Just failed my new member exam- need some encouragement

[Senusret I]

^^^ Not to be in your business, but I am assuming what you're saying is that the NMs have to attend presentations on history, policy, whatever else the sorority deems as important, but there is no tool for assessing whether they retained any of the info?

If that's the case, is there also any objective tool for disqualifying someone from the process entirely? (Attendance points, for example)

[littleowl33]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

^^^ Not to be in your business, but I am assuming what you're saying is that the NMs have to attend presentations on history, policy, whatever else the sorority deems as important, but there is no tool for assessing whether they retained any of the info?

If that's the case, is there also any objective tool for disqualifying someone from the process entirely? (Attendance points, for example)

You're correct. Attendance at the weekly presentations is required for Initiation, but no, there are no checks on whether a New Member has studied/retained the information. I wish there was, and I think the organization would benefit by requiring that New Members show that they know Fraternity history, but I understand why they're careful. In my experience the New Members are respectful, pay attention and learn... if they were snots, we probably wouldn't have bid them in the first place!

[KSUViolet06]

My sorority is one that does have a NM exam and I believe a few others do as well. As far as Sigma is concerned, it counts. A NM must pass the exam before she can be initiated.

If you fail, you may re-take it, but you likely aren't going to be initiated with your class (due to time constraints).

[ihearttrisigma]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

My sorority is one that does have a NM exam and I believe a few others do as well. As far as Sigma is concerned, it counts. A NM must pass the exam before she can be initiated.

If you fail, you may re-take it, but you likely aren't going to be initiated with your class (due to time constraints).

In our chapter everyone took the NM test, both initiated sisters and obviously the NMs. I believe we started this at the instruction of our installing officers for all future NM classes, because if we all were taking the test then it wasn't singling out the NMs which could be understood as hazing.

[KSUViolet06]

Originally Posted by ihearttrisigma

In our chapter everyone took the NM test, both initiated sisters and obviously the NMs. I believe we started this at the instruction of our installing officers for all future NM classes, because if we all were taking the test then it wasn't singling out the NMs which could be understood as hazing.

My chapter actually does the same thing. We were talking about NMs, so I forgot to mention it! We were expected to pass it, but I really don't know what happens if an initiated sister fails. I don't think it ever happened, lol.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by littleowl33

You're correct. Attendance at the weekly presentations is required for Initiation, but no, there are no checks on whether a New Member has studied/retained the information. I wish there was, and I think the organization would benefit by requiring that New Members show that they know Fraternity history, but I understand why they're careful. In my experience the New Members are respectful, pay attention and learn... if they were snots, we probably wouldn't have bid them in the first place!

I'm sorry but I don't see how requiring attendance and making sure they actually paid attention are separate. Also I fail to see how test would be hazing as you would expect the sisters to know your history.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

I'm sorry but I don't see how requiring attendance and making sure they actually paid attention are separate. Also I fail to see how test would be hazing as you would expect the sisters to know your history.

Tests in any form are always hazing.

I can definitely see a reason for considering a NM exam hazing.

I disagree with removing them, but I understand.

[Kappamd]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

I'm sorry but I don't see how requiring attendance and making sure they actually paid attention are separate. Also I fail to see how test would be hazing as you would expect the sisters to know your history.

I believe that Kappa defines hazing as any activity that is not required by ALL members (active or new member) and that is why exams are not allowed.

Edit: Now that I think about it, isn't that the basic universal definition of hazing?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kappamd

I believe that Kappa defines hazing as any activity that is not required by ALL members (active or new member) and that is why exams are not allowed.

Edit: Now that I think about it, isn't that the basic universal definition of hazing?

I have heard that definition but many organizations to not subscribe to it. And neither do I. New members and actives don't have to do the same thing for a reason. But, actives had to do it when they were new members.

[thetygerlily]

Originally Posted by Kappamd

I believe that Kappa defines hazing as any activity that is not required by ALL members (active or new member) and that is why exams are not allowed.

Originally Posted by Kappamd

Edit: Now that I think about it, isn't that the basic universal definition of hazing?

I went to the Kappa website on hazing, and here is the definition:
Kappa Kappa Gamma Hazing Policy
Hazing is defined as any activity or action taken with or without consent of the individual involved that produces mental, emotional, psychological or physical discomfort, intimidation, humiliation, degradation, embarrassment, harassment or ridicule. Such activities and situations include but are not limited to, blindfolding for any purpose; creation of excessive fatigue; physical and psychological shocks; treasure hunts, scavenger hunts or kidnaps; wearing apparel that is conspicuous and not normally in good taste: engaging in stunts or degrading or humiliating games and activities; and late work sessions.

Under examples, it specifies "Asking new members to pass a test for initiation."

Handled properly a test wouldn't have to be hazing, but perhaps some people crossed the line a few too many times and they decided to play it safe and discontinue it.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by thetygerlily

Under examples, it species "Asking new members to pass a test for initiation."

Handled properly a test wouldn't have to be hazing, but perhaps some people crossed the line a few too many times and they decided to play it safe and discontinue it.

I read this and wouldn't assume they meant a NM test that was formally written and administered.** Actives can make testing conditions torturous but perhaps organizations should take that up with the chapters.

** "Test for initiation" could be "jog 300 laps to test your love for this organization."

[Kappamd]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

^^^ Not to be in your business, but I am assuming what you're saying is that the NMs have to attend presentations on history, policy, whatever else the sorority deems as important, but there is no tool for assessing whether they retained any of the info?

If that's the case, is there also any objective tool for disqualifying someone from the process entirely? (Attendance points, for example)

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to respond to your question.

New members must complete the new member program, which at my university meant one presentation/week on history, risk management, philanthropy, etc. There is nothing in place to assess their understanding of the material, nor do I think there needs to be. If the new member does not complete the program, she cannot be initiated.

[thetygerlily]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

^^^ Not to be in your business, but I am assuming what you're saying is that the NMs have to attend presentations on history, policy, whatever else the sorority deems as important, but there is no tool for assessing whether they retained any of the info?

If that's the case, is there also any objective tool for disqualifying someone from the process entirely? (Attendance points, for example)

Correct. Some KKG chapters do use a point system for attendance and grades and such, but it's not org-wide. Our chapter was fairly small so we self-regulated without points. If someone missed mandatory events and didn't get excused, they could face the standards board. Initially just a "hey what's up" type of thing, but it could be a disqualifier if it got to that point. But as a small chapter (and small school) people generally were pretty good at attendance and participation. We also didn't have the semi-typical "senior apathy" (although we had heard it existed), boy was that a shock when I started working with a PAC 10 school


ETA:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I didn't say she wasn't right. How the hell would I know? I said it would interest her to find out whether she's right. She's the one who included the "so I was told" disclaimer as though she didn't know.

The reason I used the disclaimer is because I didn't have our Bylaws & Rules/Regs handy. Better safe than sorry, lest I get beat up on GC!