Classification v. "Years Left"

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

If a woman says she'll be active her fifth year - believe her - rather than just assuming that she'll bail because she's older. This is why I don't like programs that focus on "senior retention" - just the existence of such a thing is essentially telling women that most seniors don't stay active (i.e. if you do, you'll be a weirdo) and that freshmen are the only members worth rushing.

But if you really DO have a problem with senior retention, shouldn't you work to address it? It seems a bit silly to ignore the problem so that you don't tell women something that is actually true. They aren't stupid, and the juniors would figure out that the seniors start disappearing without a program. With a program you might actually fix the problem.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

But if you really DO have a problem with senior retention, shouldn't you work to address it? It seems a bit silly to ignore the problem so that you don't tell women something that is actually true. They aren't stupid, and the juniors would figure out that the seniors start disappearing without a program. With a program you might actually fix the problem.

If YOUR CHAPTER has a problem with senior retention, you should definitely address it with in-chapter programming.

But I don't think it should be a national initiative as for some chapters it is a complete non-issue. It's like forcing every chapter to have a committee in charge of hiring house staff when a lot of chapters don't have a house and have no prospects of one.

I just don't think every aspect of chapter programming has to come from your nationals. Create a program on your own, get nationals to approve it, and then offer it to other chapters IF they need help on that issue - not automatically assuming that all chapters come out of the same cookie cutter and will all have the same problems.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

If YOUR CHAPTER has a problem with senior retention, you should definitely address it with in-chapter programming.

But I don't think it should be a national initiative as for some chapters it is a complete non-issue. It's like forcing every chapter to have a committee in charge of hiring house staff when a lot of chapters don't have a house and have no prospects of one.

I just don't think every aspect of chapter programming has to come from your nationals. Create a program on your own, get nationals to approve it, and then offer it to other chapters IF they need help on that issue - not automatically assuming that all chapters come out of the same cookie cutter and will all have the same problems.

Ah, I did not get that from your original comment. I think it's a good thing to have a program available from HQs but not to require it if it isn't needed at a particular chapter. Then again, I've not seen such that sort of requirement from our HQ, their programs are either optional or geared very generally to they are applicable to all like NM programs and such.