Quote:
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.
Hybrid Mode
