Article from The Crimson White -
 

Have you seen this? :eek:

http://cw.ua.edu/2011/11/29/rush-process-needs-reform/

thoughts? anyone out there from Bama care to comment?

Blah, blah, blah. Same shit, different day. You can see a similar article in at least one of the SEC school newspapers (and many others) every year...for decades now. No one pays attention anymore.

I'm more shocked that there are people in Alabama cutting off cars to get tickets to see my Pittsburgh homeboy Girl Talk. LOL

How would a guy know if sororities are choosing their members purely on look?

he wouldn't-it is an assumption, as was the point he made about dues being high so that only a certain socio-economic class would be able to afford them.

i thought that the first response to the article was quite good.

Here's another response to the article - http://cw.ua.edu/2011/12/01/patrick-...-rush-invalid/

My favorite line? "Who better than a male non-greek to offer his opinion on how sorority recruitment can be improved?"

That's a great line, but I'm sorry, I call BS on the notion that "Joining a sorority is not about the way someone looks. It is about their confidence in themselves, grades from high school, involvement in extracurriculars and reputation throughout a community." If you look at the pledge class pictures from this letter-writer's chapter, it's obvious that selection is about confidence, grades, involvement, reputation, AND looks. Does she really think it's plausible that a group of 250+ young women chosen blindly would have so many size 4s with great hair and gorgeous smiles out of pure coincidence? (The SEC has a lot of pretty girls, but come on -- they aren't all 8s and 9s.) Would it be so bad to acknowledge reality and say that looks are one of many factors that can play a role in rush, and defend why sororities are worthwhile anyway?

I mean yes, looks probably takes part in NPC recruitment. However, it probably plays as much as it does in a job interview. I mean I can't talk about membership selection, but most likely there are other factors that come before looks. I did not attend a SEC school, but the differences from the freshman composites to the senior composites for my pledge class is ridiculous. We all look much more polished. Mainly because our sisters taught us how to use a straightener (never had used one before the sorority) to how to use make up differently etc. People can learn how to look more polished. I would be amazed if looks did play a major role in selection.

maybe that's a better way to put it?

Deleted

I tend to agree with you. And frankly, although I possess no insider information whatsoever and this is admittedly a lane swerve, at my alma mater I would be shocked if looks and/or connections didn't trump grades and involvement for at least three of the four most competitive sororities. Admittedly the fourth really did seem to value women with impressive resumes and diversity (racially, geographically, and socio-economically) and it really showed in the type of women they pledged, to the point that even people outside the GLO system noticed and praised them for it. So the process can work, it just doesn't always.

I would not be surprised if part of nationally mandated ranking/scoring/membership selection includes giving points for GPA, activities, etc. That much has been less than subtly alluded to many, many times. But if those points are the decision of a national organization run by women who are at a much more mature and wise point in their life, does their presence really make the process less shallow when it is performed in real life (vs. the "ideal" rush process in a recruitment manual), or does it simply serve as an extra roadblock that has to be manipulated or tolerated on the way to "getting the hottest pledge class everrrrrrr"?

This post isn't meant to disrespect any national organizations or collegians who really believe in the value of their nationally mandated membership values. I just think GLOs are an interesting experience because on one hand, they are a great way to instill leadership, maturity, responsibility, and confidence. But on the other hand, we have to remember these are 18-22 year old men and women who still have a way to go before true maturity. Some chapters are going to vote in rich bombshells over born leaders, some chapters are going to fudge community service hours or giggle through ritual, some chapters are going to cook the books so their finance adviser doesn't notice the money spent on alcohol. Pretending these things don't exist and that every chapter subscribes to national ideals just makes us look foolish in the eyes of people on the outside who can see a shallow chapter from a mile away. They aren't seeing the values national GLOs want to be used in their pledge class selection, they see the end result, and half the time you'd have to be drinking the kool aid to still buy the party line after seeing the "smart, accomplished, classy pledge class that was not judged on looks or expensive clothes at all!".

(And for the record, I'm not specifically targeting sororities, IFC rush puts even less focus on grades, activities, etc.)

At some schools and chapters, I'm sure you're right. I have never seen a class of new hires that looks like the pledge classes in the writer's chapter, except in a field like pharmaceutical sales, where they do acknowledge that they prefer good-looking, fit people. Obviously, it varies a lot from campus to campus, but the op-ed writer and the letter writer are just talking about theirs, and in her case, just her one chapter. Her pledge class did not need to learn anything about hair straightening or makeup or fitness -- or orthodontia or bone structure, for that matter. I'm not saying that they're all Miss Universe, but it's a really attractive group of freshmen.

I don't think it's inherently wrong to take that into account -- I just think it's wrong to do it and then deny it.

MUCH better. If she'd put it that way, I'd agree with her 100%, and the letter would have been a lot more convincing. She made it too easy to dismiss the whole letter as PR spin, so her good points won't get the weight they deserve.

You've also never seen an entire PNM pool that looks the way the ones in the SEC do. It's about self-selection.

It's not all about looks but looks can help if you have a lighter than average resume or no connections. Looks won't help you if you're an itch or known as your town's ho bag.

And by the same token, if you are a 5th generation octuple legacy and have several relatives in state government, you can look like 50 miles of bad road and still be at the top of the bid list. (I honestly think this scenario happens more than the one Old_Row used.)

In other words, fat/homely girls know that they should not waste their time? That hardly suggests that looks don't play any role...which is the only indefensible point the letter-writer made. I think we agree here: looks play some role, and the letter-writer sugar-coated that truth.

The Caltech applicant pool is made up almost entirely of self-selected students who are very good at math. But we know that's not the whole reason that all the Caltech freshmen are so good at math. The school is weeding out any duds in the pool.

Sidebar: Instead of typing "deleted" and adding a comment about drama you can just delete the existence of the post from the average GCers peripheral since it had not been quoted. :)