University of Southern California Recruitment Begins

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

But some schools seem to choose an artificially low number and have everyone have tons of quota additions. Technically you could have quota be 1 and everyone has 59 quota additions. You'd end up at the same place. I think (don't know for sure, but I know there are some advisors who have been in the room with THE COMPUTER and have seen it in action) some schools weigh quota additions in favor of the chapters and some in favor of the rushees. The huge quota additions may have something to do with that as well. But I'm just speculating.

If you set quota artificially low, it allows you to say that all chapters made quota. :-)

I'm trying to think through the math on this, and I think that a lower quota combined with QA's helps to better achieve equity among chapters. QA's are supposed to go to the smallest chapter listed on the bid card, though I have no idea if every school does it that way.

So, let's say you have two chapters, and ten women. All ten women list chapter A first and then chapter B. B is the smaller, less-popular chapter. If quota is five, five end up in each chapter. If quota is four, four end up in each chapter during the quota calculation, then B gets both of the QA's because it has the smaller total chapter size.

Okay, now say you have five women who list A first, and then five only invited to A, but all at the bottom of A's list. If quota is five, five match to A and zero match to B, then A gets five QA's. If quota drops to two, two match to A and two match to B, and then B gets one QA and A gets five QA's.

In either scenario, the lower quota helps B.

[dukedg]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

If you set quota artificially low, it allows you to say that all chapters made quota. :-)

I'm trying to think through the math on this, and I think that a lower quota combined with QA's helps to better achieve equity among chapters. QA's are supposed to go to the smallest chapter listed on the bid card, though I have no idea if every school does it that way.

So, let's say you have two chapters, and ten women. All ten women list chapter A first and then chapter B. B is the smaller, less-popular chapter. If quota is five, five end up in each chapter. If quota is four, four end up in each chapter during the quota calculation, then B gets both of the QA's because it has the smaller total chapter size.

Okay, now say you have five women who list A first, and then five only invited to A, but all at the bottom of A's list. If quota is five, five match to A and zero match to B, then A gets five QA's. If quota drops to two, two match to A and two match to B, and then B gets one QA and A gets five QA's.

In either scenario, the lower quota helps B.

This took me forever to find considering it was in this actual thread! Sad. Now that I have read it through, DBB, can you please explain the second scenario? Maybe I'm tired, but I am not understanding that one. Are there five women who list A and then B second and another set of five women who only attend pref at A and therefore are not listing B at all?

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by dukedg

This took me forever to find considering it was in this actual thread! Sad. Now that I have read it through, DBB, can you please explain the second scenario? Maybe I'm tired, but I am not understanding that one. Are there five women who list A and then B second and another set of five women who only attend pref at A and therefore are not listing B at all?

Yes, that is what I mean. I am trying to think of a situation where a higher quota helps a small chapter, and I can't come up with one at all.

[dukedg]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Yes, that is what I mean. I am trying to think of a situation where a higher quota helps a small chapter, and I can't come up with one at all.

I think it is hard to make a simple model of the bid matching process with all the unknown pieces. My problem with the "artificially" low quotas is the quota additions. At all the schools I've been involved with (granted, only three) the QAs are based on PNM preference, not helping the smaller chapters.

I tried to make a model with A and B, but I think the quota additions don't model correctly with only two chapters. Instead, if you think of a cluster of stronger-recruiting chapters and a cluster of weaker-recruiting chapters, then the problem becomes more clear. There will be women who get to pref that only preffed at two or three of the stronger-recruiting chapters. EVEN IF the campus uses the idea that QAs go to the smaller chapter, that would be the smaller of the strong cluster.

Then what happens is some of the stronger-recruiting chapters end up with quota +15, which still leaves the smaller chapters behind, even if they technically made quota.

If, as Titchou said, quota is now about matching as many women as possible to as many chapters as possible, then I can accept that we are saying it is no longer a tool to try to keep chapters at relatively the same sizes. Then, however, we should no longer judge our chapters on whether or not they made quota.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by dukedg

I think it is hard to make a simple model of the bid matching process with all the unknown pieces. My problem with the "artificially" low quotas is the quota additions. At all the schools I've been involved with (granted, only three) the QAs are based on PNM preference, not helping the smaller chapters.

I tried to make a model with A and B, but I think the quota additions don't model correctly with only two chapters. Instead, if you think of a cluster of stronger-recruiting chapters and a cluster of weaker-recruiting chapters, then the problem becomes more clear. There will be women who get to pref that only preffed at two or three of the stronger-recruiting chapters. EVEN IF the campus uses the idea that QAs go to the smaller chapter, that would be the smaller of the strong cluster.

Then what happens is some of the stronger-recruiting chapters end up with quota +15, which still leaves the smaller chapters behind, even if they technically made quota.

If, as Titchou said, quota is now about matching as many women as possible to as many chapters as possible, then I can accept that we are saying it is no longer a tool to try to keep chapters at relatively the same sizes. Then, however, we should no longer judge our chapters on whether or not they made quota.

Right, there was a long thread on QA's a while back, and I got attacked for the opinion that we should just let women go bidless if they pref two (three, on some campuses) strong recruiting chapters and aren't high enough on anybody's list. As long as someone missed quota, there would be opportunities for COB.

[crescent&pearls]

Originally Posted by dukedg

I think it is hard to make a simple model of the bid matching process with all the unknown pieces. My problem with the "artificially" low quotas is the quota additions. At all the schools I've been involved with (granted, only three) the QAs are based on PNM preference, not helping the smaller chapters.

I tried to make a model with A and B, but I think the quota additions don't model correctly with only two chapters. Instead, if you think of a cluster of stronger-recruiting chapters and a cluster of weaker-recruiting chapters, then the problem becomes more clear. There will be women who get to pref that only preffed at two or three of the stronger-recruiting chapters. EVEN IF the campus uses the idea that QAs go to the smaller chapter, that would be the smaller of the strong cluster.

Then what happens is some of the stronger-recruiting chapters end up with quota +15, which still leaves the smaller chapters behind, even if they technically made quota.

If, as Titchou said, quota is now about matching as many women as possible to as many chapters as possible, then I can accept that we are saying it is no longer a tool to try to keep chapters at relatively the same sizes. Then, however, we should no longer judge our chapters on whether or not they made quota.

I think you hit it right on the head. Chapters tend to compete in clusters for more or less the very same girls. I do think the idea is achieving overall relative parity- not ten chapters all of equal size or necessarily equal recruiting strength. Still, when a chapter hits quota or quota plus they should be at or over chapter total, so that most chapters, and certainly not half or the majority of chapters meeting quota are having to COR all year all long to fill spots.

The other question I have is how does RFM account for or compensate for a situation where a chapter starts competing in a different cluster? That seems to me the most likely unknown variable that causes a chapter to be off quota. Or maybe RFM doesn't address that variable?