New Member Process Changes in the last 50 years?

[annabella]

Gotcha. I know they were implemented (at my alma mater, anyway) in the wake of BMP, and the guys were.... resentful. They described them very similarly.

I think I was understanding it as a halfway point in a conversion of their pledging process. Like, taking the traditional pledge process, then adding in that specific philosophical framework, then a few years down the road implementing something like BMP. But I'm out of my lane on this one.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by annabella

Gotcha. I know they were implemented (at my alma mater, anyway) in the wake of BMP, and the guys were.... resentful. They described them very similarly.

I think I was understanding it as a halfway point in a conversion of their pledging process. Like, taking the traditional pledge process, then adding in that specific philosophical framework, then a few years down the road implementing something like BMP. But I'm out of my lane on this one.

That is also my understanding. It also seems like one or more NPC sororities has done the same.

[33girl]

-Just my take-

NPC sororities and IFC sororities have tried to standardize the pledge program much, much more than it used to be. IMO they are trying to take a cue from the NPHC groups, but not really succeeding.

The first problem with this is that every chapter is different, if in nothing else other than size. My pledge program (in the mid 80s) was seven weeks long. I felt this was ample time and didn't feel hurried or pressured. But - and this is a big BUT - my chapter only had 35 sisters at the time, and the Greek system itself was relatively small. I can't imagine my program in that time frame at a school like Penn State, or at a chapter with 150 sisters. You used to be able to tailor this more than you can now. I would never presume to tell another chapter what works for them. But that's exactly what's being done now - your program is 6 weeks, you do it in this manner, whether you have 15 or 215 members.

The second huge problem is that I would say half of the focus during pledging used to be on getting to know your chapter members, your campus - the other half on national history, etc. It seems like over time that first half has been chipped away more and more. The issue is that it's a complete 180 from the way NPC and NIC groups rush. Rush is almost completely based on how you feel about that chapter's members and how they feel about you - then once pledging starts, it turns into "OK, it's all about national history/national program now." IMO it's like throwing a med student into the busiest emergency room in town. This was what everyone was talking about in that "want to start Tri Delta" thread - love for your chapter comes first, from that grows love for the national org. This isn't a problem for NPHC groups, because their whole process - from researching, to rush functions, to intake - is like this.

We can't sell people with one thing and then expect them to be happy when they find they've purchased another.

[thetygerlily]

Originally Posted by 33girl

The first problem with this is that every chapter is different, if in nothing else other than size. My pledge program (in the mid 80s) was seven weeks long. I felt this was ample time and didn't feel hurried or pressured. But - and this is a big BUT - my chapter only had 35 sisters at the time, and the Greek system itself was relatively small. I can't imagine my program in that time frame at a school like Penn State, or at a chapter with 150 sisters. You used to be able to tailor this more than you can now. I would never presume to tell another chapter what works for them. But that's exactly what's being done now - your program is 6 weeks, you do it in this manner, whether you have 15 or 215 members.

There has been a lot of standardization for sure, especially in length of time- and there are probably some chapters that don't benefit from it as much. I think it changed in part to prevent hazing (theoretically less new member time, less opportunity to haze) and in part to allow more flexibility for the individual chapter.

When Kappa reduced the length of the new member program, it was a huge win for my chapter. Our school was on a trimester system, so we only had 10 weeks of class and the 11th week was finals. Recruitment occurred during the second week. With a mandatory 8+ week new member program, we often had to do initiation during "10th week" (say that at my school and you'll bring up feelings of fear and dread, it's when all papers, projects, and presentations are due) or even during finals week. When it was allowed to go down to 6, it meant we could initiate during 9th week, which was much more enjoyable and put less of a strain on our academic lives. BUT our chapter was 30 at the largest point, so to your other point it was a small group to get to know & fewer people needing to learn.

Overall I think it was a good change, for us. I could see it being harder on some of the larger chapters who have more going on in the chapter and at the school, but can't speak from experience on that one.