Too many choices may cause groups to focus on looks

[thetygerlily]

My initial thought, as someone who came from a very small system, is yes.

My system had three sororities with around 30 members each, with an average of 20-25 PNMs matching during formal recruitment. It was not competitive, although not everyone got where they wanted or had a perfect recruitment. We saw maybe 1-2 legacies a year max (mostly when an older sister was in the same school), and about as many recs. Legacies and recs were novelties, not requirements or major factors in decisions. But there were not mandatory cuts on either side, nor were chapters known for only taking certain kinds of girls. The personalities of the chapters were different and certain chapters were known for more things than others (e.g. smart, athletes, pretty partiers) but all chapters had a variety of those three stereotypes. Ultimately most people joined where they felt the most comfortable, where they knew the most people, or who impressed them the most in various ways. We also had deferred recruitment, though.

This is probably an argument for deferred recruitment as well, to allow time for PNMs to get to know the chapters better and vice versa. Thus real connections can be made, and the inputs into the decision making process can be based on a variety of interactions rather than literally and figuratively, a "rush".

I will say that had I gone to a larger school with a lot more chapters and a competitive recruitment, I probably would not have gone through. Hard to say in hindsight (we were so brave as 18 year olds, weren't we?) but I barely went through as it was.

[ComradesTrue]

Originally Posted by thetygerlily

This is probably an argument for deferred recruitment as well, to allow time for PNMs to get to know the chapters better and vice versa. Thus real connections can be made, and the inputs into the decision making process can be based on a variety of interactions rather than literally and figuratively, a "rush".

I've seen this argument presented on here before, for the same reasons that you mention. However, I think that this is a "Your Miles May Vary" type of situation. Three schools that I am very familiar with (Baylor, SMU and Vanderbilt) all have deferred recruitments and those are some of the most cut-throat, "must pledge top tier" type of recruitments out there. It is an entire semester of dirty rush, fraternity boys telling the PNMs which houses they "should" be in, and hearing reputations.

Will some actives/PNMs look past all that? Sure. Does spring recruitment work better at some campuses than a fall recruitment would? Absolutely. However, as with many of the topics/situations discussed on these boards I just don't think that fall vs spring can be a one size fits all type of decision. My university (TCU) is similar to those 3 in many regards, and while fall recruitment certainly had its drawbacks- the topic of this thread among them- I personally prefer that system to what my friends at these other universities dealt with. Despite that, I trust that those schools are doing what they feel is best for their campus culture and would never insinuate that they need to change.

As to the topic of this thread, it is an interesting hypothesis that AOII angel puts forth, and I do think there may be something to it with sorority recruitment as well.