Pledging like your founders did...
 

(or at least close). Does anyone have a good feeling for what the pledging process was like in the first decade of your fraternity/sorority and how it differed from today? If your fraternity/sorority chapter tried running a pledge program as it was done in the first decade, what do you expect the reaction would be from your administration, your national, your more recent alumni and others

As a sign for the changes in Alpha Phi Omega, some Alpha Phi Omega chapters in the first ten years required that their pledges showed that they were still able to preform scouting related tasks such as camping. I don't really think national would handle a chapter requirement for that all that well....

Actually in our first decade, there was no probationary period to be heard of. Universities and fraternities were still small enough it was possible to know the people on a personal level before offering membership.

I'd be interested to see what it was like to pledge in the same way my founders and subsequent classes did. I'd have to bone up on legal studies...

ETA: Also I'd like to pledge under someone and have a big brother. Founding a chapter has its ups and downs.

Same with us. The pledging period did not come into effect way later. Worthy potentials were just initiated.

Ditto for APhiA for the first few years.

who pledged the founders?

Society. It reminds me of the annoying saying "BGLOs didn't 'pledge' back in the day because being Black in America was a strenuous process in and of itself." :)

When "worthy potentials were just initiated" in the early years, how was someone deemed "worthy?" For some orgs, that distinction of "worthy" could involve an official or unofficial "new member process" even if they knew the person. It perhaps became more structured, formalized, and documented over the years--including taking cues from other organizations--and led up to the hazing and so forth that began over a generation ago and worsened in recent years.

It was usually friendship. remember in the early days fraternities numbered in the teens member wise if that. That was enough for the early members to get to know well each person before inviting them into the brotherhood. What was being stated I guess is that there was no probationary membership like there is now, because they didn't have to rely on fleeting first impressions like they did during the height of the rush period.

It depends on the values of your GLO. Every GLO upholds morality. But others may equally promote friendship, academics, etc. It depends on their values for who was considered acceptable for membership. This was especially important when chartering at a new school. Members may not be friends with potentials and thus go by their social standings.

Founders didnt pledge. They founded their fraternity. Most likely they were never properly initiated either, since they created the Ritual.

Many people know each other today. Childhood friends pledge each other. Cousins pledge each other. Siblings pledge each other. Parents sometimes pledge their children and vice versa.

Perhaps not a probationary membership like there is now, but I don't think "worthy" was always as cut and dry as "I know him, he is my friend who gets good grades and is involved on campus. Now he's an XYZ." I think there was some informal stuff going on in some instances.

Not necessarily. They could have been the off shoot of another fraternity or sorority.

true

sounds like good parenting.