Too fat to recruit: or, DePauw, the Sequel

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

I'm curious what people consider to be strong chapters.

My alum chapter is strong. One of my active sisters got married last weekend. Some have deactivated because of money issues, some because they wanted to get more involved in another organization and there was a time conflict. And then there are those who leave because of drama or they're not into it anymore.

Another chapter on my campus is strong also. They've had a few girls get married. One left to join the military. Some left for other reasons. I still see both chapters as being strong.

So I'm curious how other define "strong".

I'd like to add, that I've seen skinny sisters in any sorority look like crap. And I've seen bigger sisters look 10 times better than them. It's a shame that a sorority would look past those sisters, skinny or big, because of what size they are.

I think what Carnation and NutBrnHair have correctly noted is that the same chapters that might struggle with making quota also have a hard time keeping members involved for four years.

And that strong for the purposes of their comment (and I think most people as well), means having a relatively easy time recruiting to quota year in and year out and getting new members that the current members want. A strong group would have a positive reputation for sisterhood, socials, scholarship and campus involvement and honors, as well.

What seems to be hard for some of us to take was the idea that this talent for retention was presented as an ability to pick which new members would stick around, rather than being a reflection of the group's relative position to start with.

It's really hard to argue with the idea that members are more likely to be retained in groups who don't generally have a hard time with membership. Duh.

[FSUZeta]

well said alphagamugaalum.

[dgdramadawg]

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

It's really hard to argue with the idea that members are more likely to be retained in groups who don't generally have a hard time with membership. Duh.

Agreed!

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

What seems to be hard for some of us to take was the idea that this talent for retention was presented as an ability to pick which new members would stick around, rather than being a reflection of the group's relative position to start with.

The only way I could see this occurring would be if the group was regionally stronger, and therefore had a lot more info on the PNM's, through alumni recs and personal friendships.

Also, several posters have said they would not hurt a sister's feelings; they would rather close a chapter. Please remember that your chapter belongs not only to the active sisters, but to all the women who came before you. I believe that the current executive board has a responsibility to your alumnae, and must think about the bigger picture. Some will disagree with me, and that is a fundamental difference we will not resolve.

Now, as far as practical solutions, my chapter made the computer committee really fun, so people wanted to be on it. I am not delusional, and I know that when the rush chair asked someone to be on it, all parties understood we were essentially saying that woman would not be a good rusher. However, while 95% of us were practicing chants and cheers in the heat during work week, the computer committee was drinking and watching SBTB reruns at an a/c apartment.

[James]

Closing a chapter because you are afraid to hurt some people's feelings is . . . I would say insane, but maybe not well thought out would be better.

As DeltaBetaBaby said, you have an obligation to all the people that came before to keep your chapter going.

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

The only way I could see this occurring would be if the group was regionally stronger, and therefore had a lot more info on the PNM's, through alumni recs and personal friendships.

Also, several posters have said they would not hurt a sister's feelings; they would rather close a chapter. Please remember that your chapter belongs not only to the active sisters, but to all the women who came before you. I believe that the current executive board has a responsibility to your alumnae, and must think about the bigger picture. Some will disagree with me, and that is a fundamental difference we will not resolve.

Now, as far as practical solutions, my chapter made the computer committee really fun, so people wanted to be on it. I am not delusional, and I know that when the rush chair asked someone to be on it, all parties understood we were essentially saying that woman would not be a good rusher. However, while 95% of us were practicing chants and cheers in the heat during work week, the computer committee was drinking and watching SBTB reruns at an a/c apartment.

[kathykd2005]

Originally Posted by James

Closing a chapter because you are afraid to hurt some people's feelings is . . . I would say insane, but maybe not well thought out would be better.

As DeltaBetaBaby said, you have an obligation to all the people that came before to keep your chapter going.

But you also have an obligation to all of the people that came before you to uphold the ideals of the organization, as well, and telling people to "hide" during recruitment REALLY doesn't fit those ideals. Using keeping the chapter open as an excuse to treat your sisters badly is simply unacceptable. Where there is a will, there is a way, and people don't have to sacrifice ideals to recruit successfully. If people do away with basic principles, then they are doing no great service to their founders, who probably sacrificed greatly to found the organization in the first place.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by kathykd2005

Where there is a will, there is a way, and people don't have to sacrifice ideals to recruit successfully.

Again, I ask you to tell me what those ways are, because those of us from big competitive schools don't seem to know what they are.

[kathykd2005]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Again, I ask you to tell me what those ways are, because those of us from big competitive schools don't seem to know what they are.

And again, I will tell you that I already stated ways to do so. Just because you go to a big, competive school does not mean that you have to treat other members unfairly. I suggest that you possibly review the creed of your organization or other historical information if you are still unclear about what I mean or how to treat other members of your organization, even during recruitment.

[James]

I think I am going to have to make a new thread re-framing this scenario better. It appears that all the readers are seeing the scenario differently and many are personalizing it.

All women that I know think they are fatter than they should be. Even the ones in objectively stellar condition, not just thin, but athletic. In an absolute sense I suppose they are all correct.

Even among figure models and other people genuinely viewed as aesthetically pleasing there is always room for improvement.

Oddly, the people in the best shape are often the most obsessed with striving for being better. And the people that are actually and obviously fatter tend to be the most defensive about it.

So if you tell a fitness person they are fat they agree with you and talk about their plan to correct the problem. If you tell your average fatter person they are fat they often wax indignant. Odd eh?

In this case I think people see someone say that heavier girls might be excluded from Rush and they either think of themselves, or picture heavy as something "less heavy" than is probably meant. Especially in a world where "Muffin Tops" may now be "average."

Originally Posted by kathykd2005

But you also have an obligation to all of the people that came before you to uphold the ideals of the organization, as well, and telling people to "hide" during recruitment REALLY doesn't fit those ideals. Using keeping the chapter open as an excuse to treat your sisters badly is simply unacceptable. Where there is a will, there is a way, and people don't have to sacrifice ideals to recruit successfully. If people do away with basic principles, then they are doing no great service to their founders, who probably sacrificed greatly to found the organization in the first place.

[kathykd2005]

Originally Posted by James

I think I am going to have to make a new thread re-framing this scenario better. It appears that all the readers are seeing the scenario differently and many are personalizing it.

All women that I know think they are fatter than they should be. Even the ones in objectively stellar condition, not just thin, but athletic. In an absolute sense I suppose they are all correct.

Even among figure models and other people genuinely viewed as aesthetically pleasing there is always room for improvement.

Oddly, the people in the best shape are often the most obsessed with striving for being better. And the people that are actually and obviously fatter tend to be the most defensive about it.

So if you tell a fitness person they are fat they agree with you and talk about their plan to correct the problem. If you tell your average fatter person they are fat they often wax indignant. Odd eh?

In this case I think people see someone say that heavier girls might be excluded from Rush and they either think of themselves, or picture heavy as something "less heavy" than is probably meant. Especially in a world where "Muffin Tops" may now be "average."

From what you have posted, I am deducing that you are insinuating that those who feel that members of an organization who are excluded from recruitment must be, themselves, overweight. If this is not the case, please say otherwise. I beg to differ with you on this statement, should this, in fact, be what you mean. Excluding a member of one's organization from recruitment, for any superficial reason (barring situations such as low grades or failing to live up to the organization's standards) is unethical and should be unacceptable, based solely upon the ideals of the organization. Just for the record, I am not overweight, either.

[James]

Not so much that. . . although laws of averages say that some maybe even most are you know?

This doesn't lessen the validity of what they are saying mind you. I am pointing out that women as a stereotype tend to be irrationally sensitive to the topic.

I am also thinking that women reading the OP's original post are imagining some girl that is somewhat overweight, versus say morbidly obese, that uses fashion and such to put on a great physical presentation and has the type of personality that can talk jumpers down from ledges.

I am not getting that at all from my reading. I am envisioning someone that is sloppy looking for whatever reason and has a personality that not only adds nothing to the Recruitment event, but may possibly detract from it also.

I am positive if that she had people skills that would allow her to talk jumpers down from heights she would be in the forefront of recruitment regardless of anything else.

National may be shallow but they aren't actually stupid.

Originally Posted by kathykd2005

From what you have posted, I am deducing that you are insinuating that those who feel that members of an organization who are excluded from recruitment must be, themselves, overweight. If this is not the case, please say otherwise. I beg to differ with you on this statement, should this, in fact, be what you mean. Excluding a member of one's organization from recruitment, for any superficial reason (barring situations such as low grades or failing to live up to the organization's standards) is unethical and should be unacceptable, based solely upon the ideals of the organization. Just for the record, I am not overweight, either.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by James

Closing a chapter because you are afraid to hurt some people's feelings is . . . I would say insane, but maybe not well thought out would be better.

C'mon, you know it's not that black/white. Chapters forced to make this type of decision did not get to that point because of a couple overweight girls. It's likely an established pattern within the chapter, and it's probably in part due to the sorority culture and hierarchy on that campus. As others here have said, almost every NPC campus has a chapter that gets pecked on every year...the one that all the PNMs drop after first parties if they can. And every year, some PNMs don't get invited back to the "top" houses and are left with only the "bottom" house in the end.

And for the most part, campus panhellenics like it this way, because they know that as soon as that bottom chapter is gone, one of them will be next.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

C'mon, you know it's not that black/white. Chapters forced to make this type of decision did not get to that point because of a couple overweight girls.

Yeah, I was going to say, let's get a grip here. Your chapter's destiny will not be decided by whether or not you have one overweight girl in the room.

As far as the actives having an obligation to keep the chapter going - when you graduate, you leave that chapter in the actives' hands. You have to trust them and the decisions they make. I think their obligation is to do what they feel is right, not sell your soul just to keep the chapter going. Like Tippie said, I'd rather see my chapter close than come back and see girls I'm ashamed to be associated with who were pledged just for the sake of numbers, or hear that shady stuff is going on just so we can do well at rush/Greek week/what have you.

[bejazd]

Here's some interesting facts from a 2004 issue of KKG's magazine (but the article was written by a Chi Omega and intended to be shared with all NPC groups.) I think these numbers explain in part why most NPC members don't understand the entrenched sorority culture, gigantic pledge classes and huge chapters that exist on some campuses...that simply was not the membership experience for most of us!

63 % of campuses have 4 or fewer NPC groups
28 % have 5-9
9 % have 10-21

22% of campuses have unknown quotas
17 % have quotas of less than 10
24 % have quotas of 11-19
18 % have quotas of 25-29
19 % have quotas over 30

[kathykd2005]

Originally Posted by bejazd

Here's some interesting facts from a 2004 issue of KKG's magazine (but the article was written by a Chi Omega and intended to be shared with all NPC groups.) I think these numbers explain in part why most NPC members don't understand the entrenched sorority culture, gigantic pledge classes and huge chapters that exist on some campuses...that simply was not the membership experience for most of us!

63 % of campuses have 4 or fewer NPC groups
28 % have 5-9
9 % have 10-21

22% of campuses have unknown quotas
17 % have quotas of less than 10
24 % have quotas of 11-19
18 % have quotas of 25-29
19 % have quotas over 30

Very interesting, indeed.