Quote:
Originally posted by James
Also, groups that are much smaller than average generally suck ass.
Bear with me for a moment.
In order for a smaller group to truly justify itself in terms of being competitive, it would mean that they got just as many qualified applicants as the largest groups on campus. Every one of which would be willing to accept their bids.
And then they would deliberately only take in the best 10-25 [percent of that group.
If thats not true, then all the arguments they have about smaller being cozier are just them talking out their asses and trying to justify their lack of competitveness with the other groups.
|
This would be assuming that every house is searching for the same type of girl, or at least that there's an equal number of each of the different types of girls that each house wants. The problem is that different houses want different types of girls. At a campus where the majority of sororities and the majority of rushees are the "stereotypical" kind, the rich, pretty party girls, the few sororities who don't want that type of girl will be hard pressed to find rushees that fit their house (at least during formal rush). But at many campuses, the girls who would fit into the "non-stereotypical houses" don't ever think of rushing because the image they see is solely that of the stereotypical chapters. That's why the smaller sororities tend to suffer.
I don't know if this is another one of the NPC/IFC differences, a difference between men and women, or just something I've completely made up, but I've noticed that fraternities seem to be a lot more concerned with "getting the best and the brightest" to join their fraternity, while women are more interested in finding women who fit the profile of their house. I know this is true for my sorority, at least -- we could have a PNM who has a 4.0, was class president, head cheerleader, etc. etc. -- but if she doesn't fit in with the girls in the house, we wouldn't bid her.
There are a lot of reasons why a smaller group might be smaller: their girls aren't as pretty/popular as the bigger houses, they have messy internal problems, they might not have enough resources to compete with the other houses, they might not have as much sisterhood as the other chapters, they might have a very small pool of their sorority's "type" to draw from (the smallest sorority on my campus is one that is composed of primarily East coast Jewish girls, and in the middle of Wisconsin there's not a huge market for that), etc. But I can think of very few reasons why anybody should say that a smaller sorority isn't as worthy of being a sorority just because it's smaller. There is room in the Greek system for all types and sizes.
Again, it all ties into the IFC/NPC differences and the way fraternities treat their organizations more like businesses whereas the sororities tend to look more at the women involved.
Or maybe I just completely mis-read your post . . . it's late.