Ole Miss drops GPA exceptions for rush

[Dionysus]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I don't know about jobs, but most academic institutions, where they are looking for measure of continued academic success have minimums for the next level.

Are you really advocating that GLOs have no minimum standards for GPA?

No, again I said the 2.5 minimum GPA is reasonable. But I do think many people overestimate its importance.

I mean...what would really happen if those GPA standards were removed? If you still recruited students who were active on campus, good leaders, had a high amount of service hours, etc. what serious negative consequences could there be?

My chapter (the service GLO) has gone without GPA minimum requirements for a long time. We still managed to attract students who were academically successful anyway. Being active on campus and being successful academically is highly correlated in the first place. The few who did have really low GPAs, weren't any different from members who had high grades...in terms of participation, how well they did their jobs as officers, and how well they got along with other members.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Dionysus

No, again I said the 2.5 minimum GPA is reasonable. But I do think many people overestimate its importance.

I mean...what would really happen if those GPA standards were removed? If you still recruited students who were active on campus, good leaders, had a high amount of service hours, etc. what serious negative consequences could there be?

My chapter (the service GLO) has gone without GPA minimum requirements for a long time. We still managed to attract students who were academically successful anyway. Being active on campus and being successful academically is highly correlated in the first place. The few who did have really low GPAs, weren't any different from members who had high grades...in terms of participation, how well they did their jobs as officers, and how well they got along with other members.

Did you all recruit first semester freshman?

I think that when you're taking in kids new to college, it's harder to know who is going to make it or not.

Once you can be sure someone's not going to flunk out and leave, I can see what you are saying.

I suspect that's why, back when we had initiation grades, I think they were lower than what you had to have to extend the bid. And I think, in some cases what it takes to stay in good standing with the organization is probably also lower than what they look for in a pledge.

I think the difference is that there's some washout/dropout factor that you're trying to control for in first semester students.

[RU OX Alum]

Okay...having standards is a form of discrimination

all fraternites and sororites discriminate on some basis, (at least the ones worth joining) but most of us admit to it, and don't try to hide it and be all PC

I'm not welcome in your group for reason x, then fine, you are a private group, and simillarly , i can black ball you for whichever reason I choose. however, i'm not going to say that something is fair and open to everyone, then run to an umbrella group to make some kind of rule because i don't want to admit to myself that i discriminate. Having standards means you discern, and discriminate, against those who aren't up standards

and mysticcat, yes that does fit the definition of discrimination: for example, let's say the standard is extra curricular involvement. Someone could have an outstanding "rush resume" (i would black ball someone for having one) but not be in any other clubs. Well, if that is your standard, you through everything else (individual merit) out of the window.

Although, I must ask, if it's such a non-issue, then why remove the exceptions?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

and mysticcat, yes that does fit the definition of discrimination: for example, let's say the standard is extra curricular involvement. Someone could have an outstanding "rush resume" (i would black ball someone for having one) but not be in any other clubs. Well, if that is your standard, you through everything else (individual merit) out of the window.

Billy, I don't think that's discrimination, at least not in the sense the word seems to be being used here (discrimimation against people with learning disabilities, which is not at all necessarily the same group as people with GPA under 2.5).

Discrimination is when you judge a person based on a category he "belongs" to -- race, skin color, religion, hair color. too short, too heavy, whatever -- rather than on individual merit. In the example you gave, you are judging the person on merit; his lack of involvement in other extra-curricular activities suggests to you that he will not be an involved member of your fraternity or will not be a good "public face" for your fraternity.

Now, if you mean "discriminating" as in discriminating taste or judgment, I'll agree with you. I agree that GLOs do, and should do, that all the time. But that's just not the same as discriminating against someone, which is what I understood you to be talking about.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Billy, I don't think that's discrimination, at least not in the sense the word seems to be being used here (discrimimation against people with learning disabilities, which is not at all necessarily the same group as people with GPA under 2.5).

Discrimination is when you judge a person based on a category he "belongs" to -- race, skin color, religion, hair color. too short, too heavy, whatever -- rather than on individual merit. In the example you gave, you are judging the person on merit; his lack of involvement in other extra-curricular activities suggests to you that he will not be an involved member of your fraternity or will not be a good "public face" for your fraternity.

Now, if you mean "discriminating" as in discriminating taste or judgment, I'll agree with you. I agree that GLOs do, and should do, that all the time. But that's just not the same as discriminating against someone, which is what I understood you to be talking about.

Yeah, words have different meanings and shades of meanings, and i think there was some mis-communication...

my problem isn't so much that discrimination is there, it's when it's there and people say it's not...and if you've never been on the bad end of it, it can't really be explained how it feels

And yeah, i said that no one is coming right out and saying "no special needs girls" but that will probably be the end effect, and that, to me, is discrimination

ETA: also, there should be standards, but to not take into account other mittigating circumstances is kind of short sighted, in my opinion