Quote:
Originally posted by Peaches-n-Cream
Are there really schools were every PNM is a size 0, 2, or 4, six feet tall, and blonde and blue eyed?  I couldn't imagine it.
|
I think there aren't any schools where EVERY PNM is gorgeous, but the more competitive a rush is, the more likely that most of them are. Our rush isn't even known as super-competitive, and there is only one sorority that you HAVE to be beautiful to get into -- but I would say that 95 percent of the girls going through rush are above average in terms of attractiveness. Even a number of the girls in the so-called "fat sorority" would make your jaw drop with how beautiful they are.
It's funny because it's entirely based on comparison -- the fat sorority is really only "fat" compared to the gorgeous size 0s in the "blonde sorority." The groups on this campus that are struggling with their reps would, if transplanted to a lot of other Greek systems around the country, likely be in the top-middle tiers of the groups. For some groups at REALLY competitive schools, this is even more true.
But like Kiki said, becoming the "fat sorority" can take a hit to your reputation far harder than almost anything else. Being the fat sorority is harder to recover from than being the junkie sorority, than being the slutty sorority, even than being the ugly sorority. I'm not sure why that is, but it's at least partially related to the fact that, historically, part of the rush process has usually been not just finding girls that you mesh with, but finding girls that will appeal to the fraternities. You just didn't see the same thing happening with the fraternities, where they were looking for the guys that would appeal to the sororities -- they took who they wanted to take.
For better or for worse I've seen this changing to the point where a lot of frats ARE getting concerned about what kind of guys appeal to the sororities. But that goes along with the trend of guys becoming more concerned about their looks in general. AND brings us to another whole topic entirely . . .
