After Several Years: What Do You Think of the New Release Figures?

[VandalSquirrel]

I've got a lot to say on the subject, need to formulate my ideas (plus some people have already said what I wanted to say), but if some girl wants to drop out and not attend parties because some group is that offensive to her, let her. Sure she'd be out of recruitment, but at least she wouldn't be leading a chapter on, or taking the place of a more open minded person. The sooner they drop out the sooner groups can see who is committed to giving everyone a chance, and girls who may have been released (though desirable to some groups) will have a decent chance.

I hate seeing groups work hard for those who won't give them a chance for whatever reason. I find it really offensive and tacky when a group of women open their home and sisterhood to someone, and that woman can't even give them a chance.

Yeah this will ruffle some feathers, but frankly I don't care. I am tired of groups catering to PNMs with superficial issues and I think RFM is one way we can really weed out women who would join a group at school X and transfer to school Y for the prestige.

[AOII Angel]

I choose to take little stock in the anecdotal stories of increased drop out rates because of the shorter new member period or RFM. Change always makes people long for the old days, but until you can give actual research that supports these anecdotal stories, they are nothing but stories. The research says that the system is working better. It makes sense. As for PH calling a chapter and harrassing them to take a girl they cut, it's ridiculous. The chapter I advise cuts more than their release figures recommend every year. They don't get to take quota additions since they didn't "maximize their options," but they are willing to take that risk so they only take women they want. PH can complain, but they can't make you do anything!

[AnchorAlumna]

Originally Posted by carnation

FSUZeta, here's how I remember the system in the past: the bigger groups at each university wouldn't make many cuts until after theme parties, then they'd cut very heavily. That's when we had all the recruitment dropouts.

That's how I remember it too, especially at Auburn, where blanket invitations were issued through 3-party day (I think). A member of one of the biggest groups actually told me they didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings, so they kept inviting them back - with no intention of pledging these girls!
The new method has strengthened the weaker chapters, and isn't that good, in the long run, for everybody? The big groups who choose their NM classes before the first party still do that (which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't).

I, too, hate the shortened NM period. Even a couple of weeks longer would help, I think. Members don't know histories, policies or procedures as well. I've seen members clueless about our Founders, and we only have 3!

[AGDee]

Back in my day, we had formal recruitment twice each year. The fall semester pledge class got their bids in early to mid October and had to wait until January for Initiation so that they had college grades. The Spring pledge class got their bids in early February and were Initiated at the end of March. That makes it seem like one class had a lot longer to learn the material and stuff, but it didn't really work out that way. If you think about the timing, our pledge periods were really about the same in actual time spent on pledging. The fall class had meetings from early-mid October until early-mid December.. about 8 weeks. Then we had dead week (week before finals) and finals week, then two weeks away from school completely. They were initiated the first weekend back at school. The spring pledge class had meetings from early Feb to early April and were initiated right around the 8 week mark. The additional time for the fall class was not spent doing anything except finals and being home for Christmas, in reality. Both classes truly had 8 weeks of pledging either way. The "shortened" pledge period of 8 weeks doesn't seem shortened to me at all. Ours was that long 25 years ago when I pledged.

[33girl]

I think that since interviews and things like that have been eradicated (worst idea ever but that isn't the point of this post) 6 weeks should be ample to complete a nationally mandated, cookie cutter pledge program. The only thing that I think would suck is getting to know enough people well enough to choose your big.

Originally Posted by AnchorAlumna

I, too, hate the shortened NM period. Even a couple of weeks longer would help, I think. Members don't know histories, policies or procedures as well. I've seen members clueless about our Founders, and we only have 3!

That isn't because they don't have time to learn it. That's because your national program isn't making it a priority. Which seems to be a trend, sadly.

[DoctorD]

Originally Posted by AnchorAlumna

I, too, hate the shortened NM period. Even a couple of weeks longer would help, I think. Members don't know histories, policies or procedures as well. I've seen members clueless about our Founders, and we only have 3!

Originally Posted by 33girl

I think that since interviews and things like that have been eradicated (worst idea ever but that isn't the point of this post) 6 weeks should be ample to complete a nationally mandated, cookie cutter pledge program. The only thing that I think would suck is getting to know enough people well enough to choose your big.


That isn't because they don't have time to learn it. That's because your national program isn't making it a priority. Which seems to be a trend, sadly.

But seriously, folks - do you REALLY need to learn EVERYTHING in the new member period? Can't some of this be spread out and learned later on? What is really the most important for an 18 year old to learn as she joins an organization? In my mind, it is to learn that the women she is with are fabulous people, and these are the people she will WANT to be with for the next few years [and beyond] - she wants to bond with these women and make connections. Interviewing folks doesn't make connections... doing things with them does. New member periods should be about beginnings.... not about everything. Cramming in information that is book work or just like school is boring. Have education, yes, but make it interesting and fun. The new member period should still be a recruitment period... a 6-8 week "wooing" that "teaches" the new member "yep, I chose wisely... and I want others to experience this, too." It should be "the basics" - how do I function within this particular chapter?

There's plenty of time for education about the sorority if you look at the opportunities for education about the organization over the course of 3-4 years vs. 6-8 weeks. I know that is how our organization is moving, and from what I can tell a number of others are doing the same. Learning about the founders, our history, and our values is STILL a priority - but only the groundwork has to be accomplished during the new member period.

My $.02. That and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

[Thetagirl218]

Originally Posted by FSUZeta

pro:rfm seems to be working. it's not perfect, but it is much better than the previous system.

Being someone who was initiated in the last ten years...what was the previous system?

[Just interested]

All I know is I applaud Chi O for sticking to their guns and waiting until after the semester and grades are made to initiate. I feel it makes membership much more special and moms I've talked to like it as well. I don't know about retention and all that but I think the way it is now girls feel they are just joining a club and not a life long affiliation. Change is good but at what cost, numbers or lifelong members. Just random thoughts

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by Just interested

All I know is I applaud Chi O for sticking to their guns and waiting until after the semester and grades are made to initiate. I feel it makes it that it makes membership much more special and moms I've talked to like it as well. I don't know about retention and all that but I think the way it is now girls feel they are just joining a club and not a life long affiliation. Change is good but at what cost, mumbers or lifelong members. Just random thoughts

I have my moments of appreciating the wait, also. I can honestly see both sides of the matter, but the bottom line is that women go to college for an education.

[AGDee]

In my 20 years as a volunteer, I actually see more women making grades these days than in the past. We have also raised our minimum requirements for good standing for both individuals and chapters in those years. Our national average GPA increased with the birth of our Strive for Pi program (an incentive program with awards for members/chapters that achieve a GPA of Pi .. 3.14). I don't see huge numbers of new initiates not making grades. In fact, it seems like it's usually sophomores who have trouble with grades. In fact, overall GPAs have increased so much that I really wonder about grade inflation on the schools' parts. Almost always, a change in major improves a woman's grades a lot. Sometimes they are just in a major that doesn't fit their skill set and when they change to something that fits them better, their grades improve tremendously.

As for release figures, it does seem to be working to help more chapters get quota/total. I agree that no chapter should ever be pressured by PH to invite a woman that they cut just so that they meet their release figures. We are, by nature, supposed to be selective organizations so it's only natural that some women will get dropped by all chapters or not receive a bid. It does seem to me that the disappointment of being dropped from the 'dream' chapter early on would be less than going through the whole process to find out you don't have a bid because your favorite three chapters invited 5 times quota to pref, knowing full well that most of those women wouldn't get a bid.

[kddani]

Though I don't have a ton of knowledge on the subject, the new release figures seems to have greatly helped my alma matter- Pitt. I graduated in 02, and since then, the membership among sororities has evened out and actually gone up- before, there would be as many as 5 out of the 11 sororities not at total. Now, there's only 1 that's consistently under total (by their own choice, I might add). It's really evened the playing field.

[ZTA72]

Originally Posted by Just interested

All I know is I applaud Chi O for sticking to their guns and waiting until after the semester and grades are made to initiate. I feel it makes membership much more special and moms I've talked to like it as well. I don't know about retention and all that but I think the way it is now girls feel they are just joining a club and not a life long affiliation. Change is good but at what cost, numbers or lifelong members. Just random thoughts

Back in the day, 70s, we (ZTA) waited until January for initiation. Our grades determined whether or not we could be initiated. Our pledge period was the entire quarter. I don't remember if other groups waited or initiated earlier in the quarter. At the risk of sounding " old school", I totally agree that it is worth the wait.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Just interested

All I know is I applaud Chi O for sticking to their guns and waiting until after the semester and grades are made to initiate. I feel it makes membership much more special and moms I've talked to like it as well. I don't know about retention and all that but I think the way it is now girls feel they are just joining a club and not a life long affiliation. Change is good but at what cost, numbers or lifelong members. Just random thoughts

Are their any studies or numbers that support this? How does an extra month of waiting for initiation improve the odds that a girl will take the lifelong membership seriously? Have you seen more people intiated then have to be dropped for grades? There is a relatively small difference in time of the new member period in both situations...I fail to see how it can make that big of a difference. I don't think AOII has seen a change in grades over the years, which is the only thing that I can see would actually be different between the two options.

[SWTXBelle]

I too wondered how waiting a few extra weeks = taking membership more seriously. We had to wait until the next semester to initiate - and still had those who did not take their membership seriously. Not making grades hasn't been a big issue in the chapters with which I was involved. If anything, I can think of a case where the fact that a member was already initiated but on scholastic probation made her study that much harder to get her grades up and remain on campus and an unfettered active. It all depends on the individual.

I am sure each NPC group has carefully considered the pros and cons of a shortened pledge period and continues to monitor its success. I personally think the most important determining factor is the new member education program itself, whether it is 6 weeks or 6 months. Also, don't discount the examples set by actives and alumnae. New members are more likely to believe in lifetime membership if that's what they see around them.

[gee_ess]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I personally think the most important determining factor is the new member education program itself, whether it is 6 weeks or 6 months. Also, don't discount the examples set by actives and alumnae. New members are more likely to believe in lifetime membership if that's what they see around them.

This is my position. The shortened new member period seems here to stay, but from what I have seen, a new and improved program that takes into consideration this shorter period has not surfaced within my GLO. Add to that, much larger pledge classes and activity restrictions (read: no testing of pledge material, for example) and it makes for woefully disinfranchised new members.