Join APO after being in NIC fraternity? Reasons for and against?

[pieceofpaper]

Great advice so far everyone.

No, I wouldn't join because my "NIC group sucks" - it doesn't and I didn't say that. It is, however, severely lacking in the area in which APO is most strong. I could no doubt bring back invaluable service ideas back to my NIC fraternity.

And if my NIC group did suck, what would be wrong with joining to try to find a substitute?


What would be wrong to join because APO seems very social? Not solely for this reason, but it is a big reason none the less. APO seems like a great place to meet people and I like the fact that it is co-ed. If I were to join, I would certainly take the service aspects seriously though.

No one else has experience with people joining APO after being in another fraternity or sorority? It does seem to almost always go the other way.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by pieceofpaper

And if my NIC group did suck, what would be wrong with joining to try to find a substitute?

APO is NOT "I couldn't get into a social GLO so I'll join here."
APO is NOT "My social GLO sucks/I don't like the members/I don't fit in so I'll join here."

APO is an organization you join primarily because you want to do service, in an environment that also encourages brotherhood with those you do service with. The brotherhood comes about because of the service. I'm not sure what you mean by "they seem very social", but if they are having mixers and such with sororities, that's not cool at all.

APO is not a substitute for any other organization. To treat it as such is disrespectful. If you can't join it on its own merit you shouldn't join at all.

Sorry if I sound like a bitch, but this is something that really bugs me and it happens ALL the time.

[GMUAPhiOAdvisor]

Originally Posted by 33girl

. I'm not sure what you mean by "they seem very social", but if they are having mixers and such with sororities, that's not cool at all.

Is having mixers with other GLOs so bad? When I was at OU, we'd do social events with other GLOs and they were fantastic! It helped us meet other greek groups and we ended up doing a TON of service with the PanHell groups, IFC groups and NPHC groups as well.

If we isolate ourselves from all other GLOs, we lose that part of ourselves....yes, we're a service fraternity, but we ARE a fraternity and one of our cardinal principals is FRIENDSHIP. This is something we should share with others, not just keep to ourselves.

Just my .02....

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by 33girl

APO is NOT "I couldn't get into a social GLO so I'll join here."
APO is NOT "My social GLO sucks/I don't like the members/I don't fit in so I'll join here."

APO is an organization you join primarily because you want to do service, in an environment that also encourages brotherhood with those you do service with. The brotherhood comes about because of the service. I'm not sure what you mean by "they seem very social", but if they are having mixers and such with sororities, that's not cool at all.

Sorry if I sound like a bitch, but this is something that really bugs me and it happens ALL the time.

Originally Posted by 33girl

Like I said, I don't mean to come off as mean or discouraging, just that I've seen a lot of people who only joined 1) to put it on the resume 2) to meet people, and didn't give a crap about the service component and did everything to avoid it.

This is one area APO really needs to work on; they need to do a better job at, as I put it, weeding out all non-hackers that do not pack the gear to serve in my beloved frat. When we market APO as the all-inclusive frat, we get nothing but dead weight, resume padders, and letter-wearers. We need to start saying to folk "you aren't APO material. Go somewhere else."

Being more discriminatory on who we extend bids to or which pledges are allow to be initiated will show the campus that we mean business. I think all too often we are afraid to do that, because we don't want to have to defend our position. Well, if you document your prospectives/pledges activities and behavior, they won't have a leg to stand on and you'll be justified in your actions.

This is what happens when we pander to prospectives/pledges and wallow in political correctness to the public at large.

If we don't want to appear as a Greek lettered Circle K, we need to let some people know that they must earn the letters.

[DramaQueen42401]

[QUOTE=KAPital PHINUst;1539061]This is one area APO really needs to work on; they need to do a better job at, as I put it, weeding out all non-hackers that do not pack the gear to serve in my beloved frat. When we market APO as the all-inclusive frat, we get nothing but dead weight, resume padders, and letter-wearers. We need to start saying to folk "you aren't APO material. Go somewhere else."
QUOTE]

I haven't posted on here in a long time but I couldn't help but agree.

I suggested to my chapter, back in my college days, that we be a little more "hard" in the selection process. We accept whoever walks in the door into the org. Now, please understand that I don't mean only let certain people apply. I mean that no matter who applies, ask some serious questions, have an observation period, be more selective about the quality of who we let in our chapter, DO SOMETHING that weeds out who is here just to get a membership certificate and who is here to serve the chapter. We had retention issues, EVERY SEMESTER. I was getting sick of people pledging and then we never see them again because they weren't here for strong reasons. It was just something to do, for them. My pledge class had 16 people on it. The very next semester, maybe half of us returned, if that many, to be active.

My brothers were not interested in being more selective. They didn't want to seem like one of the council greek lettered orgs. They didn't want to seem like they only wanted to pick "popular" people or the "cool" people. They wanted to be inclusive and take EVERYBODY. It's not even about picking cool people or popular people. It's about choosing people who are going to WORK for APO!!

So, being outnumbered, I left it alone and the problem continued. Everytime I heard any comment related to "why don't members don't stay around" or "we need to improve our retention", I just shook my head.

[Senusret I]

I kind of don't understand.... for those chapters that have this issue, don't you have pledging requirements?

You certainly DON'T have to accept everyone who pledges, especially if they don't complete the requirements.

I don't believe in selecting who pledges, but I do believe in selecting who gets initiated.

[DramaQueen42401]

We have requirements. Most pledges complete them just fine. There are some who fall short and then their big just cries on the stand for them and get it waived

But if the cause of low retention wasn't can the person do the work, then what was it? That's where I was coming from when I said find out more about them before they get in. Do they plan to do this for a while or are they just willing to be here and do this for this semester, since it isn't that complicated, or are they really here for the long haul?

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by DramaQueen42401

We have requirements. Most pledges complete them just fine. There are some who fall short and then their big just cries on the stand for them and get it waived

Let 'em cry till the cows come home. Save the sob story for someone else. The pledge can always re-pledge at a later time if they are deemed worthy of another bid.

But if the cause of low retention wasn't can the person do the work, then what was it? That's where I was coming from when I said find out more about them before they get in. Do they plan to do this for a while or are they just willing to be here and do this for this semester, since it isn't that complicated, or are they really here for the long haul?

If we are truly a fraternity, then we need to act like one. And one element of a fraternity is that not everyone is worthy of joining the ranks or will be initiated.

Simply put: Open membership means that any student from 18-80 can attend our recruitment functions and apply for membership without any regard for their personal status of characteristics. That's it!! They are not entitled to a bid, they are not entitled to be initiated. We do not owe them letters or membership simply because they applied, period!!

One thing I admire about the all-male chapters is that they tend to have a really good handle on how to filter out potential dead-weight and potentially problem members, (relative to co-ed chapters).

I think we try so hard to prove to the campus that we are not a social fraternity, we wind up not functioning as a fraternity at all, but more like a club. Clubs let anybody in, fraternities do not.

Let the prospective prove to US that they are worthy of joining, we do not prove to the prospective that we are worthy that they considered us for membership, and all too often we get that backward.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

I kind of don't understand.... for those chapters that have this issue, don't you have pledging requirements?

For most chapters, the only pledging requirements involves amassing a certain number of service project, and/or to execute a service project of their own. The requirements themselves are too easy for someone to "pimp the system" and get the letters. It really doesn't illustrate a person's willingness to serve in the org; it only gives a superficial sense of whether or not a person is worthy of being a brother.

You certainly DON'T have to accept everyone who pledges, especially if they don't complete the requirements.

I think most brothers don't want to have to explain to the sectional/regional director why a pledge didn't get initiated. And a lot of these pledges will run crying to the chapter advisor/SC/RD in a minute if they don't get in rather than suck it up and re-pledge.

I don't believe in selecting who pledges, but I do believe in selecting who gets initiated.

(at bolded) I DO!! It keeps a lot of potential bulljive and needless subsequent drama at the door where it belongs.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

(at bolded) I DO!! It keeps a lot of potential bulljive and needless subsequent drama at the door where it belongs.

Then you need to be active.

[GMUAPhiOAdvisor]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

I don't believe in selecting who pledges, but I do believe in selecting who gets initiated.

We had this very issue this semester. A pledge failed to fulfill her requirements and she was not voted in by the brotherhood. It happens, and although it is sad when it does, it would have been worse for the chapter if they had allowed her in. I think, in her case, she was spread way too thin (she was in 3 or 4 other organizations, plus having a job and being in some sort of pagent, not to mention her classload as a senior) and adding A Phi O to the mix would have meant the chapter came out on the short end of the bargain.

I'm in agreement.....let all who want to, pledge. Be selective with choosing who is made a brother. If pledges can't show committment to the chapter as pledges, what makes us think they will as brothers?

Again, my .02.....