Topic dear to my heart....
When I went through rush I was wavering between ASA & AST. One of the things that put ASA over the top for me was that it WAS a smaller house (around 35, as compared to AST's 50). That's not a reflection on AST, who were and are lovely women, that's just the way I wanted it. I was afraid I would get lost in the shuffle in a group that was too big.
I don't think the quality vs. quantity argument is "fundamentally flawed" like Brad says - maybe there is a better way to put it. Something like "continuously maintain high standards." Even being in a smaller group, there was never a time when we didn't cut girls, not to purposely stay small, but because the fit was just not right. When we took 14, it was because they were 14 quality girls. When we took 5, it was because that was all we thought were right for us - not because we couldn't have more.
And everyone who said that when you go down is when you take girls just to have warm bodies, is TOTALLY right. It destroys a chapter because the members feel the girl isn't up to snuff, and because the girls themselves aren't stupid and often KNOW they are just there to pump the numbers up. And the smaller the group, the more important the interpersonal dynamics. All it takes is 2-3 people to really throw a monkey wrench into things. At small schools there are going to be down years where the recruitment pool might be lacking. That's just a fact of life.
Bottom line, not everyone NEEDS or WANTS to be in the largest sorority on campus and I think that this should be respected more by nationals (who obviously don't have to live with the girls every day). Once again, this is the reason Chi O, DZ, ZTA are so large. ZTA's 200 person chapter at Texas A & M offsets the 20 person chapter at Wherever U. The key is diversity in size and type of chapters.
|