National sororities that pioneered on a campus
 

In an accompanying thread I listed the number of institutions and the era in which national sororities were introduced. I thought it would be interesting to see which sororities they were.

By 1900 the sororities with the largest number of chapters which were the first on campus are obviously the oldest groups:

Pi Beta Phi, 24
Kappa Alpha Theta, 20
Kappa Kappa Gamma, 20
Delta Gamma, 12
Chi Omega, 7
Alpha Omicron Pi, 2
Alpha Phi, 2
Delta Delta Delta, 2

A half century later the pattern changed and some of the older groups became much more conservative and newer groups became more aggressive at introducing sorority life at new institutions. The groups with the most pioneer chapters by 1950 were:

Chi Omega, 40
Pi Beta Phi, 37
Sigma Sigma Sigma, 29
Kappa Alpha Theta, 27
Alpha Kappa Alpha, 24
Kappa Kappa Gamma, 22
Delta Sigma Theta, 20
Delta Sigma Epsilon, 17
Kappa Delta, 17
Alpha Sigma Alpha, 15
Delta Gamma, 14
Zeta Phi Beta, 13
Alpha Delta Pi, 12
Pi Kappa Sigma, 12
Alpha Xi Delta, 10

Move forward to today and the list reshuffles even more. It is interesting that some groups have sought out new territory, while some other older and larger groups have tended to wait until a Greek system is well established before placing a chapter. As of today the chapters which were the pioneer sorority on campus are as follows:

Chi Omega, 62
Delta Zeta, 62
Sigma Sigma Sigma, 50
Alpha Xi Delta, 41
Delta Sigma Theta, 41
Kappa Alpha Theta, 41
Pi Beta Phi, 41
Phi Mu, 41
Alpha Kappa Alpha, 39
Kappa Delta, 37
Kappa Kappa Gamma, 33
Alpha Sigma Tau, 32
Alpha Delta Pi, 31
Zeta Tau Alpha, 29
Delta Gamma, 28
Gamma Phi Beta, 28
Alpha Phi, 27
Alpha Sigma Alpha, 26
Phi Sigma Sigma, 25
Sigma Kappa, 24
Theta Phi Alpha, 23
Alpha Omicron Pi, 21
Delta Delta Delta, 21
Delta Phi Epsilon, 21
Zeta Phi Beta, 21
Delta Sigma Epsilon, 18
Alpha Chi Omega, 14
Alpha Gamma Delta, 14
Sigma Gamma Rho, 14
Pi Kappa Sigma, 13
Alpha Epsilon Phi, 10
Beta Sigma Omicron, 9
Sigma Delta Tau, 6

Gamma Phi Beta was VERY conservative regarding expansion throughout the early part of its history.

Yay for inclusion. :)

And I mean that sincerely, without even a hint of snark.

oldu, I'm having a special moment and just want to make sure I understand. Do the numbers represent the number of pioneer chapters chartered by the years you mentioned? And by pioneer you mean being the first sorority on that campus?

:) That's interesting info. Thanks.

That's the way I took it, i.e. we have 41 chapters that were the first sorority to be chartered on a college campus. Although now that I think about it that doesn't sound right unless our context is BGLOs.

In any case, thanks for the inclusion oldu.

Thanks for the nice response. Yes, on the list by decade that represents the number of new institutions where national sororities were introduced, and the accompanying list names the sorority involved. I don't have the list of each sorority by decade. What I did was complicated enough. I still love you despite your talking to me rude sometimes.

Wow.

But now you know that our rudeness is not life threatening. :D

Thanks for the explanation. :)

I found out who had been PMing you. http://tech.msn.com/news/articlepcw....1895&GT1=40000
I hope GC can heal now. ;)

Very interesting Oldu! Thanks for the info! :)

Question- how did you determine who was first? The reason I'm asking is because the SUNY system closed all national sororities and fraternities at one point, and then allowed them to return in, I think, the 90's. So a group that may have not been the first national originally, may have been when the campuses re-opened to nationals, and vice versa.

How are the NPHC chapters counted? Is it by any sorority or by council? For example, if at State U, Kappa Kappa Gamma was the first NPC chartered in 1924, and Delta Sigma Theta was the first NPHC chartered in 1925, does only Kappa count as first (sororities overall)? Or do they both count in their respective categories?

The first chapter to install is listed as the first, no matter whether NPHC or NPC. As in the case of SUNY campuses and others where the system closed down, the original one that pioneered is listed, and then when the campus re-opened the first to re-install is listed as another first. In many cases, several groups installed the same year but I tried to find the one that actually installed their chapter first. There maybe as many as 20 cases when that could not be determined, and in that case more than one group is listed. As in every study or poll, there is a margin of error of some minor percent but I doubt that any group is off by more than one or at most two. Believe me, it wasn't an easy task but we have the actual date of nearly 90% of the first charterings.

Don't forget Kappa Delta was 1st at Longwood in 1897. I am also assuming you are looking schools that still have GLO's not schools where GLO's once were but no longer on a campus.

This is very interesting. I love history.

Honestly, I'm just not seeing what's so interesting about this. I guess I should stay out of your threads from now on, oldu. Once you've posted all possible scenarios I'm sure I'll hear who "the winner" is and when the parade is scheduled. :rolleyes:

I'm personally waiting for an NPCs with the highest percentage of engaged senior eboard members in Wyoming in 1954 thread.

LMAO!!! :D

Now THAT will be the deciding factor for me. :p

Same here.

I think a ranking of the Most Candle Passes by an NPC chapter in the Deep South in 1975 is in order. I'd like to see them ranked by school and then I'd like that all rolled up by NPC organization in the South to see which sorority was the prettiest and therefore had the highest number of "drops" and engagements.

That was the basis of my question. I find it hard to believe that 41 Delta chapters were the first GLO of any kind on a campus. I mean we had a hard enough time getting chartered on campuses with an existing Greek system as it was. However, it is very believable that those chapters were the first BGLO on a campus.

I can believe it, what with oldu limiting the list to sororities only and presumably including HBCUs. (Of which there are like 97 not counting 2-year schools) ((Or HBCUs that closed))

ding, ding, ding. lightbulb comes on. yep I didn't even think about HBCUs--I guess I had become used to them not being included. :o

I like to do comparisons because, despite the protestations, people like them. Why is the US News comparison of colleges by far their most popular issue? I can almost always count on someone immediately protesting that the comparison means nothing if their organization is not as high as they would like or think it should be. Every year dozens of college officials protest the US News study a waste or unfair, yet the can't wait to see next year's comparison. That people can see thir own organization by several different standards is what makes it relevant.

Because people are sheeple and lazy and would rather some survey tell them what's the "best" college than to figure it out for themselves, or to ask hard questions about how the data was collected.

Yep, I was expecting that. I honestly don't care where my organization falls in your comparisons. I know Kappa Delta better than you do. It's more to me than a bunch of statistics. We aren't the oldest; we aren't the biggest. I'm perfectly fine with that. It doesn't diminish Kappa Delta in my eyes.

I think this all comes down to completely different perspectives and values. There are those who are consumed with status. Personally, I find it to be a sign of insecurity. I value different things in my organization than the statistics you've presented. What I love about my sorority and what I admire in other organizations can't be quantified.

So, I'll leave you to your comparisons. You're enjoying the research and others appreciate your effort. That's all well and good. It's just not for me.

Toodles!

I don't think it can be said any better than this.

Brava!

I rarely, if ever, respond to these topics, but I always read them. I have to say I've truly enjoyed everything oldu has shared thus far. I know Chi Omega's history, but I know very little about other organizations, especially those who are not on my campus. Reading these posts has taught me a great deal, and made me curious to learn the stories BEHIND the statistics (for example--It was mentioned earlier that Gamma Phi Beta was very selective for a period...why?) Those are the aspects of Greek history I find fascinating.

Cutie Hootie - I too like reading these historical perspectives. My Gamma Phi history is currently packed, so I'm just paraphrasing, but Gamma Phi had a decidely anti-expansion mindset for a while, and it was a bit of a struggle to change. Many feared that we would lose our close sisterhood or perhaps worry more about quantity over quality. These fears may seem quaint now, but if you think of the way the world was changing at the turn of the 19th century then I think it makes a little more sense. This is true of some other NPC groups - they were hesitant to expand at a rapid rate. Others, such as your beloved Chi O, had a very pro-expansion policy from early on. One of the things that I find interesting about the NPC groups is the many varied roads our groups took from their foundings to today.

We need another edition of Baird's to update us on our progress as GLOs. I, too, find it interesting and enlightening. I'm glad I'm not the only one that finds this information interesting. I guess it is because I'm old.

Very well said.

Historical info is great as long as it's kept in perspective.

We need to buy out all the old POS ones before they'll print a new one.

That, and just because it says "Baird's" on it doesn't mean the info is updated and complete. I know ours wasn't in the last one. (I don't know if that was our fault or theirs.) Plus the last one removed a lot of local and regional fraternity history and if you are really interested in context as some people below said, losing that kind of screws things up.

I know others have commented on this, but I just wanted to say that I see his efforts as 'bean-counting' - nothing bad, just interesting stuff. And it all depends on what the basis of the comparisons are. That basis may or may not be really important, just interesting. I do like some of the alternative comparisons some of y'all have suggested. :p Overall though, I think oldu's basic premise is 'bigger = better'. *I* think his efforts are geared towards finding that one, definitive criterion that firmly establishes a particular GLO as being the "best". I think he is looking for an objective answer with very subjective standards.

And, btw, my sorority was the last sorority to join the NPHC, and we are also the smallest of the NPHC sororities, so I don't expect to find us on any of oldu's lists. :( (<---- not really)

I do think size is a fairly important factor at arriving at how we rank a particular group (by whatever standard you choose), especially on a given campus. After all, the largest is either the most popular (by the number who choose to join) or the best at retaining members (smartest, happiest, best adjusted?). On the national level it is a little different. By most people's standards the largest is not necessarily the best; however, it is unlikely any group could be considered the best if its number of chapters was substantially smaller than the norm. My own bias is more likely to note where those chapters at located. I'd much rather have a good chapter at University of Illinois-Champaign than Southern Illinois-Edwardsville. In defense of my many comparisons, I think it is interesting at how different the top group is in each of the comparisons, indicating that there are many standards by which we can judge how well our particular group stands up against others.

Now see, this is where you start to tick people off, with crap like this. What's wrong with SIUE? Do you agree with the sororities and fraternities that keep open subpar chapters just so they can say they're at [insert Ivy/SEC/Big 10 school here] or so they can say they have the most chapters? I mean, it's really pretty easy to have a lot of chapters if you don't care about their composition.

If you're really doing this as a "service" just present the data, and skip the commentary.

Damn! I just can't keep everybody happy.

:D Hang in there, oldu!

You don't have to. You choose to type and people choose to respond. ;)

But the commentary does skew your "data" and how it will be received. Researcher commentary is often necessary but it has to be based on research or supportable conclusions and not just "I just can't imagine a strong Greek system....." :)

:( what about SIUC?

http://www.logoserver.com/college/So...isSalukis4.GIF

Go Salukis!

TSteven, I think you're lost. Please post in the Mascots thread. :p

I think I may very well be. But in my defense, it is March Madness and I've got college ball on the mind. Plus I am stuck at work, reduced to watching the SEC Tournament via the web, and getting more and more anxious about Kentucky's game later this evening.