University of Southern California Recruitment Begins

[Titchou]

That's correct, Dubai Sis. There is a presumption made when the campus goes on RFM. And actually before RFM, there was a methodology for that but it's tighter now. So, once a campus has a history under RFM, that percentage will be used the following year, with adjustments year to year based upon the chapter's return rates each year. So it's fluid in that it can go up or down each year depending on a chapter's performance the previous year.

And AOIIAngel, at one time that was the general formula..depending on how many prefs you had. The basic assumption was that with 2 prefs you had to have 2.5 times quota (which had already been set earlier in rush) in order to have quota at the end. Obviously, that only worked on campuses where there was parity. With RFM, that assumption is gone and it is based on chapter performance averages.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Titchou

And AOIIAngel, at one time that was the general formula..depending on how many prefs you had. The basic assumption was that with 2 prefs you had to have 2.5 times quota (which had already been set earlier in rush) in order to have quota at the end. Obviously, that only worked on campuses where there was parity. With RFM, that assumption is gone and it is based on chapter performance averages.

A big change with RFM is that they also take into account the % of women who list a chapter first on their bid cards.

So, old system at a school with 2 prefs: If quota is forecasted to be 50, invite numbers would be set so that every chapter would get 100 girls at prefs. 50% return rate? You get to invite 200 girls. 75% return rate? You get to invite 133 girls.

However, you can see that this is predicated on the assumption that all the chapters suddenly equalize and half the PNM's at each chapter pick it. That is obviously NOT the case. If ABC is so awesome that every PNM will list them first, they don't need 100 girls, they only need 50. Letting them have 100 can be disastrous for the weaker chapters.


Another change with RFM is better forecasting. Previously, they used a 3-year or 5-year moving average to calculate return rates. So let's say ABC had 50% in 2009, 60% in 2010, and 70% in 2011. Their forecasting return rate would be 60% in 2012. Well, anyone paying attention would say that is a low assumption, because they are clearly doing better, and it makes sense to assume they'd have at least 70% in 2012. These types of things are now taken into consideration.

[gatordeltapgh]

I read more than I post, but I just wanted to chime in here to clear up a few questions/misconceptions about RFM, changes to QAs, etc.

The first campus started using RFM in 2003 and each year small improvements are made by the leadership team. We are in good hands.

Someone asked about the averages - they are weighted averages and most recent performance is the most critical. Someone mentioned the numbers are watched closely each day so that adjustments can be made. However, if a chapter under performs at a preference event they may not have enough women attend to made quota. It happens from time to time to even the strongest recruiting chapters.

The change remove the 5% cap for QAs was removed in 2008. This change has allow the specialists to do what is best for each situation without having their hands tied. There have been a few campuses over the years where the QAs have been distributed in an unusual manner but this is the exception rather than the rule. The overall goal is to grow the community.

There are very few campuses where a chapter are still listing women who did not attend their preference event on their bid list. Where this situation exists the Delegates and NPC AA are working to fix this issue as it is counterproductive to the process and often leads to other issues.

The 2011 MRABA clearly states that a PNM may only list on her MRABA chapters whose preference event she attended. We actually have them initial this section as well as sign.

All in all the statics are amazing to see the numbers of chapters making quota and the % of PNMs matched. Many NPC groups are working on retention as that is the other critical piece to the puzzle!

[33girl]

Originally Posted by gatordeltapgh

There are very few campuses where a chapter are still listing women who did not attend their preference event on their bid list. Where this situation exists the Delegates and NPC AA are working to fix this issue as it is counterproductive to the process and often leads to other issues.

Would those campuses most likely be the ones where pref = the first invite only event and RFM has been employed perhaps too zealously?

Originally Posted by gatordeltapgh

The 2011 MRABA clearly states that a PNM may only list on her MRABA chapters whose preference event she attended. We actually have them initial this section as well as sign.

It's on the form, but is it actually in the Green Book? Again - what happens at campuses where there was no cutting before pref?

I know you know where I'm coming from on this.

[gatordeltapgh]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Would those campuses most likely be the ones where pref = the first invite only event and RFM has been employed perhaps too zealously?

It's on the form, but is it actually in the Green Book? Again - what happens at campuses where there was no cutting before pref?

I know you know where I'm coming from on this.

Yes, I do know where you are coming from! I should have clarified that I was talking about schools that have fully or partially structured recruitment. There are very few of those schools where chapters list women who did not attend their preference event on their bid list. I can think of one who just corrected the situation on the chapter and PNM side last year, thankfully!

For schools that use minimally structured or continuous recruitment they still use the MRABA script and those women sign the COB acceptance binding agreement.

Yes, the info is in the MOI again in the "What Every Potential New Member Needs to Know About Recruitment" section in the recruitment handbook. The info is also on the script and on the form. Hopefully covering all bases!

The school you are thinking about isn't using RFM and we are still working on figuring out the best format. Always a work in progress, onward and upward!

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Titchou

That's correct, Dubai Sis. There is a presumption made when the campus goes on RFM. And actually before RFM, there was a methodology for that but it's tighter now. So, once a campus has a history under RFM, that percentage will be used the following year, with adjustments year to year based upon the chapter's return rates each year. So it's fluid in that it can go up or down each year depending on a chapter's performance the previous year.

And AOIIAngel, at one time that was the general formula..depending on how many prefs you had. The basic assumption was that with 2 prefs you had to have 2.5 times quota (which had already been set earlier in rush) in order to have quota at the end. Obviously, that only worked on campuses where there was parity. With RFM, that assumption is gone and it is based on chapter performance averages.

Right. This is what I was saying. In the past you wanted about 3x quota at prefs. They don't necessarily let the higher power chapters get that many at prefs anymore...as explained well by DBB below.
BTW, I think we're saying the same thing.

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

A big change with RFM is that they also take into account the % of women who list a chapter first on their bid cards.

So, old system at a school with 2 prefs: If quota is forecasted to be 50, invite numbers would be set so that every chapter would get 100 girls at prefs. 50% return rate? You get to invite 200 girls. 75% return rate? You get to invite 133 girls.

However, you can see that this is predicated on the assumption that all the chapters suddenly equalize and half the PNM's at each chapter pick it. That is obviously NOT the case. If ABC is so awesome that every PNM will list them first, they don't need 100 girls, they only need 50. Letting them have 100 can be disastrous for the weaker chapters.


Another change with RFM is better forecasting. Previously, they used a 3-year or 5-year moving average to calculate return rates. So let's say ABC had 50% in 2009, 60% in 2010, and 70% in 2011. Their forecasting return rate would be 60% in 2012. Well, anyone paying attention would say that is a low assumption, because they are clearly doing better, and it makes sense to assume they'd have at least 70% in 2012. These types of things are now taken into consideration.