Quote:
Originally Posted by 33girl
I don't think she's a collegian, she's an advisor (albeit probably a young one).
Quite frankly it sounds like they effed up when they raised total by 20 percent and didn't give the smaller chapters time to get up to it before formal. I also think a uc quota that's almost half of normal quota is just bizarre. I also think that any advisor (I'm referring to the woman the OP referenced who said they underinvited - in what context it doesn't really matter) who is daft enough to say ANYTHING about membership selection in a public forum should probably not be advising.
In other words this system is a hot ass mess.
|
My guess is that she's a collegian - recruitment chair - or a very young advisor. And my guess is that the other advisor was not speaking in 'public' but among the other advisors/recruitment chairs or possibly even in personal conversation with the OP. Seeing that you're not going to meet UC quota would result in that conclusion, and in those meetings a lot of the pretense drops down. Regardless, I 'blame' the OP for repeating it more than the person for saying it. Were she privy to such conversations they're not supposed to be shared.
I don't think the system's likely all that bad. If quota increases next year most chapters should be at total after quota (and although the high UC quota is unusual, it seems like a high number of transfers/UC PNMs warrants it. If without it a few chapters were primarily receiving UC and with it, the spread is more even, well all the better.) Whether an active or an advisor, OP needs to grow up, and her eventual absence from the process - in lieu of her learning better - will solve more problems than not.
Threaded Mode
