University of Southern California Recruitment Begins

[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?