Does early initiation=early boredom and attrition?
 

Our niece, a college freshman, was just elected treasurer of her chapter. Two of our daughters were elected to important sorority chairmanships as freshmen. It kinda seems like if you let freshmen be elected to big offices early then they'd be likely to burn out early.

Until fairly recently, new members weren't initiated until they'd made their grades and since officers were slated in the fall, the earliest you could hold an office--unless an officer left school in the spring--was the last half of your sophomore year. Usually it was a small office and then bigger and better offices usually came in your junior year.

What do you think? Could early initiation and getting early offices result in burnout?

I went through rush (yes, it was rush then) in February, was initiated in April and returned in September to find the Recruitment Chair didn't return to school. I became the Recruitment Chair. I have been an Alpha Gam for 22 years now and I have not gone through any full calendar year without an office of some sort (Exec Board, Advisor and House Association, International Finance Committee, Province Director, Area Coordinator).. I'm not burned out yet! I think it depends on the person. If I didn't have an office of some sort, even of an alumnae chapter, I don't think I'd stay active. It's just the way I am. It feeds me, it drives me and it makes me want more and more.

Dee

I held a minor position spring of my freshman year into fall of sophmore year. Then I was on exec spring sophomore year to fall of junior year. I was definately burned out by the end of my term on exec. We also had a lot of drama to deal with though. The whole exec board was ready to be done when we turned our positions over.

I think by the time you're a senior and you've dedicated so much time and energy to the org, you're going to burned out at least somewhat. I know I was ready to go alum when I graduated.

I definitely think that it does probably increase burnout.

Just from my experience in undergrad, the one chapter (Chi O) that waited to initiate until second semester (waiting for grades) has always had much, much better participation from their seniors and fifth years. I'm willing to bet a lot of money that they had the largest number of seniors still active in the house out of any chapter on campus far and away.


Giving freshmen BIG leadership positions probably also hurts...or at least I'd imagine it would. Not necessarily from boredom either, more from just having to deal with all the little bullshit things and the stress. Makes it a lot less fun.

I think it depends on the chapter size. In my fraternity a freshman would never be on e-board because of lack of experience in the fraternity. On the other hand there were some groups on campus that only had 15-20 members so having a NIM serve on e-board was almost necessary sometimes.

I was elected to Vice President of Alumnae and Heritage when I was a new member. I was initiated on a Thursday and Installed as VP on that Saturday. I throughly enjoyed it!!:D

As a new initiate, I was elected to Social Chairperson as a freshman. Subsequent offices held: New Member Educator, Vice-pres of Education, then Recruitment Chair. It didn't cause burnout to me, but I guess it depends on the person. If anything I think it gives the members more of a sense of ownership of their chapter. I don't think I was ever just a member at large. I can't even imagine what it must be like.

If you hold exec board offices EVERY SEMESTER from the time you initiate till the time you graduate, yes, you're going to burn out and not want to hear a thing about sorority by your senior year.

I think the problem comes with "well, Sally's already been on exec board...we can hardly ask her to be something lower like the Greek Week chair." Maybe Sally was great for rush chair when she was a sophomore....maybe 1) that is the only exec office she's a good fit for and 2) maybe her circumstances change. I mean, if ex-Presidents of the US can go back to practicing law I think our sororities can handle something similar. :)

33girl makes a great point. My best friend was president sophomore and junior years, and senior year was t-shirt chair. It worked out great for her. :D

I got elected Standards chair a week after I was initiated - which was hard, because sisters were angry with the decisions I made (which needed to be made) saying that I hadn't been a member long enough to do that - but I was the one they elected! I think that's the biggest problem...the younger members may be more willing to make the tough decisions that need to be made for the good of the chapter but then the older sisters get angry at them for being "power-hungry."

Burnout depends upon the person. I served as Chapter President for 2 terms, while also serving as President of History Honor Society, Director of Academic Affairs for IFC, Director of New Member Ed. for IFC, Election Commissioner for the Student Government, as well as several minor roles of leadership.

I think that if I could have continued my college career, a la Van Wilder, I would still be Chapter President. And after 4 years away from school, I would not have been burned out.

I think holding an office (particularly a large office) early on in membership *may* have an affect on burnout and level of activity as a senior, but there are so many other factors that come into play. A lot depends on the individual person, the office held and the attitude of the chapter.

We have a big issue with young officers and frequent turnover in the chapter I advise. Holding an office is seen more of a hassle than a privilege; no one wants to hold an office as a senior because they would prefer to live out, and you can't hold an office and live out at the same time.

It's really only been in the last 5-6 years that this has become an issue, incidentally, coinciding with the switch to a shorter new member program. Personally, I think the change to the different NM program had something to do with the change in attitude, but the change in attitude of the women coming through recruitment and being pledged had more to do with it.

We're going to have to find a different way to encourage women to stay active and participate their entire college career because, unfortunately, we're not going to go back to a longer NM education period.

It completely depends on the chapter and the person involved. I've seen it happen both ways: a person gets a lot of responsibility quickly and stays involved throughout, or they become overwhelmed and stay hands-off from that point onward.

One point though - there are plenty of chapter founders who are freshmen/sophomores, and plenty of young chapter presidents who stay involved through graduation and beyond. I don't think you can make a hard and fast rule to cover everyone.

We had problems in my chapter with newly initiated sisters getting elected into exec board positions and then becoming overwhelmed. I don't think it was their particular office that did it- rather the fact that Exec deals with a lot of the "bad" stuff in the chapter and it's hard to adjust when you've been in the New Member Bubble. Also, our discipline committee is comprised of various members of Exec, so that becomes another opportunity to access the negative side of chapter operations. Without a strong positive outlook, it's easy to get dragged down.

In general, we've seen a trend where there is a drop in retention the year following the first year of membership. I would attribute this to the time management balance, increasing pressures from school, personal realationships and that your new member class have been assimiliated fully into the chapter and there is no longer the rosy glow of being brand-new.

Burnout depends on the person and her limits. Some members can be chapter president two terms in a row; other members can barely get through one week of serving as a committee chair. Others who don't actively become leaders and sit in the background might be your best rushers... or they might just be there for the socials. Keeping everyone actively engaged for 4 years of college is tough.

I also think it is a good idea to promote leadership opportunities to members among the classes, and for various classes to make up chapter leadership so that it feels like all the years in school are actively represented. But I also think it is important to meet basic chapter needs like being at total to have a range of members to support leadership positions... and to recruit members who will benefit the chapter as rising leaders and/or strong team members.

Burnout and attitude clashes among members (which can lead to dropping numbers or lower levels of involvement) are inevitable. I think spreading the responsibilities around (committees, delegating work around, giving members different types of leadership opportunities) and keeping members personally engaged through programming that speaks to their needs and providing the right resources to support chapter development and prevent burnout are a good way to go-- in the past few years, ADPi has supplemented its Total Member Education program specifically to address this issue.

As far as waiting to initiate, that's an ongoing debate. I think... If you wait as long as possible to initiate them and then make it impossible for someone to be an inactive member (either you're active or you're out), you're going to cut the dead weight earlier on in the process, and more likely end up with a senior class who is really dedicated, as opposed to a group that may initiate in a few weeks' time and go out of their way to accomodate your lifestyle. But there are others who would disagree that we want to appeal to a broader base and need to engage them earlier on and accomodate their outside sorority lives.

Retention is a great word.

There are some people who can cope and others who cant. It is an individual thing.

There should not overtly placed on a to New Member as they also have to adjust to a new environment and life style. Pressure can wear a person out when trying to make a niche in said areas to feel fitted in.

In LXA, any New Member can hold any Officership but one, Ritualist.

While I may not agree, there are some who can adjust and some not no matter what.

While I only held One Position as President of The Local, I have been involved for 40 Years and Yes, there are times I get burned out from lack of Alums participating.

You must understand, We should have been closed for lack of Membership and lack of Alum support with a Very Old House. Now with a lot of Hard Work, there is a new House in the works, and a recruitment process in place to rebuild the Membership and Chapter.

I am so damn excited it is hard to explain, but More and More Alums are finally coming on board to beactive again.

Everyone loves a winner, it is teh ones who keep working to make this happy are the ones who will finally reap the reward of accomplishment.

Never keep someone in a Job to long or the job lets down the Chapter. In the long run, it hurts one and all!

I've often wondered about this, too. But in my experience, the girls who were really into it and did their offices well stayed active members with leadership roles right up until they graduated. The ones who sort of disappeared after junior year were the ones who weren't really that involved to begin with.

I do, however, think it makes more sense for older members to hold the "bigger" offices just because they have had more experience being members, and I think it helps everyone see holding an office as a privilege and not a pain in the butt.

Housing can play a role in why girls are getting elected earlier, too. I can't speak for other groups, but with Tri Delta, basically every major officer (president, new member ed, VP finance, etc.) is required to live in the house. Because we have slating in November and new officers take over in January, getting elected president means you have to be currently living in the house and you have to live there next year, too. By the time they're seniors, a lot of girls have lived in two years in a row and would rather have their own apartment. That means that few juniors are up for the role of president or other exec board positions that require living in -- so these roles often go to sophomores.

I guess I didn't touch on the early initiation part (i.e. after 6 wks vs after a semester). I really think that depends on the amount of people in the chapter and how much there is to learn. There's nothing that says just because they initiate early, you HAVE to put them up for positions. On another note, f the only people excited about running for offices are your most recent pledge class, and you're asking them because all the sophs and juniors are passing, that's a problem.

I think that it all depends on the girl. If she is willing to up with it or not.

My Big sister was elected President her freshman year. A couple of weeks after she was initated. She was very active and is now a traveling counsultant for us. We have had many freshman girls that step up that want to have big positions and other that perfer a smaller position.

Many girls chose our chapter because they have the chance to become a leader right after initation unlike the other chapter that sometimes only give them small ones when they want a big position.

Its not that a girl will get burned out because of the sorority, but because of everything that is going on in her life....school, homework, work, family,etc. It all depends on her.

As for early initation I don't think that there is a problem with it. I was initated 5 weeks after accepting my bid. I think it was a great idea. Yes there is a lot to learn and 5 weeks isn't enough time to learn it all but thats what the rest of the time in college and life is for. You never stop learning. Last semester we had the NM initated after 8 week. I thought that it just made them feel out of place. Many of the said after they were initated they felt like they finally belonged or that they were official. I really don't think that the period in which they get initated is a big deal. I personally perfer the faster the better.

i think it definitely effects retention, because i've noticed pledge classes that were new members for longer, even just one more week, tend to have more members stick around. I think with such early iniation dates sometimes girls don't fully realize what they're getting themselves into yet and quit after they're initiated.

i wish that the new member period had never changed. being a pledge for a whole quarter, returning a pledge after the winter break and anticipating my initiation sometime in january never made me feel that i wasn't part of the chapter.

all the sororities pledge classes initiated in january. some girls depledged, but not many members resigned once they were initiated.

now as an advisor, i have at least one girl from each new member class quit sometime after her initiation. i hate the thought of disgruntled girls running around with the knowledge of our initiation ceremony. perhaps if the new member(pledge)period was longer, the girls who were going to resign would do so as new members, not as newly initiated members.

I agree with FSUZeta. Initiation was something to look forward to after Christmas break. All of our sororities held intiations in January and thats just how it was - never thought another thing about it.

Why was the pledge period shortened? I guess I'm really out of it in my old age;)

As far as offices go, we could serve on a committee right after initiation. We couldn't be a committee chair or officier until the 2nd semester of our sophomore year. Again, it gave us something to look forward to.

I've often wondered about that, because I've seen it happen a few times. Why would someone choose to initiate and then turn around and quit? But it happens...some have legitimate, understandable reasons, but most of the time they just sort of disappear.

Back when I first joined my chapter, I was elected to the position of Vice-President of Programs about two weeks before I was actually initiated! Of course, I didn't start the position until the next semester, but our chapter was so small at the time that we pretty much had to get new members to take Exec positions.

In my case, the responsibility of the Exec position didn't lead to burnout. My burnout was actually caused by the exact opposite. While I was VP of Programs, I really enjoyed implementing new things to make the running of the chapter easier and doing things to help the chapter grow. The following year, I did a slate interview for VP of New Member Ed instead. I was the only person to do a slate interview who had been on Exec the previous year (everyone else was a brand-new initiate), and I was not slated for any position at all. By this time, the chapter had grown enough to where it wasn't necessary to bring new members up into Exec positions. It seemed almost like a slap in the face, a "we-don't-appreciate-your-efforts-at-all" kind of thing. (Not saying it was--maybe I was just being overly sensitive.) I just felt like I was a bit more qualified, having been on Exec for a year, than the girls who'd just been initiated just a week earlier! So I didn't even bother writing my name in on the ballot, which I regret now.

Anyway, the point of that long-winded story was to say that I started feeling burned out when I started feeling like some of the older sisters and I were being pushed aside. A lot of things happened that I didn't necessarily like. We felt like we didn't really have a voice to speak for us, and we felt useless and unappreciated. I'm one of those people who likes to feel like she's doing something--ok, a control freak!--, so being left without a position led to my burnout more than anything.

*Disclaimer: The above post may make little or no sense. I had a terrible migraine earlier, and the medicine I took for it has made my room start spinning right now. I'll come back and edit it later, if necessary!*

Theoretically, it cuts down on hazing, but I think that is BS. If your chapter really wants to haze, they can do it in 4 weeks as well as in 4 months - and newly initiated sisters can be hazed, too. It reminds me of the argument against curfews - "anything you can do after midnight you can do before."

So ten years later, I would love to know how everybody feels about this!

I truly believe organization retention suffers from rushing through the new member period. When the new member period is longer, the new members (both sorority and fraternity) have time to really decide if they want to make the commitment and they actually understand exactly they are committing to (their individual organizations).

I think it's best to start newer members off in "lower" positions to help them adjust. That's how it was in my chapter for girls who were getting elected for the first time...unless they were already upperclassmen with a lot of college leadership experience.

I HATE the quick initiation. In my experience as a chapter advisor, it leads to a lack of knowledge about founders, ideals, history and ritual, a lack of appreciation for the commitment needed for sorority membership and a subsequent potential for burn out, lack of engagement and dis interest down the road.

The new members in large chapters don't even know the names and back stories of the members and making them learn those names, majors, home towns and stories is considered hazing. What is wrong with a 15-18 week pledge period? Hats off to Chi Omega for resisting the trend and sticking with a semester long new member period.

I agree Katmandu. It was the start of the PC trend when pledges were no longer called pledges and learning the name, home town, and major, as well as getting to know each initiated member aka actives.

How did your niece do? Did becoming an officer so early burn her out?

Agree with you and those who believe that a new member period should be longer as it was in the past. IMHO the adjustment to a new school, housing, and a GLO warrants a longer period. I'm not comfortable with the idea of people being initiated before they have a semester of school completed when combined with their Greek activities. I've heard from alumni that the new members are often in mid-terms when being initiated.

She was only minimally active her senior year but it could've been due to burnout, her heavy course load, or that wonk she was dating that year.

I still think that early initiation=early boredom and attrition.

Basically taking any type of innocuous get to know you activity and calling it hazing.

I know there are always people who take it too far, but do we ban all drivers because some people endanger others on the road? Why join an organization if you don’t want to learn about it and your sisters? I have a sinking suspicion that a lot of the “should I drop? I haven’t connected with anyone in my sorority yet” posts come from this sort of thing…

Hear,hear, Kelsey. My opinion has not changed. The sororities did a disservice to their new members when they quit calling them pledges, shortened the pledge periods, required that the brief pledgeships be all unicorns pooping rainbows, and allowed pledges to attend chapter ( which can be a little too real for pledges or brand new initiates).

How a modern sorority chooses to train, treat and inculcate their NM will affect retention and burnout rates. A recent GC post noted a NM who "wanted out" of her sorority when said NM had only spent one semester of non-pandemic time with her chapter. Rightly or wrongly, and I won't judge, she felt the sorority wasn't serving and never would serve her sorority needs.

Not every NM will have a similar sorority experience, but it was obvious from her posts that at the very least her chapter had not prepared her for a good sorority experience.

I don’t think that anything about the last 2 years can be considered normal, and I don’t think conclusions should be reached or changes should be made.