What do you think of Greek Life?

[SummerChild]

Ya'll argue too much. LOL.

To answer the original question, I think that Greek life is still basically what it seems to have been initially intended to be:
a sisterhood/brotherhood
service to the community
taking on issues that largely impact AA (sorry, just being honest) although some of us provide SERVICE TO ALL MANKIND
among college or college-educated AA.

It's still generally this in my opinion. I know in Alllpha Kappa Alllpha, we are still cultivating and encouraging high scholastic and ethical standards, promoting unity and friendship among college women, studying and helping to alleviate problems concerning girls and women in order to improve their social stature, maintaining a progressive interest in college life and being of service to all mankind. Ok, went off on a little tangent there. I'm back. LOL.

There is a tendency to compare the days of old with now in terms of processes, caliber of candidates, etc. It happens outside of BGLO life as well and therefore is not really a big deal to me because our candidates tend to still be the creme of the crop. How many times have we heard folk say that back in the day AA were more unified, the music was better, the musicians were more talented, etc. Now go back a generation before that and the people of that generation will say the same about the generation that came after *them*. Overall, I think that most will agree that those in BGLOs are still generally the talented tenth.


SC

[DST_philoso4]

Originally Posted by SummerChild

To answer the original question, I think that Greek life is still basically what it seems to have been initially intended to be:
a sisterhood/brotherhood
service to the community
taking on issues that largely impact AA (sorry, just being honest) although some of us provide SERVICE TO ALL MANKIND
among college or college-educated AA.

It's still generally this in my opinion. I know in Alpha Kappa Alpha, we are still cultivating and encouraging high scholastic and ethical standards, promoting unity among college women, studying and helping to alleviate problems concerning girls and women in order to improve their social statue, maintaining a progressive interest in college life and being of service to all mankind.

Now this is the idea with which I beg to differ. High scholastic and ethical standards.....I hardly call 2.5 HIGH, it's actually mediocre, and I'm not pointing this specifically at AKA, we ALL have 2.5, I heard one frat's gpa requirement is actually a 2.3, and since some frats, at least used to, allow ppl to pledge their first semester, there was/is no gpa requirement at all!!! If we were all "promoting" high standards, the gpa requirement would be FAR ABOVE a 2.5, and letters of recommendation would not just be Soror/Service/Scholastic and one of each [although I know not all orgs even require THESE three letters from a candidate] they'd also require some type of fitness of character, and the requirements for the letters would be much more demanding. Our Founders used to compete for the highest GPA, and would not add chapters at schools that had less than a B [3.0] average, initially it was A. But even with the school having a B average, most would hesitate to accept ppl with anything near a 3.0. And unity?!........ have you been to a coming out show/stepshow lately?! it's not EVERY org on EVERY campus, but in EACH org there are SEVERAL chapters that are NOT about promiting unity!

Originally Posted by SummerChild

There is a tendency to compare the days of old with now in terms of processes, caliber of candidates, etc. It happens outside of BGLO life as well and therefore is not really a big deal to me because our candidates tend to still be the creme of the crop. How many times have we heard folk say that back in the day AA were more unified, the music was better, the musicians were more talented, etc. Now go back a generation before that and the people of that generation will say the same about the generation that came after *them*.

Overall, I think that most will agree that those in BGLOs are still generally the talented tenth.

SC

Now this is something I KNOW to not be true! For instance, law school, in 1997, the median LSAT score for those admitted to Yale was 164, in 2004 it was 173, before 1997 it was far below that, the same trend you'll see in Medical School and ALL other grad/professional programs. It is much more highly competitive to get a spot than it was even 8 years ago! So that's not something I see as a general trend. While we all do still have stellar candidates, but then there are SEVERAL in ALL ORGS who would probably not have made it 10 years ago!

[SummerChild]

Originally Posted by DST_philoso4

Now this is the idea with which I beg to differ. High scholastic and ethical standards.....I hardly call 2.5 HIGH, it's actually mediocre, and I'm not pointing this specifically at AKA, we ALL have 2.5, I heard one frat's gpa requirement is actually a 2.3, and since some frats, at least used to, allow ppl to pledge their first semester, there was/is no gpa requirement at all!!! If we were all "promoting" high standards, the gpa requirement would be FAR ABOVE a 2.5, and letters of recommendation would not just be Soror/Service/Scholastic and one of each [although I know not all orgs even require THESE three letters from a candidate] they'd also require some type of fitness of character, and the requirements for the letters would be much more demanding. Our Founders used to compete for the highest GPA, and would not add chapters at schools that had less than a B [3.0] average, initially it was A. But even with the school having a B average, most would hesitate to accept ppl with anything near a 3.0. And unity?!........ have you been to a coming out show/stepshow lately?! it's not EVERY org on EVERY campus, but in EACH org there are SEVERAL chapters that are NOT about promiting unity!

Well, 2.5 is the bare minimum but at least in my experience, Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. is a very competitive sorority to get into on any campus and in any city. We handpick our graduate candidates and do not even let them submit applications, thereby just adding to one more level of selectivity. Therefore, the requirement may say 2.5 on paper, however, in practice, the required g.p.a. is pushed up by the caliber of our candidates, just as with anything that is competitive. You mentioned lawschools so that will be my example. I graduated from the University of Chicago Law School, a very hard lawschool to get into. They can put whatever they may want as far as the required LSAT score and/or gpa (and it is ridiculous to start with). However, when you only take 120 a year, as compared to law schools such as Harvard that takes upwards of 3-400 per year, the bare minimum is not going to get it. Therefore, the bare minimum becomes just words basically when you have competition and you don't take tons of people. If either factor is relaxed (lack of competition or taking tons of people) then I agree that you may end up with a less than stellar group.

It plays out in the real world, which is the real focus of the question to me. What happens in the real world, not what gpa is written on paper. In any circle, take a random slice of the most educated, most financially prosperous AA in any city and guaranteed that a large % will be members of BGLO. Don't you agree? Frats that let you pledge year one aside, this seems to be the case to me.

Now this is something I KNOW to not be true! For instance, law school, in 1997, the median LSAT score for those admitted to Yale was 164, in 2004 it was 173, before 1997 it was far below that, the same trend you'll see in Medical School and ALL other grad/professional programs. It is much more highly competitive to get a spot than it was even 8 years ago! So that's not something I see as a general trend. While we all do still have stellar candidates, but then there are SEVERAL in ALL ORGS who would probably not have made it 10 years ago!

The reason that it is more competitive to get into lawschool than 8 years ago is b/c the economy is so bad that more people are opting to shelter in school and cannot find jobs. At least that's what the newspapers were reporting when I started lawschool in 2001. Again, this would be a case of more competition driving up the numbers, you have exhibited exactly the point that I am making re Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. and the general high caliber of our candidates.

I believe that this must carry over for other BGLOs as well.

SC

[DST_philoso4]

Originally Posted by SummerChild

Well, 2.5 is the bare minimum but at least in my experience, Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. is a very competitive sorority to get into on any campus and in any city. We handpick our graduate candidates and do not even let them submit applications, thereby just adding to one more level of selectivity. Therefore, the requirement may say 2.5 on paper, however, in practice, the required g.p.a. is pushed up by the caliber of our candidates, just as with anything that is competitive.

well perhaps that is your experience, but the fact that NATIONAL GUIDELINES now state 2.5, when they used to state 3.0 or better means as a whole criteria for admission are being reduced. And let's speak on AKA, while I do not, nor do I claim to know what's going on within the org, I do know several members both grad and undergrad. I know of more than 10 ppl who have come through grad chapters from 2002-06, and for each, they were all voted on and decided prior to ever meeting members of the chapter. For my girl who was initiated in '02, she needed one letter from a person who had been active in the chapter for so many years, and based solely on that person's word, and her transcript, received 98% of the vote. one of the others, who is '06, needed 3 letters from members within the chapter and was voted in at nearly the same rate as the former. Then, I know people who came in "legacy" and did not have to meet "approval" of the chapter at all, only needed a 2.5, and no letter. And how many ppl do you think are going to pull for their "girl" or goddaughter, neighbor's daughter, niece, family friend etc. to get in based solely on their relationship and NOT the person's credentials or ability to contribute to the organization?! SO, I said all of this to say, that "not allowing people to submit apps" is not necessarily a way to ensure higher quality candidates. And for those in undergrad who do have to submit apps, there are still ways [legacy] they can get around more stringent chapter requirements if they meet national requirements! The way to make it even more competitive, is to up the annie from the from the beginning, that way, you won't even have to be bothered with those that fall below what you'd like to take, for instance, if our gpas were 3.0, then those several candidates who lie between 2.5 and 2.999 would not be able to submit, so time we would otherwise waste sifting through the files either reviewing these, or looking for them to "throw them out" would not be so great, and that is more time spent looking at the more qualified candidates who we'd truly consider choosing. And of all of the people who I know who have come in recently, they have had varying gpa's ranging from 2.5 - 3.2 [nothing extraordinary]. NO organization can claim to not have these problems, anyone who says otherwise is dreaming! I can name SEVERAL people from EVERY organization who are less than desirable! and I am VERY well travelled, so I figure, I have met probably not even 1% of everyone who is in every org, SO if based on that very small amount of ppl I've met, if I've come across SO MANY ppl within every org who are....well as I think not what I feel is a proper representation, then I'm sure there are more, so while they may not be the rule I CAN ASSURE YOU they are NOT the exception either! I can say without hesitation there are more of these people walking around now [per capita, not just in numbers I understand the orgs are all much larger now than they were], than there were 20+ years ago!

Originally Posted by SummerChild

You mentioned lawschools so that will be my example. I graduated from the University of Chicago Law School, a very hard lawschool to get into. They can put whatever they may want as far as the required LSAT score and/or gpa (and it is ridiculous to start with). However, when you only take 120 a year, as compared to law schools such as Harvard that takes upwards of 3-400 per year, the bare minimum is not going to get it. Therefore, the bare minimum becomes just words basically when you have competition and you don't take tons of people. If either factor is relaxed (lack of competition or taking tons of people) then I agree that you may end up with a less than stellar group.

you've further proven my point, the caliber of people accepted is not a general rule, they up the requirements because they can, to kind of deter "undesirables" from applying, they don't drop the entry requirements, that would be counterproductive! And comparing Chicago to Harvard, that's shaky, while Harvard may take more in number, they receive FAR more apps than Chicago. and their acceptance rate per capita [11%] is lower than that of Chicago [15%]. In addition, I did not state their "lsat requirements" I stated the median lsat scores for those who were accepted, there's a difference! I stated that to say, that while the pool of candidates is getting larger, the entry requirements are getting more and more exclusive, because there is a larger pool from which to choose, and they can be more selective. While this is happening with law schools, I fail to see it happening now. I look at older sororitiess/frats and see basically ALL members going on to acquire professional/graduate degrees and being positively contributary to society, while it still goes on today, you see SO MANY more than before NOT graduating, wreaking havoc etc. and SO MANY who do not have "high moral and ethical standards" [and we'll just leave it at that, I think you all get my point], everyone on lines are NOT the top 5% of their classes anymore, while there are people in every org who are these things there are SO MANY who are not, mediocrity has become the rule! while looking at law school we see class ranks increasing!

Originally Posted by SummerChild

It plays out in the real world, which is the real focus of the question to me. What happens in the real world, not what gpa is written on paper. In any circle, take a random slice of the most educated, most financially prosperous AA in any city and guaranteed that a large % will be members of BGLO. Don't you agree? Frats that let you pledge year one aside, this seems to be the case to me.

Again, I totally agree that many will be BGLO members, but if you take a "slice" of the other pie, you will find SO MANY who are in that too, where as before it didn't seem to occur with such great frequency. The law of large numbers states the more you have, the more are likely to fall in any given group, and sadly, this includes the negative ones as well!

Originally Posted by SummerChild

The reason that it is more competitive to get into lawschool than 8 years ago is b/c the economy is so bad that more people are opting to shelter in school and cannot find jobs. At least that's what the newspapers were reporting when I started lawschool in 2001. Again, this would be a case of more competition driving up the numbers, you have exhibited exactly the point that I am making re Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. and the general high caliber of our candidates. I believe that this must carry over for other BGLOs as well.

SC

I fully understand why more ppl are entering law school! Bottom line is, law schools see this as a way to become more competitive and make their selection criteria even more rigorous, whle BGLO's, when AA enrollment rose, felt the need to drop national requirements! While there are several OUTSTANDING women I know who are AKA's, there are just as many average! Again, I say this for ALL organizations. EVERY AKA IS NOT STELLAR, every DELTA is not stellar, there is NO organization full of stellar women .....heck EVERY PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT STELLAR!! [present company included] and if there is someone who has to get the majority of the COUNTRY [millions of ppl] to vote him in [i know, controversy, but we won't even discuss it] and .....well we see the result, and that is the most ELITE/EXCLUSIVE/DIFFICULT position IN THE COUNTRY there is to acquire [i.e., only .00000001% of all applicants get it] 1/1 not 120, not 300 JUST ONE....then what makes u think that a chapter majority vote [a couple hundred at best] will elicit a different result? Many times, it's just because you don't ever really know a person, and something may "come out" you hadn't previously seen. I'm not saying AKA shoots for the low candidates, I'm just saying sh!t happens! I can say this about EVERY BGLO.

1. Every chapter is not competitive [at least not where I'm from]
2. Everyone doesn't set standards higher than nationals
3. Every chapter is not full of peple with the highest moral and ethical standards
4. Every chapter has people that make them shake their heads
5. Every chapter does not consist only of people who are campus/community leaders
6. Every chapter has mediocre members
7. Every chapter has someone who doesn't have a 3.0 or better
8. Every chapter is not sisterly/brotherly
9. Every chapter has low caliber candidates
10. Every chapter has faults....because there is no perfect person, there CAN BE no perfect chapter!

[pinkies up]

EVERY AKA IS NOT STELLAR, every Delta is not stellar, there is NO organization full of stellar women


I happen to agree with this. I enjoy being in such a Skee-nominal organization , however I have noticed that the calibur of undergrad candidates that have gone through my chapter are less than what I would have selected. On the flip side, I'm sure there are some before me that feel the same way, and so on it goes. I think the fact that less AA's are going to college, (very few males), and the fact that in Mississippi the average ACT needed to get in is a 16, we as organizations have had to lower our standards or we would not have anyone in our organizations. Just being real. I can't speak for all of the other orgs. and colleges, but when I pledged as an undergrad in '97, the lowest gpa on our line was a 2.9. In fact, our chapter's guidelines were 2.9 and above. (we have sinced had to change them because somebody went crying to their mommy and blah blah blah... I say they should have been crying because their gpa was so low. I digress ) I love being able to associate with other members of AKA as well as other greeks. The common bond that we all share is the upliftment of our people. This is evidenced by the rich histories that we all share.

[DST_philoso4]

Originally Posted by pinkies up

EVERY AKA IS NOT STELLAR, every Delta is not stellar, there is NO organization full of stellar women


I happen to agree with this. I enjoy being in such a Skee-nominal organization , however I have noticed that the calibur of undergrad candidates that have gone through my chapter are less than what I would have selected. On the flip side, I'm sure there are some before me that feel the same way, and so on it goes. I think the fact that less AA's are going to college, (very few males), and the fact that in Mississippi the average ACT needed to get in is a 16, we as organizations have had to lower our standards or we would not have anyone in our organizations. Just being real. I can't speak for all of the other orgs. and colleges, but when I pledged as an undergrad in '97, the lowest gpa on our line was a 2.9. In fact, our chapter's guidelines were 2.9 and above. (we have sinced had to change them because somebody went crying to their mommy and blah blah blah... I say they should have been crying because their gpa was so low. I digress ) I love being able to associate with other members of AKA as well as other greeks. The common bond that we all share is the upliftment of our people. This is evidenced by the rich histories that we all share.

I totally agree, and to reiterate [although I know you already get this] I was speaking for EVERY org and am not "singling out" AKA [and you know this, we've already gotten a glimpse of the "future" of KAPsi, AKA and DST anyway ]!

[Delta_Girl1913]

I have to totally agree with this since we pledged at the same school. There are some members of the greek community there that leave a lot to be desired. And like you said, there are now members of my chapter that are less than I would have selected also. However, I believe that has to do with the calibur of people that are being accepted to USM now.

Originally Posted by pinkies up

EVERY AKA IS NOT STELLAR, every Delta is not stellar, there is NO organization full of stellar women


I have noticed that the calibur of undergrad candidates that have gone through my chapter are less than what I would have selected. I think the fact that less AA's are going to college, (very few males), and the fact that in Mississippi the average ACT needed to get in is a 16, we as organizations have had to lower our standards or we would not have anyone in our organizations. Just being real. I can't speak for all of the other orgs. and colleges, but when I pledged as an undergrad in '97, the lowest gpa on our line was a 2.9. In fact, our chapter's guidelines were 2.9 and above. (we have sinced had to change them because somebody went crying to their mommy and blah blah blah... I say they should have been crying because their gpa was so low. I digress ) I love being able to associate with other members of AKA as well as other greeks. The common bond that we all share is the upliftment of our people. This is evidenced by the rich histories that we all share.

[pinkies up]

Originally Posted by Delta_Girl1913

I have to totally agree with this since we pledged at the same school. There are some members of the greek community there that leave a lot to be desired. And like you said, there are now members of my chapter that are less than I would have selected also. However, I believe that has to do with the calibur of people that are being accepted to USM now.

Girl, the calibur of students is like . I went down there on Saturday for a conference and was shocked by the new AKA's on campus. They were LOUD, skee-weeing all over the darn place and acting like they didn't have common sense God gave an ant. I had to set 'em straight though. I wasn't wearing any para, so you can only imagine what it was like. I contacted the grad. chapter so they can get a hold of the madness. I was so upset, I secretly wished they would pull the charter. I know that's bad, but I'd rather see that done than the piss poor representation of MY LETTERS that I saw on Saturday.

[DSTdimepiece]

Originally Posted by SummerChild

There is a tendency to compare the days of old with now in terms of processes, caliber of candidates, etc. It happens outside of BGLO life as well and therefore is not really a big deal to me because our candidates tend to still be the creme of the crop. How many times have we heard folk say that back in the day AA were more unified, the music was better, the musicians were more talented, etc. Now go back a generation before that and the people of that generation will say the same about the generation that came after *them*. Overall, I think that most will agree that those in BGLOs are still generally the talented tenth.


SC

I have to disagree here. I understand the arguement concerning each generation thinking their culture was the best. The last statement concerning still being the talented tenth....I have to disagree. In all orgs, yes most are the best their area has to offer but I do feel there is a slide from the talented tenth to the above average 15.

[SummerChild]

Well DSTPhiloso4, we'll just have to agree to disagree. However, the various information that you listed regarding the processes for the different members of Alpha Kappa Alpha is incorrect and uninformed. Perhaps there *are* different teachings b/c when I was brought through, I was taught in a manner such that I would not presume to know what went on for various candidates of Delta Sigma Theta during their candidacy process. However, we all learned differently I guess.

SC

Originally Posted by DST_philoso4

well perhaps that is your experience, but the fact that NATIONAL GUIDELINES now state 2.5, when they used to state 3.0 or better means as a whole criteria for admission are being reduced. And let's speak on AKA, while I do not, nor do I claim to know what's going on within the org, I do know several members both grad and undergrad. I know of more than 10 ppl who have come through grad chapters from 2002-06, and for each, they were all voted on and decided prior to ever meeting members of the chapter. For my girl who was initiated in '02, she needed one letter from a person who had been active in the chapter for so many years, and based solely on that person's word, and her transcript, received 98% of the vote. one of the others, who is '06, needed 3 letters from members within the chapter and was voted in at nearly the same rate as the former. Then, I know people who came in "legacy" and did not have to meet "approval" of the chapter at all, only needed a 2.5, and no letter. And how many ppl do you think are going to pull for their "girl" or goddaughter, neighbor's daughter, niece, family friend etc. to get in based solely on their relationship and NOT the person's credentials or ability to contribute to the organization?! SO, I said all of this to say, that "not allowing people to submit apps" is not necessarily a way to ensure higher quality candidates. And for those in undergrad who do have to submit apps, there are still ways [legacy] they can get around more stringent chapter requirements if they meet national requirements! The way to make it even more competitive, is to up the annie from the from the beginning, that way, you won't even have to be bothered with those that fall below what you'd like to take, for instance, if our gpas were 3.0, then those several candidates who lie between 2.5 and 2.999 would not be able to submit, so time we would otherwise waste sifting through the files either reviewing these, or looking for them to "throw them out" would not be so great, and that is more time spent looking at the more qualified candidates who we'd truly consider choosing. And of all of the people who I know who have come in recently, they have had varying gpa's ranging from 2.5 - 3.2 [nothing extraordinary]. NO organization can claim to not have these problems, anyone who says otherwise is dreaming! I can name SEVERAL people from EVERY organization who are less than desirable! and I am VERY well travelled, so I figure, I have met probably not even 1% of everyone who is in every org, SO if based on that very small amount of ppl I've met, if I've come across SO MANY ppl within every org who are....well as I think not what I feel is a proper representation, then I'm sure there are more, so while they may not be the rule I CAN ASSURE YOU they are NOT the exception either! I can say without hesitation there are more of these people walking around now [per capita, not just in numbers I understand the orgs are all much larger now than they were], than there were 20+ years ago!



you've further proven my point, the caliber of people accepted is not a general rule, they up the requirements because they can, to kind of deter "undesirables" from applying, they don't drop the entry requirements, that would be counterproductive! And comparing Chicago to Harvard, that's shaky, while Harvard may take more in number, they receive FAR more apps than Chicago. and their acceptance rate per capita [11%] is lower than that of Chicago [15%]. In addition, I did not state their "lsat requirements" I stated the median lsat scores for those who were accepted, there's a difference! I stated that to say, that while the pool of candidates is getting larger, the entry requirements are getting more and more exclusive, because there is a larger pool from which to choose, and they can be more selective. While this is happening with law schools, I fail to see it happening now. I look at older sororitiess/frats and see basically ALL members going on to acquire professional/graduate degrees and being positively contributary to society, while it still goes on today, you see SO MANY more than before NOT graduating, wreaking havoc etc. and SO MANY who do not have "high moral and ethical standards" [and we'll just leave it at that, I think you all get my point], everyone on lines are NOT the top 5% of their classes anymore, while there are people in every org who are these things there are SO MANY who are not, mediocrity has become the rule! while looking at law school we see class ranks increasing!



Again, I totally agree that many will be BGLO members, but if you take a "slice" of the other pie, you will find SO MANY who are in that too, where as before it didn't seem to occur with such great frequency. The law of large numbers states the more you have, the more are likely to fall in any given group, and sadly, this includes the negative ones as well!








I fully understand why more ppl are entering law school! Bottom line is, law schools see this as a way to become more competitive and make their selection criteria even more rigorous, whle BGLO's, when AA enrollment rose, felt the need to drop national requirements! While there are several OUTSTANDING women I know who are AKA's, there are just as many average! Again, I say this for ALL organizations. EVERY AKA IS NOT STELLAR, every DELTA is not stellar, there is NO organization full of stellar women .....heck EVERY PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT STELLAR!! [present company included] and if there is someone who has to get the majority of the COUNTRY [millions of ppl] to vote him in [i know, controversy, but we won't even discuss it] and .....well we see the result, and that is the most ELITE/EXCLUSIVE/DIFFICULT position IN THE COUNTRY there is to acquire [i.e., only .00000001% of all applicants get it] 1/1 not 120, not 300 JUST ONE....then what makes u think that a chapter majority vote [a couple hundred at best] will elicit a different result? Many times, it's just because you don't ever really know a person, and something may "come out" you hadn't previously seen. I'm not saying AKA shoots for the low candidates, I'm just saying sh!t happens! I can say this about EVERY BGLO.

1. Every chapter is not competitive [at least not where I'm from]
2. Everyone doesn't set standards higher than nationals
3. Every chapter is not full of peple with the highest moral and ethical standards
4. Every chapter has people that make them shake their heads
5. Every chapter does not consist only of people who are campus/community leaders
6. Every chapter has mediocre members
7. Every chapter has someone who doesn't have a 3.0 or better
8. Every chapter is not sisterly/brotherly
9. Every chapter has low caliber candidates
10. Every chapter has faults....because there is no perfect person, there CAN BE no perfect chapter!

[Delta_Girl1913]

All I can say is it's going to truly be interesting for homecoming !!! Especially since it's chapter reunion for us . Can't wait!!

Originally Posted by pinkies up

Girl, the calibur of students is like . I went down there on Saturday for a conference and was shocked by the new AKA's on campus. They were LOUD, skee-weeing all over the darn place and acting like they didn't have common sense God gave an ant. I had to set 'em straight though. I wasn't wearing any para, so you can only imagine what it was like. I contacted the grad. chapter so they can get a hold of the madness. I was so upset, I secretly wished they would pull the charter. I know that's bad, but I'd rather see that done than the piss poor representation of MY LETTERS that I saw on Saturday.

[DST_philoso4]

Originally Posted by SummerChild

Well DSTPhiloso4, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
However, you know better than to assume that you know what members of
Alpha Kappa Alpha had to do to get in. That's quite presumptuous and
your information is just wrong and uninformed. I am only surprised that
it is coming from a member of a BGLO. Based on how I was taught, I
would never presume to know the candidacy process for various members of
Delta Sigma Theta (including whether they had to have chapter approval,
number of letters, etc.). You're tripping.
SC

actually the members themselves told me! So if it's wrong, it's because they lied [which I doubt they'd do] and it's not presumptuous, I'm just presenting what was stated to me by members and things WITNESSED by ME [i.e., disorderly members]....and other members of your org, [for "proof" of other members in your org saying the same thing please see various posts throughout this thread]. I'm not presuming anything, I'm TELLING you what was TOLD to me by members [basically all members that I know]. It came up when we were discussing entry into chapters, and I was informing them the, literally, hundreds of interviews my chapter had to give to interested women, and they informed me they HAD no interviews, and proceded to tell me what they had to have. It's also stated on your national website! [just in case if you don't believe that either, the link is http://aka1908.com/present/membershi...undergraduate] and again, if you continue to say every candidate for AKA [or any org] is stellar etc., you're dreaming!!!! that's like telling me that I'm wrong by saying you all require only 12 credits for a person to be eligible while DST requires 24...I KNOW THESE THINGS BECAUSE FOLKS [AKA's] TOLD ME!!! I didn't ask, I DEFINITELY didn't presume, it just comes up in conversation, the processes are different, but one is not necessarily better than the other and NEITHER guarantees terrible candidates won't make it! If you were to ask them, they could tell you of our requirements too, we were just noting the differences in membership processes, it's not that crucial. But "process" aside...the bottom line is there are dust buckets in EVERY org. that's just the plain and honest TRUTH!! You can lie to yourself if you like, but you can't lie to the rest of the world. I'm sure everyone on this board has seen them, on SEVERAL occassions. Just out of curiosity, how am I "tripping"?

[pinkies up]

Originally Posted by Delta_Girl1913

All I can say is it's going to truly be interesting for homecoming !!! Especially since it's chapter reunion for us . Can't wait!!

Girl, all I can say is pray before you come to the tailgate section. They wouldn't know founders if they were wearing a founders shirt!

[KAY10]

Not to change the subject, but I'm just curious to see if any AKAs went to the convention that was held in Detroit this year? I heard it was a nice turn out.

[CrimsonTide4]

Originally Posted by KAY10

Not to change the subject, but I'm just curious to see if any AKAs went to the convention that was held in Detroit this year? I heard it was a nice turn out.

Go to the AKA forum and read the Boule thread.