[bolingbaker]

Thanks for explaining the usefulness of rankings. Most fraternity/sorority members don't care about such things, but they are very useful to those members who structure the rush program and market the name. "Justamom" makes the mistake most people make when they hear about rankings. If all the greek outfits on a given campus are about the same size and operate at the same level, then there's not much to distinguish them one from another. However, most fraternity systems have an established heirarchy. Some chapters are consistently strong, while others never seem to get off the ground. If you outline the characteristics of the consistently strong, and compare them to the characteristics of the consistently weak, a solid picture emrges of how to create a chapter that will be immediately defined as a winner.
It's interesting that "Justamom" refers to Kappa Sigma at LSU. Heller's Survey reported that over the life of their chapter, Kappa Sigma was probably the all-time leader at LSU. Good genes count. If they have good leadership, Kappa Sigma has a great chance to return quickly to the status they used to enjoy. They have a great house, and a prestige reputation that resonates among the families who send their kids to Baton Rouge.
Unless a particular school makes an effort to make everyone the same, there will always be chapters whose ambitions rise above the others. People miss the point. Just because a fraternity is "more powerful, prominent and presitgeous" does NOT mean that all its members are superior to all members of other fraternities. It just means that the organization itself has a solid name built on performance, and as a consequence they have a much better chance of getting who they want.
It's wrong to think that a good fraternity chooses between quantity and quality. On a campus with large chapters, there's no such thing a a small fraternity that's perceived as competitive.