Potential improvements to invite matching?

[lyrelyre]

Originally Posted by jwright25

In RFM, this is called a Flex List. It is used only with Priority ranking, though, rather than Accept/Regret. (Which is another "pro" for Priority.) In A/R chapters don't know their return rates until after all invites have been issued and either accepted or regretted. Chapters are given a certain number to flex from both their keep and release lists. So if a chapter is doing uncharacteristically bad, they get to bring back more women from their release list (the ones they have indicated on Flex that would have been invited if they could). If they are doing uncharacteristically well, some women can get pulled from the keep list (the ones they have indicated on Flex that they would release if they had to.)

Sorry, I must have been typing at the same time.

[UGAalum94]

The flex list sounds great!

What determines what system a campus uses? Is there expensive software that the system would have bought that determines it, or does every campus have the choice of choosing priority ranking and flex list over accept/regret every year?

I agree with Violetpretty that chapter size probably matters more than party size, but a smaller chapter who also find themselves with sparsely attended parties kind of faces a double problem in terms of impressions, I suspect. I think a chapter would be better off having fewer parties and having those parties seem fuller and livelier.

[FuzzieAlum]

We actually did #1 at my campus, and while it made for a better party, trust me that the PNMS do know. All they have to do is compare party times with their friends to figure out that everyone who went to ABC went at 3:00 p.m. Even if they're not thinking that way, somehow the word gets out.

[AnatraAmore]

I think that the reducing the number of parties idea would better at larger schools where there are more PNM's or in earlier rounds. It would be far less noticable if XYX only had 9 parties instead of 10 or even 4 instead of 5. At smaller schools, it is very noticable. I know it's happened a few times at my college and while it does make the chapter members feel better because they X larger parties, as a Rho Chi, I know that the PNM's definately knew what had happened which defeated the purpose...

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by sangers

I think that the reducing the number of parties idea would better at larger schools where there are more PNM's or in earlier rounds. It would be far less noticable if XYX only had 9 parties instead of 10 or even 4 instead of 5. At smaller schools, it is very noticable. I know it's happened a few times at my college and while it does make the chapter members feel better because they X larger parties, as a Rho Chi, I know that the PNM's definately knew what had happened which defeated the purpose...

Does it completely defeat the purpose? I'm really asking, not being rhetorical. I have no idea.

I don't think you are ever going to be able to fool the PNMs about which groups most people consider more desirable, but if you made the experience of being at that chapter more like being at other chapters that round, wouldn't that help the chapter in the eyes of PNMs who didn't purely go by tent talk or what other PNMs thought. I know they are few and far between anyway, but a girl who goes to a sparsely attended party with lower overall energy has an "objectively" different experience at that chapter than a girl who although she knows the chapter has lower returns attends a full party with energy comparable to the others she attends.

[sunnydebs]

We used the ICS flex list last year and it worked well. My only qualm is that after voting on so many girls, the sisters get tired when it comes to pick the flex list and it's kind of time-consuming to rank the flex list and you may be cutting it close to when you have to turn in your votes. I think your panhellenic council has to decide if the flex list approach is best for your recruitment. If many of the chapters have had issues with fluctuating return rates over the last few years, it may be a good idea to switch to the flex list system.

One more thing: for our preference round, we actually requested one MORE party because we wanted there to be fewer PNMs in the room. It made it easier to match our sisters with the girls for conversations!

[jwright25]

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

What determines what system a campus uses? Is there expensive software that the system would have bought that determines it, or does every campus have the choice of choosing priority ranking and flex list over accept/regret every year?

If you are asking what determines Priority over A/R, that is up to campus preference. An that preference is usually determined by history. If they've always done A/R, it is harder to convince them to go to Priority. Technically you don't have to have software for either - it can be done by hand. But it is very time consuming to match invites - even for schools that have only 4 or 5 chapters. There is currently a (slight) trend toward Priority, and those that are switching to Priority over A/R are doing so in order to utilize Flex and because it is easier for the RFM Specialist to consider current year chapter performance when working on invitation matching.

To my knowledge, there are three options out there for recruitment software - D&D, Innova, and ICS. I've never used Innova, but as far as being user-friendly, ICS is fabulous. It is all online, so chapters can submit lists at any time from anywhere rather than having to hand carry a list or a disk to the Greek office. Same for receiving invitation lists.

Technically you could do the Flex if you were matching invites by hand, but it would be a lot more back-and-forth and time. Luckily there aren't many campuses still doing that. I don't recall the cost of ICS right offhand, but I do know that several smaller systems have started using it without breaking the bank.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by jwright25

If you are asking what determines Priority over A/R, that is up to campus preference. An that preference is usually determined by history. If they've always done A/R, it is harder to convince them to go to Priority. Technically you don't have to have software for either - it can be done by hand. But it is very time consuming to match invites - even for schools that have only 4 or 5 chapters. There is currently a (slight) trend toward Priority, and those that are switching to Priority over A/R are doing so in order to utilize Flex and because it is easier for the RFM Specialist to consider current year chapter performance when working on invitation matching.

To my knowledge, there are three options out there for recruitment software - D&D, Innova, and ICS. I've never used Innova, but as far as being user-friendly, ICS is fabulous. It is all online, so chapters can submit lists at any time from anywhere rather than having to hand carry a list or a disk to the Greek office. Same for receiving invitation lists.

Technically you could do the Flex if you were matching invites by hand, but it would be a lot more back-and-forth and time. Luckily there aren't many campuses still doing that. I don't recall the cost of ICS right offhand, but I do know that several smaller systems have started using it without breaking the bank.

Thank you. I was mainly wondering if campuses basically decided what to use and paid for it each year (maybe through a contract with a recruitment management service?) or if it was an expensive one time purchase that then drove the decision for several years.

[jwright25]

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

Thank you. I was mainly wondering if campuses basically decided what to use and paid for it each year (maybe through a contract with a recruitment management service?) or if it was an expensive one time purchase that then drove the decision for several years.

Ahhh. I see what you are saying. I haven't been on the purchasing end myself, but I THINK that for ICS, it is a year-to-year thing. A campus Greek Advisor might know more details.