Too fat to recruit: or, DePauw, the Sequel

[adpiucf]

The way I'm understanding it is that carnation is speaking to LONG-TERM RETENTION as a means to measure success. I completely agree.

I feel that we've made it too easy for members to attain inactivity without fully investigating their claims, and that our shortened new member periods are hurting our ability to retain women-- they simply do not have enough time as provisional members to know if this is something they will want 4 years down the road.

Campuses do vary, and members leave the sorority for any number of reasons. But if you recruit a class of 60 freshmen members and 4 years later only 3 remain, that is a problem. Your new members coming in are going to start viewing XYZ as a 2 or 3 year committment, too, and it will breed a culture of poor retention.

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

Finally...females using logic.

If only it was earth-logic.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by carnation

Oh wow, that first sentence really has something to it. Year after year, I've noticed that the stronger groups tend to know how to pick who'll stay in and who'll drop or transfer. Those groups end up with big senior classes.

Well, like everything though, the stronger groups not only can pick them, they can pledge them and keep them because the strong groups seem more desirable in recruitment and may be more fun once your in.

Think about the difference between a connection a girl feels on bid day to the stronger chapter she placed first vs. the second or third chapter she got because although she wasn't crazy about them, she wanted to maximize her options. Is it entirely fair to attribute the strength of her connection to the groups' ability to pick members with certain innate traits?

I think there's a tendency for folks from strong chapters to assume that the strength of their chapter during their active years was mainly attributable to the merits and talents of that group of members. Who wouldn't want to think that: our chapter of this GLO is strong because we're awesome? But the flip side seems to be "and therefore, that weak group is weak because they don't know how to work hard at recruitment or pick new members."

Certainly the present membership mainly contributes to the reputation of the group and really does well or does poorly, but there's another probably either a third or maybe even as much as half of recruiting strength and reputation that happened before those members arrived on the scene.

Surely people who work at the national or international level of the groups must kind of see this, or it really would be as easy as having a couple of consultants help the chapter for a year picking new members with commitment and showing them how to recruit. How often does that really work on a SEC or competitive recruitment campus?

(And think of individual members you've known: it's weird but I can think of chapters where every single woman that I've known whose joined there is amazing and seemed to belong at an even "better" chapter, and yet the overall reputation stays the same. Weird, huh?)

[alum]

How did all these overweight or awkward girls who are actives get into any uber-competitive sorority system? If the system is extremely competitive, aren't these the first girls to get cut from all the houses?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by adpiucf

I feel that we've made it too easy for members to attain inactivity without fully investigating their claims, and that our shortened new member periods are hurting our ability to retain women-- they simply do not have enough time as provisional members to know if this is something they will want 4 years down the road.

Campuses do vary, and members leave the sorority for any number of reasons. But if you recruit a class of 60 freshmen members and 4 years later only 3 remain, that is a problem. Your new members coming in are going to start viewing XYZ as a 2 or 3 year committment, too, and it will breed a culture of poor retention.

YES. I was going to say in response to NBH's one post that it's depressing that we even have to think about retention in those terms. But I think this is something that cuts across the board, for strong chapters and weak chapters. It seems that at some schools, you pledge as a freshman, you have a lesser office as a sophomore, you're on exec board as a junior, and then you're done. I have never understood the exhortations I've read some places about not having seniors in high office.

Also, as far as retention goes, you have to look at what's happening with women who drop out or transfer. One of our past national councillors left before graduating at the school where she pledged and transferred to a school w/ no ASA chapter. Obviously she stayed involved - she became a national officer!

I think that the "sorority is just for underclassmen" mentality among women who stay on that campus their whole college career is a far bigger danger than women who leave the school for things that are beyond their control. Especially if they can take alum status and stay involved.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by alum

How did all these overweight or awkward girls who are actives get into any uber-competitive sorority system? If the system is extremely competitive, aren't these the first girls to get cut from all the houses?

If there are chapters struggling with numbers, they may not be cutting anyone. See my post a page or 2 above (stupid @#$%ing nonworking multiquote feature).

There are very, very, VERY few systems where there isn't at least one chapter that isn't as strong as all the others by a considerable amount. I think Ole Miss might be the only one, if that.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by alum

How did all these overweight or awkward girls who are actives get into any uber-competitive sorority system? If the system is extremely competitive, aren't these the first girls to get cut from all the houses?

Well, one of the things that might surprise you is the relatively cute appearance of the girls that we might be talking about. What's not up to standard at some SEC chapters might be considered a cute member and good rusher somewhere else (see the regional war, Southern greeks vs. California, etc, threads for further development of this point). And the reverse might be true too; southern girls could seem insubstantial at a mid western recruitment, maybe.

But it seems that there are usually some less selective chapters or a few members even in highly selective standards, who find sisterhood despite not being as gorgeous or polished as might be desirable for recruitment.

[SWTXBelle]

Remember, with most PNMs we are dealing with 17 and 18 year olds who are away from home and in a very unfamiliar enviornment. It is no wonder the "herd mentality" holds such sway. I would not suggest they are shallow, but if you are in unfamiliar waters you tend to grasp at what you think you understand. So, a larger chapter about whom everyone has great things to say would be far more appealing than a smaller chapter which has "scuttlebutt" about their "problems". As we've seen in so many of the retro recruitment threads, tent talk and peer pressure can really mess up your mind as you go through recruitment.
My chapter graduated a very large number of seniors a year before I pledged - and our numbers could never bounce back, and we ended up in the death spiral. We had beautiful, smart girls - sparkling personalities, campus leaders - but not enough of them. We also were less concerned with appearance, to tell the truth. We had more girls who were not a size 2, and we also had more hispanic members. If we had more members overall, I don't think this would have been a problem. I don't know what the solution is. I'm proud of the fact we were not superficial, and that we pledged girls who weren't Barbie, but who had a great deal more to offer. I also wish that we could have recruited the numbers we needed to remain viable on campus.
I too am upset at the cattiness and shallowness sometimes shown by other GLOs when a chapter is struggling. There is no excuse for it. Every GLO should realize that the system is only as strong as its weakest link - and that every chapter which has to close is bad for the system. It's not an end-sum game. The more chapters there are, the greater possability for true diversity, and the more likely PNMs are to find a home. More happy Greeks means a larger system, which is good for everyone.
I'm frustrated by my inability to come up with a solution. Sisterly love comes in many shapes, colors and sizes. Also, a chapter is truly what the sisters make of it. We need an implant for PNMs that would help them realize that.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by NutBrnHair

I'm with you, carnation.

Too often, people get defensive because of their own particular situation.

And some times people conclude that the beneficial things that happen are a reflection of their own merit rather than any other force in action as well.

ETA: I don't mean to suggest that present members don't contribute to the success of their chapters. Of course they do. But the complete experience of being in a chapter may not be totally within the chapter's control. This is true for the bad chapters that lose members and for the good chapters that keep them. Consider only which socials a chapter might have for an example. How much control does the new pledge class have over which who will have mixers with them? How much change can be made in the average active member period, positive or negative?

[BabyPiNK_FL]

[QUOTE=AlphaGamUGAAlum;1476179]Well, one of the things that might surprise you is the relatively cute appearance of the girls that we might be talking about. What's not up to standard at some SEC chapters might be considered a cute member and good rusher somewhere else (see the regional war, Southern greeks vs. California, etc, threads for further development of this point). And the reverse might be true too; southern girls could seem insubstantial at a mid western recruitment, maybe.
[QUOTE]

This post reminds me of SEPC (Southeast Panhellenic Conference). I went this year and I saw girls from some of this "Super Southern" chapters that no-offense would have been shunned at my school. They had caked on foundation and blush and looked like children playing dress up with their faces. With spider eye lashes from so much mascara. (Not every single one of them, but some were awful!) I was expecting them to look like...I'm not sure, but better than what I saw simply because their rushes are so cuthroat. I couldn't help but think that if they could wipe some goop off they'd look so much nicer. But I knew that at their school maybe everyone tried to look like that so I just tried my hardest to keep an open mind. I know that if they'd come to my school they'd be schocked at what we wear/do too. Especially cos everyone's Hispanic pretty much. It's all a matter of perception.

[UGAalum94]

[QUOTE=BabyPiNK_FL;1476197][QUOTE=AlphaGamUGAAlum;1476179]Well, one of the things that might surprise you is the relatively cute appearance of the girls that we might be talking about. What's not up to standard at some SEC chapters might be considered a cute member and good rusher somewhere else (see the regional war, Southern greeks vs. California, etc, threads for further development of this point). And the reverse might be true too; southern girls could seem insubstantial at a mid western recruitment, maybe.

This post reminds me of SEPC (Southeast Panhellenic Conference). I went this year and I saw girls from some of this "Super Southern" chapters that no-offense would have been shunned at my school. They had caked on foundation and blush and looked like children playing dress up with their faces. With spider eye lashes from so much mascara. (Not every single one of them, but some were awful!) I was expecting them to look like...I'm not sure, but better than what I saw simply because their rushes are so cuthroat. I couldn't help but think that if they could wipe some goop off they'd look so much nicer. But I knew that at their school maybe everyone tried to look like that so I just tried my hardest to keep an open mind. I know that if they'd come to my school they'd be schocked at what we wear/do too. Especially cos everyone's Hispanic pretty much. It's all a matter of perception.

Yep, and when people describe what they wear to recruitment, some big difference are evident too.

It's just funny because some chapter's problem members in terms of appearance wouldn't be "problems" by most people's standards, it's just a reflection of whom they are being compared to.

[FSUZeta]

Originally Posted by alum

How did all these overweight or awkward girls who are actives get into any uber-competitive sorority system? If the system is extremely competitive, aren't these the first girls to get cut from all the houses?

not necessarily. they could have extremely important ties to that sorority, or more specifically that particular chapter-legacy status, close relative in a national position within that sorority, brother dating the chapter president, sister serving as an executive officer for that chapter or 4.0 gpa with a fabulous personality and a well put together appearance. sometimes, they just fall under the radar, and noone can figure out how they managed to get into "that" sorority.

[PM_Mama00]

Originally Posted by carnation

Well guys, anyone can manage to take a statement the wrong way if they want. I guess y'all have.

Again: through 35 years of involvement with the Greek system, I have seen that the stronger groups on any given campus tend to manage to maintain more seniors. They don't seem to have many who get married in the middle of college or transfer or flunk out for whatever reason. This is not a dig on anybody at all. Look at some of the rosters on college websites and compare size of senior classes.

And if you still think I'm trying to insult someone, too bad. You're way too sensitive.

I'm curious what people consider to be strong chapters.

My alum chapter is strong. One of my active sisters got married last weekend. Some have deactivated because of money issues, some because they wanted to get more involved in another organization and there was a time conflict. And then there are those who leave because of drama or they're not into it anymore.

Another chapter on my campus is strong also. They've had a few girls get married. One left to join the military. Some left for other reasons. I still see both chapters as being strong.

So I'm curious how other define "strong".

I'd like to add, that I've seen skinny sisters in any sorority look like crap. And I've seen bigger sisters look 10 times better than them. It's a shame that a sorority would look past those sisters, skinny or big, because of what size they are.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

I'm curious what people consider to be strong chapters.

My alum chapter is strong. One of my active sisters got married last weekend. Some have deactivated because of money issues, some because they wanted to get more involved in another organization and there was a time conflict. And then there are those who leave because of drama or they're not into it anymore.

Another chapter on my campus is strong also. They've had a few girls get married. One left to join the military. Some left for other reasons. I still see both chapters as being strong.

So I'm curious how other define "strong".

I'd like to add, that I've seen skinny sisters in any sorority look like crap. And I've seen bigger sisters look 10 times better than them. It's a shame that a sorority would look past those sisters, skinny or big, because of what size they are.

I think what Carnation and NutBrnHair have correctly noted is that the same chapters that might struggle with making quota also have a hard time keeping members involved for four years.

And that strong for the purposes of their comment (and I think most people as well), means having a relatively easy time recruiting to quota year in and year out and getting new members that the current members want. A strong group would have a positive reputation for sisterhood, socials, scholarship and campus involvement and honors, as well.

What seems to be hard for some of us to take was the idea that this talent for retention was presented as an ability to pick which new members would stick around, rather than being a reflection of the group's relative position to start with.

It's really hard to argue with the idea that members are more likely to be retained in groups who don't generally have a hard time with membership. Duh.

[FSUZeta]

well said alphagamugaalum.