Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zillini
As a general statement, too often I hear young women say "I didn't know _____ before I signed my name. It's not fair, they should have explained it to me." This applies to recruitment as well as things like new credit cards, car loans, you name it.
So my question is how much info is provided to the PNMs? Are they given a copy of the NPC policies governing pref card signing and/or bid acceptance or is it strictly how well informed/trained their Rho Chi is? Does it vary by campus? How much responsibility falls on the PNM to understand what it is she is signing and what obligations she is committing to? How much responsibility falls on NPC and the campus Panhellenics to make sure these young women comprehend the committment and process?
|
Zillini, those are excellent questions, I think. Furthermore, after having read a lot of GC recruitment threads over a couple of years, I think they're questions that a lot of college panhellenics should be addressing. It's at the point -- for me -- that when I see the almost ubiquitous "Bill of Rights" posted on a school's NPC recruitment page, I want to laugh.
(I'm talking about the document so many panhellenics use -- example:
http://www.illiniphcrecruitment.com/...p?page_id=1904
and on many, many other sites.)
There may be some disconnects between what that 'Bill of Rights" says and what actually happens. One that gets discussed a lot on GC has to do with the process, especially all the implications of ranking / not ranking after preference parties. This includes pros and cons of single intentional preferencing (and indeed, whether SIP is even permitted). I've gotten the impression, rightly or wrongly, that there's a lot of hazy information or misinformation out there.
Another issue is giving true and honest answers to questions. I guess it's all well and good to
say that, but PNMs may have questions that no one can or will answer, most notably, "why did XYZ cut me"? Since membership selection is private, there's no way to answer that. Maybe grades, maybe recruitment figure numbers, maybe not clicking with rushers, maybe a particular chapter's version of the dreaded and solemn "I Don't Believe She Would Be Happy in XYZ." Maybe other things.
I guess I'd especially encourage college panhellenics to see if they can come up with understandable, plain English explanations of the recruitment process, especially the "end game," if I may call it that. IN tandem with distributing that to PNMs and going over it with them, of course, recruitment counselors need adequate training and probably some backup local esperts who are ultra-familiar with their Green Books and campus recruitment policies. Trouble is, especially for small and medium size panhellenics, that could require investing a lot more time and effort in preparing the RCs. Still, I wince inwardly when I read things on GC like "my RC wouldn't let me SIP, but I know girls in other groups who did it." Yikes. If true, things like that don't do much for the credibility of the recruitment process or of NPC Greeks.
Having vented now, I must say that probably the majority of PNMs at any given school feel somewhere in the range from fairly happy to ecstatic with the whole process and the outcome. Really, it's up to panhellenics and NPC to evaluate whether changes or improvements need to be made.