social?
 

Is Phi Mu Alpha a social or professional organization. The PMA chapter at my school is very much social, though it seems as though they are not really respected by the other frats. Our Province Officer visited this weekend, and told my sisters and I that she believed PMA is not social. It doesn't really matter that much to me, but due to some personal issues, but mainly because we don't 'party' like the other sororities, the PMA chapter here pretty much shuns the SAI chapter. Which is really sad, because I think we might actually be able to accomplish things together.
:confused:

Hey vna8056. I don't know how I missed your message until today, but somehow I did.

Phi Mu Alpha is a social fraternity, although admittedly the situation can be a little confusing. We were founded as a social fraternity, but over the course of the 20th Century we moved toward being a professional fraternity, so that by the mid-20th Century we were calling ourselves "The Professional Fraternity for Men in Music."

In the 1980s, for a variety of reasons including Title IX and the desire to remain single-sex, we decided on a national level to return to our roots as a social fraternity, albeit a special interest social fraternity rather than a general social fraternity. Since then, the Fraternity has moved in a number of ways towards re-establishing the Fraternity as a social fraternity. Admittedly, some chapters still act more like a professional fraternity, but nationally we are clear that we are a social fraternity.

Adding a little to some confusion may be that we are not a member of the North-American Interfraternity Conference (the association for many social fraternities). Instead, we have maintained our membership in the Professional Fraternities Association, which, despite its name, is open not only to professional GLOs but also to GLOs marked by a common interest. Many of our chapters are members of their campus's Interfraternity Councils, however.

Hope this helps.

Phi Mu Alpha
 

Wow...It amazes me how much this question still comes up. We're a social fraternal order and have an interest in music. There are other social fraternities like Farm House or Triangle that have their own special emphasis. As far as external parties at the university that are in denial of us being social, they are fools and ignorant about the truth. You'll come across those kinds of people in every profession, walk of life, or society. Until they become educated about the matter they're in the dark.

Fraternally,

Boodleboy322

Sinfonia *was* professional -- I was there.
 

I pledged Phi Mu Alpha in 1976, at the height of the professional era. At every opportunity, Sinfonia vigorously denied that it was a social fraternity, and insisted that it was professional through and through.

I would not have joined a social fraternity; I wanted a professional organization and I found one.

Now Phi Mu Alpha claims to be social, and many Sinfonians assert that the organization has never been professional. But something that disturbs me greatly is as follows. With rare exception, the brothers who most loudly proclaim that the fraternity has always been social were not members of Sinfonia during the 1970s. Indeed, many of them had not even been born yet. What makes them such experts on the fraternity's history?

Myself, I do not know what happened in 1898, but I am a personal witness to Phi Mu Alpha in the late 1970s, and it was proud to describe itself as a professional fraternity.

- - Dave Barber, Eta-Omicron 1976

Hello Brother Barber, and welcome to GreekChat!

I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone claim that Sinfonia has always been social. I've heard many claim, and I think that history bears it out, that Sinfonia was founded as a social fraternity (not a general fraternity -- the two terms are not identical) and that while professionalism clearly ruled the day for many decades, the movement of the last two decades has been to return to founding principles, including recovery of the Fraternity's social purposes.

Like you, I pledged Phi Mu Alpha in the professional days, but my experience was a bit different from yours. While leadership at the time indeed insisted that the Fraternity was professional through and through, my chapter and those nearby mine emphasized the social rather at least as much if not more than the professional. You would hear our brothers saying things like, "yes, we're a professional fraternity, but that doesn't really describe who we are." My impression -- based on nothing but personal observation -- is that the professional-social balance varied in different regions of the country, with some areas leaning more to professional while others leaned more to social.

As for what was going on in 1898, a great deal of historical research has been done in the last few decades, with much material that was buried in boxes and elsewhere having been read and studied. Both in efforts like Jervis Underwood's Centennial History and other projects, that history has been disseminated much more widely than I can remember being the case back when I was in college. I do think I can safely say that collegiate members these days are much more familiar with, or at least have much greater access to, Sinfonian history than was the case when I pledged.

BTW, Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia officially withdrew from the Professional Fraternity Association yesterday (August 13).

History.
 

Thanks to MysticCat for his thoughtful response.

MC: "I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone claim that Sinfonia has always been social."

Of course, many Sinfonians do acknowledge that the professional-social balance has often been uncertain, ambiguous or wavering. But about five years ago, I participated in a discussion group (perhaps Google or Yahoo) where several brothers initiated in the late 1990s practically called me a liar for saying that at one time the fraternity described itself as professional. I suspect that they had undergone an intense we've-always-been-social indoctrination. I am glad that your contact has been with people who are more reasonable.

MC: "the movement of the last two decades has been to return to founding principles, including recovery of the Fraternity's social purposes."

One might conclude that during the professional period of the 1970s, Phi Mu Alpha -- although for benign reasons -- misrepresented itself.

MC: "My impression -- based on nothing but personal observation -- is that the professional-social balance varied in different regions of the country, with some areas leaning more to professional while others leaned more to social."

Absolute truth.

MC: "As for what was going on in 1898, a great deal of historical research has been done in the last few decades, with much material that was buried in boxes and elsewhere having been read and studied."

I firmly believe that a thorough knowledge of the fraternity's history enriches every brother's experience; it is indispensible. Yet I do not feel compelled to do everything the same way as it was done in 1898. Is it never right to proceed in a new direction?

MC: "BTW, Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia officially withdrew from the Professional Fraternity Association yesterday (August 13)."

The deprofessionalization of Sinfonia has taken more than two decades, if you regard the 1985 convention as the beginning. This shows how deeply the professional vein runs.

- - Dave Barber

And thanks for your's as well.

Well, at least you had the comfort of knowing you were right. :D

Possibly, but I tend to think of it as "taking a different road" for a while, then going back to the original road. We were on the professional road -- or somewhere in between -- for a while.

No, you are exactly right. Sometimes it is very right to proceed in a new direction -- what's important, I think, is that there be as broad agreement as possible for a new direction. And I am willing to give collegians the deciding vote on that -- they are in the best position to assess what will further the Fraternity's growth because growth happens at the collegiate level.

Without question, and questions like whether to retain membership in the PFA have been fraught with far-reaching implications. For at least a decade, that question has been batted around -- was it better to stay a member, given that PFA membership is open to any fraternity where members share a "common interest," and be part of an umbrella organization even if it risks sending a "mixed message"? What will be the effect at the local level, such as with campus IFC involvement? (Some of our chapters are members of campus IFCs, but most are not).

I've long thought that our nearest "analogous" GLOs are not the "general" social GLOs, but rather are groups like Triangle, FarmHouse, Alpha Gamma Rho and the like -- social fraternities where membership is based on studying or being interested in a particular field.

These are interesting days.

Social vs Professional Experience
 

Do any of you suppose that one of the reasons it's tough to get alumni to start up Alumni Associations or be active after college is due to the whole "I had a Professional Experience" vs. "I had a Social Experience"?

I don't necessarily agree that this is a good reason to not support the brotherhood in the post-collegiate experience.

Regards,

Boodleboy322

nope...I believe its because the organization itself is so expensive

I'm not sure it's either one -- I don't think it's that expensive, and I doubt it's the "I had a professional experience" either.

I think it's just that starting an AA takes a lot of work, which requires time and energy that lots of brothers don't have or are hesitant to invest. I think new alums would be much more willing to join already active AAs; but the reality for us is that right now, we have too few of them, so in most cases, a start-up is required. Thankfully, the situation is better than it was a few years ago, and will, I hope, continue to improve.

Texas Regional Workshop
 

I believe that there were appx. 5 distinct Alumni Associations, from Oklahoma and Texas, that were at Mongiovi's "Presentation" at the Regional Workshop in Austin, TX.

Greetings all,

As a charter member and current President of the NYCAA I'll try best to answer this.

Currently there are 10 alumni associations in the U.S. The reason we don't have as many as say Sigma Alpha Iota is that not until the past 10 years has Sinfonia focused itself on keeping the alumni brothers in the fold, and giving them opportunities to stay active (besides hanging out at their old chapter). Before the mid-90's any attempt to establish or maintain alumni chapters fizzled; now we have 10 healthy alumni association and more to come! An important factor in this has been the change in the philosophy of our leaders (change in purposes, etc...), the support of a dedicated alumni staff member @ Lyrecrest, Dan Krueger, but also the mission change of the Sinfonia Educational Foundation. Plus the strategic plan of the fraternity...an absolutely amazing document - take a read!
(Its on Sinfonia.org)

Hope this makes sense!

Fraternally,
Rich Legon
President, NYC Alumni Association

PAC Question
 

Rich,

Since you are an active Alumni I will ask you this. Do you agree with the decision of requiring PACs and PGs to contribute to the SEF? What is your opinion about members who would rather just donate to the National Fraternity instead of the SEF regardless of any Tax Break?

Regards,

Boodleboy322

I'm not Rich, but I'll throw in my $0.02. Whenever I have been an officer, board member or whatever of any non-profit organization, there has always been the expectation that every officer and board member will give to every fund drive, capital campaign, foundation or whatever. I don't think anyone should accept such a position who is not willing to support every fund-raising effort.

There has always been the understanding, of course, that some can support more than others. You give what you can. The important thing is to be able to say that "all of our officers/board members have given." (That can be particularly important if you go looking for grants.)