Quote:
Originally Posted by AXOrushadvisor
The flex list in my opinion is the WORST part of the whole thing. We hate to do them.
|
Why? It seems like they'd be great. Is it simply uncomfortable to have a category of women who you want to keep but that you don't know if you will? Or is it that people read too much into them about how the chapter is performing and get anxious?
About JWright's great post about what to tell PNMs to "educate" them: I think you tell them at the very first meeting with the Recruitment Counselors that some chapter are required to cut a large number of PNMs after the first day and without naming any chapters, then actually give the percentages for some of the top chapters from recruitment the year before. Sure, if you get cut by a chapter you like it hurts your feelings, but if you knew that it might be one of the chapters that had to cut 50% or more, you would know you were among the majority of PNMS when you didn't get asked back to popular houses A and B.
And at the very same time that you tell the PNMS about the percentages the chapters release, you remind them that they system still works and that the groups that released that hard all made quota (or whatever) and XX% of PNMS who stayed in recruitment got bids over the last X number of years.
One of the things I've noticed is that PNMS always seem to believe there's something exceptionally hard about recruitment their year and will repeat complete myths about the number of girls dropping or being cut out or whatever being totally unprecedented. So it also might help for Recruitment Counselors to give little updates when the results are positive and maybe even to have statistics about what's normal for recruitment over the last five years, so that girls would know the system is working, rather than the PNMs telling each other, "Did you know this is the worst recruitment in the history of the SEC? The computer must be messed up. Half the PNMS have dropped out and none of the chapters are going to make quota."
The data about how things are going system wide exists, why not let PNMS in on it? "No, actually 80% of PNMs were invited to at least half the number of parties for third round, which is exactly where we were at this point last year when 90% of chapters made quota and 84% *of PNMS got the first group they listed on their bid card and another 12% got the second group. Only 2% didn't get bids, and half of them were SIPs. So RELAX, you freaks."
*I have no idea what number is realistic and this doesn't even seem mathematically possible, but you can understand my point, which is to reassure the PNMS that things are going normally.