour sessions!

Making Grades are GLOs prioritys first off for specific reasons.

But Making New Associates have study periods now is considered Hazing!:(

It should be a requirment for not only Newbies, but Actives too. If grades are not made, they do not get Initiated, or Actives get suspended.

So, we are all losers in this battle. At My Alma Mater, the GLOs can get Mid Term (Semesters) Grades, but basically is passing or not passing.

So, there would be the possibility of Intitiating during the same Semester.

Re: Same-Semester Initiation for Fraternities
 

I have no idea why hazing being a problem or not should have an inpact.

I can only give you information from my organization. For us, same semester is not only do-able, but the normal way of working. We do not have a GPA requirement, so that doesn't affect us.

Our National Pledging Standard sets a pledge period of 6-10 weeks. Tack on Rush week (usually 2-3 week of school), makes this do-able within a normal 16 week semester. With the chapter I work with, we normally have our initiations (pledges into Brothers) a couple of weeks or so before the end of semester. Typically, the only reason a pledge would carry over to the next semester is if they were missing requirements, and being given a chance to complete them, ideally before the next pledge class is started.

Hope this helps.

Re: Re: Same-Semester Initiation for Fraternities
 

One reason that many organizations and universities have gone to requiring same semester initiation is that it cuts down on the amount of time available for a "Hell Week" or "I-Week." In the not too far distant past, waiting till, say January, to initiate Fall new members, provided a lengthened time frame during which new members were subject to activities that could be mentally and physically harmful.

I even know of campuses who allow fraternities not to initiate spring new members until August or September, after everyone returns, and after grades are known.

Universities and national organizations, again, think that requiring the same semester initiation eliminates hell week for many people. Campuses where hell week was/is a tradition or a standard, I think, need to require same semester initiation and get the activities over with.

Don't most national sororities have a time frame in which the sorority must abide before the new members must be initiated as sisters?? I know that for Phi Sig our visions prgram is a four week program and the girls must be initiated by then......

For Alpha Xi Delta the new member period is from an minimum of 5 weeks to a maximum for 8 week from the day the NM signs their Bid.

Same semester initiation does has some positive and some negatives, but it works out well at my school.

Granted APO is under a differenet structure and restraint. But What Time Line is enough time for New Members long enough to learn about Their Possible New Greek Organization and Local Chapter?

Is not History something important?

If not, History will be lost on Both Levels.

Trust Me, I did not have enough timme to learn much about LXA History, and have been learning a ton of things on GC from My Brothers and studying after 30 + Years.

Is this much the same as We are not trying to teach the new leaders of this and other countrys by just passing them?

My new member period was about 6 weeks. I didn't learn everything that I would have liked but have have learned more as an active (going on 3 yrs) then as new member. I don't think there is a long enough time for new member to learn everything there is about the Fraternity, their is always something new to learn.

:) I'm three years out of school and still learning!

HAHA, not to try to be funny, but, as the Founder of the Local and an Actual Active Member for one Year before Graduation, it is tough for sure.

I Graduated in 1967 and am still learning to this very day.

Check LXA Thread and look at the Dailey Facts Thread.

Talk about a lot of interaction!:cool:

There is so much History Behind each GLO that is missed.

It is missed by New Members not learning about Their Respective GLOs and trying to keep it alive.

History is the building blocks of each of us.

Seek and Ye Shall Learn, dont and it can be lost forever.:(