Quote:
Originally Posted by 33girl
As I mentioned in the other thread...what about the rushee whose mother passed away? Phooey on her?
I honestly believe this should be a chapter by chapter decision, rather than alienating alumnae with "tiers" of alumnae "importance" for a matter that many chapters never even have to deal with. If XYZ at Texas wants to say that because of the huge amount of legacies rushing, the only women considered legacies (with the special consideration that entails) are those whose mothers or sisters were in the chapter at Texas, fine. Spell it out and publish it in the magazine/online so there's no one who can scream clueless. And so they know that if they're a Penn State XYZ alum sending their daughter to Texas, there's a good chance that she won't get a bid.
I mean, this is kind of the way it works anyway...I think there would be a lot fewer hurt feelings if it was spelled out. Yeah, there will be women pissed at Texas XYZ, but maybe not so much at XYZ as a whole.
|
It's no phooey on her any more than it's phooey on Suzy awesome who's not a legacy at all. And odds are it would be noted, one way or the other.
I actually agree with v_p. I don't think it should be multiple tiers, or chapter legacies only, or anything like that, just "active alumnae" and "alumnae." And maybe the difference is only really taken into consideration at chapters that are
so competitive that the distinction needs to be made. However it would still be an (inter)national policy as we are (inter) National GLOs.
I don't want to see anything like chapter specific legacies only given official sanction as I don't want it ever to actually be OK. I'd rather that be done way with altogether.
Threaded Mode