I have to jump in here and give a long rant about the sorority bid system, or at least the way some folks abuse it.
I actually think the one-bid system is the best system. It does the most good for the most number of people, and I think it keeps most houses from dying off. It's not perfect, but I don't think many other (formal) systems could do better. Like MSKKG said a few posts back, many rushees get multiple bids, the the "final" bid they see is to the house they "A-listed." To me, that says it works.
However, the reason I don't like the current system is that not all houses play fair. Some houses abuse the current system, and would abuse a two-bid system given a chance. They would give bids to more people than they wanted to accept just to make sure they made total.
I'm not going to name names because I know its a different story on every campus, and houses and people change year to year.
But here's what I used to see: Some houses just want numbers, by any means necessary.
For example, one year Rho Chis from a house, let's call them ABC, told all the rushees that my house had a reputation for being selective, and that they should be wary of returning to our parties. Selective? Yes we are, but with good reason. We have strict academic requirement, so we drop anyone that doesn't meet it first round. It's not fair to string someone along if you can't give them a bid. There is a way for us to make exceptions, but it is very rare. (aside: same ABC Rho Chis also told people that the local GLO on campus was not a "real sorority", Did I mention our panhel advisor was an alum from their house who "dismissed' all complaints about them? but I digress)
Now the ABC house has a similar academic policy. However, they don’t drop people until third party. In fact, ABC is far more selective than us, and they are far crueler about it. We're the most selective house for 1st, 2nd party, but once we invite someone back to third, unless we discover they are an axe murderer, we usually invite them to final party. We think this means we string along the least number of people, and it lets us really get to know the people we are very interested in. I'm not saying that's for everyone, but it works for us.
Well an ABC sister admitted to me that they intentionally invite people back to second, third party who they don't want, and sometimes they invite girls who they can NEVER GIVE A BID to (scholarship requirements, right?). I have nothing wrong with houses not being as selective in the early parties, but this house is different. They're just as selective as we are, except no matter how much they "select out" girls, they always invite back the maximum number, even if that means inviting girls they have already "dropped." For instance, before third party they select girls they will invite to final, then the invite back as many people as they can anyway. Only if girls don't attend their 3rd party do any of the "b" list girls get bumped up and invited to final. And, before final party, they decide who will get a bid from them (And none of those "b" girls are on the list). Final party has absolutely no bearing on selection for them, some of the girls they invite will never be given a bid - they're just party fodder. Why? They want to be sure their parties look the most popular.
(Side note: The year the Rho Chi nonsense happened, we made quota, got half the girls from ABCs A-list, and had an awesome pledge class. Call it karma. I still think they play dirty)
Another house I know, let's say XYZ, has dropped people second party (After breaking all sorts of rush rules by telling the girl that they are the only house that really wants her). Then after dropping, they give the girl a snap bid when not enough people they bid accepted. Our panhel rules let houses invite back lots of people after second party, which is often well over HALF of the people still in rush. Would you really want to be in a house that doesn't think you're even in the top HALF of rushees? sheesh. The sad thing is the poor girl was so upset that XYZ lied to her, that she didn't attend anyone’s party - even though she was invited to three final parties. (which is why she was eligible for a snap bid). It also happens that the girls' RA is in XYZ house, and she makes sure that the other snap bids left under the door "disappeared" except the XYZ bid. (See, they tell the girl, we were the only ones that wanted you). I don't even think I have to mention this, but they later made the girls' life so miserable she de-activated. How unfair to the girl - I think she would have been mcuh happier elsewhere, if given the chance to look.
Anyway, long rant but I just have to say this - some houses behave with integrity, others will always play dirty. The one-bid system and the formal rush system exists to ensure (most of the time) parity remains. It's not perfect. But it's objectives are good: Give all rushees a chance to see all houses on a level playing field, give all houses a chance to select fairly, allow decisions based on mutual selection, make sure most girls going through rush are given a bid.
I hate to be the one to air dirty laundry like this, because it reflects poorly on the system as a whole. So my message is this: 99% of Greek organizations are outstanding. The system isn’t “bad”, some people just abuse it, break the rules, and hurt the rest of us when they do so. I've known a girl accept the bid for her second choice house go on to become president of it. That house really wanted her, treated her well, and she became a great leader for them. Better that than a house that gives bids to people they don't want then treats them like sloppy seconds.
So what's the problem here, the system, or the bad apples?
Panhellenically,
Paula
|