NPC Quota, Release Figures and Quota Additions (Updated 8/7/2007)

[itb]

This idea of not offering legacies just seems contradictory on so many levels.

If a FOUNDER of any organization could see how membership is done presently, I would think they would be appalled. Why would any organization risk alienating alums by not offering legacies? You not only lose future membership, but also financial support as well.

If an organization is successful (however you measure it, but let's use size, because of 'quotas'), then why should you turn away membership? How did this policy start? Some weaker organization whining about how they are shrinking, and then this policy was instituted to help them out? Was the policy started by a non-greek or someone with a grudge? Why would any organization want to help their competition? After all, every organization is competing for alum financial support and member support...

If House A can attract 200 people, and House X can only get 5, then House X deserves to go silent, unless they fix the problem. If House A decides to NOT offer legacies, and all of a sudden their Alums stop supporting them (causing decline), then they ALSO deserve that as well.

[kddani]

Originally Posted by itb

This idea of not offering legacies just seems contradictory on so many levels.

If a FOUNDER of any organization could see how membership is done presently, I would think they would be appalled. Why would any organization risk alienating alums by not offering legacies? You not only lose future membership, but also financial support as well.

If an organization is successful (however you measure it, but let's use size, because of 'quotas'), then why should you turn away membership? How did this policy start? Some weaker organization whining about how they are shrinking, and then this policy was instituted to help them out? Was the policy started by a non-greek or someone with a grudge? Why would any organization want to help their competition? After all, every organization is competing for alum financial support and member support...

If House A can attract 200 people, and House X can only get 5, then House X deserves to go silent, unless they fix the problem. If House A decides to NOT offer legacies, and all of a sudden their Alums stop supporting them (causing decline), then they ALSO deserve that as well.

You seem quite bitter.

[itb]

It's this characterization that just baffles most reasonable people. It's 'bitter' if your opinion is to let weaker organizations that cannot adapt or change or improve go silent or let stronger ones retain legacies and strength.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by kddani

You seem quite bitter.

There was another word starting with "bit" I was thinking of, but yeah, bitter works too.

If you think it's beneficial for women to be in a chapter with 300-400 members - and YES this would happen if some chapters offered bids to all the legacies going through - then you have an extremely screwed up view of what sisterhood is supposed to be about.

I personally do not consider the concept of a group with 400 members where the majority of people don't know each other's names or faces to be "strong" where sororities are concerned, but hey, if all you care about is letters on a jersey and a resume, rock out with your cock out.

ETA: I see you have dipped your toe in these waters before. Maybe your daughter's resume/stats just weren't good enough to get her in, or the chapter didn't like her, or SHE didn't like the chapter (and it showed). Suck it up, quit blaming the sorority, and move the eff on - for your daughter's sake.

[AlphaXi_Husky]

Originally Posted by 33girl

but hey, if all you care about is letters on a jersey and a resume, rock out with your cock out.

I am seriously LMAO at this.

And nothing new to add, just that I agree w/ 33girl and KSU

[KSUViolet06]

Originally Posted by itb

This idea of not offering legacies just seems contradictory on so many levels.

If a FOUNDER of any organization could see how membership is done presently, I would think they would be appalled. Why would any organization risk alienating alums by not offering legacies? You not only lose future membership, but also financial support as well.

If an organization is successful (however you measure it, but let's use size, because of 'quotas'), then why should you turn away membership? How did this policy start? Some weaker organization whining about how they are shrinking, and then this policy was instituted to help them out? Was the policy started by a non-greek or someone with a grudge? Why would any organization want to help their competition? After all, every organization is competing for alum financial support and member support...

If House A can attract 200 people, and House X can only get 5, then House X deserves to go silent, unless they fix the problem. If House A decides to NOT offer legacies, and all of a sudden their Alums stop supporting them (causing decline), then they ALSO deserve that as well.

Quite possibly one of the most bitter things I've ever heard.

Anyhow, legacies policies are NOT in place to help/hinder OTHER sororities. So your little thingy about who deserves to "go silent" is pointless.

To be honest, legacy policies are meant to HELP chapters to pledge MORE of them, not fewer.

Also, something that people FAIL to realize is that if certain chapters offered a bid to EVERY LEGACY, there would be NO room for ANYONE ELSE. There would be a chapter full of them. Like it or not, they have to play fair and leave room for others who do not have legacy connections.

Another thing: parents often do NOT realize that a legacy HAS to be a GOOD FIT for the chapter. Alot of times, they don't get that their daughter may have not been a good fit, she may have not been interested, she may have been rude, etc. You just never know.

I get that moms get upset when their kid doesn't get a bid to their legacy chapter, but it is sometimes beneficial for them to see the big picture.

I think that every sorority makes the best effort to accomodate legacies and extend bids to them when possible, but that just doesn't happen every time.

[violetpretty]

Originally Posted by itb

This idea of not offering legacies just seems contradictory on so many levels.

If a FOUNDER of any organization could see how membership is done presently, I would think they would be appalled. Why would any organization risk alienating alums by not offering legacies? You not only lose future membership, but also financial support as well.

If an organization is successful (however you measure it, but let's use size, because of 'quotas'), then why should you turn away membership? How did this policy start? Some weaker organization whining about how they are shrinking, and then this policy was instituted to help them out? Was the policy started by a non-greek or someone with a grudge? Why would any organization want to help their competition? After all, every organization is competing for alum financial support and member support...

If House A can attract 200 people, and House X can only get 5, then House X deserves to go silent, unless they fix the problem. If House A decides to NOT offer legacies, and all of a sudden their Alums stop supporting them (causing decline), then they ALSO deserve that as well.

Since you seem to be confused on the origin of legacy policies, every NPC has its own legacy policy, Panhellenic just uses release figures to tell each chapter how many women to invite to each round. Many NPCs will guarantee a legacy an invite to the first invitational round when space allows. This is not possible for very competitive chapters on certain campuses who have so many legacies going through (ie more than quota).

I think you're upset at the concept of quota and RFM. Panhellenic does not tell any member organization how to evaluate its legacies. So why would NPCs agree to a quota system? Because every NPC has struggling chapters somewhere. (Or chapters that would be struggling if not for RFM.) The quota system (and RFM) help maximize Greek membership on every campus, which in turn helps the struggling chapters that every NPC has somewhere.

Quite often the only "problem" your hypothetical "House X" might have is that PNMs don't give it a chance because of tent talk by other PNMs, other Greeks, alumnae, etc. This is where RFM steps in and allows these chapters the chance to show PNMs how great their chapters are.

I think back to how recruitment was done at my alma mater in the 1980s (based on stories). There were few cuts after the first round, so many PNMs would drop the "less popular" chapters as soon as they could, but then get cut out of all their other options as recruitment went on. If RFM had been used beginning in the 1980s, my school might still have Pi Beta Phi, Alpha Gamma Delta, Alpha Xi Delta, and Gamma Phi Beta.

If you were an active alum in your NPC, you'd probably be aware of the legacy policies and competitiveness of your sorority at your daughter's campus, and you'd probably still be active in your local alumnae chapter and support the local collegiate chapter with time and/or money. I'm guessing your sorority isn't losing much without your participation. If it were really that important to your daughter to join your sorority, she should have tried her luck at a campus with a less competitive chapter. Or maybe your dear daughter really isn't as great as you think she is.