Article from The Crimson White -

[Low C Sharp]

That's a great line, but I'm sorry, I call BS on the notion that "Joining a sorority is not about the way someone looks. It is about their confidence in themselves, grades from high school, involvement in extracurriculars and reputation throughout a community." If you look at the pledge class pictures from this letter-writer's chapter, it's obvious that selection is about confidence, grades, involvement, reputation, AND looks. Does she really think it's plausible that a group of 250+ young women chosen blindly would have so many size 4s with great hair and gorgeous smiles out of pure coincidence? (The SEC has a lot of pretty girls, but come on -- they aren't all 8s and 9s.) Would it be so bad to acknowledge reality and say that looks are one of many factors that can play a role in rush, and defend why sororities are worthwhile anyway?

[WCsweet<3]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

That's a great line, but I'm sorry, I call BS on the notion that "Joining a sorority is not about the way someone looks. It is about their confidence in themselves, grades from high school, involvement in extracurriculars and reputation throughout a community." If you look at the pledge class pictures from this letter-writer's chapter, it's obvious that selection is about confidence, grades, involvement, reputation, AND looks. Does she really think it's plausible that a group of 250+ young women chosen blindly would have so many size 4s with great hair and gorgeous smiles out of pure coincidence? (The SEC has a lot of pretty girls, but come on -- they aren't all 8s and 9s.) Would it be so bad to acknowledge reality and say that looks are one of many factors that can play a role in rush, and defend why sororities are worthwhile anyway?

I mean yes, looks probably takes part in NPC recruitment. However, it probably plays as much as it does in a job interview. I mean I can't talk about membership selection, but most likely there are other factors that come before looks. I did not attend a SEC school, but the differences from the freshman composites to the senior composites for my pledge class is ridiculous. We all look much more polished. Mainly because our sisters taught us how to use a straightener (never had used one before the sorority) to how to use make up differently etc. People can learn how to look more polished. I would be amazed if looks did play a major role in selection.

[ElieM]

"Joining a sorority is not just about the way someone looks. It is about their confidence in themselves, grades from high school, involvement in extracurriculars and reputation throughout a community."

maybe that's a better way to put it?

[DTD Alum]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

That's a great line, but I'm sorry, I call BS on the notion that "Joining a sorority is not about the way someone looks. It is about their confidence in themselves, grades from high school, involvement in extracurriculars and reputation throughout a community."

I tend to agree with you. And frankly, although I possess no insider information whatsoever and this is admittedly a lane swerve, at my alma mater I would be shocked if looks and/or connections didn't trump grades and involvement for at least three of the four most competitive sororities. Admittedly the fourth really did seem to value women with impressive resumes and diversity (racially, geographically, and socio-economically) and it really showed in the type of women they pledged, to the point that even people outside the GLO system noticed and praised them for it. So the process can work, it just doesn't always.

I would not be surprised if part of nationally mandated ranking/scoring/membership selection includes giving points for GPA, activities, etc. That much has been less than subtly alluded to many, many times. But if those points are the decision of a national organization run by women who are at a much more mature and wise point in their life, does their presence really make the process less shallow when it is performed in real life (vs. the "ideal" rush process in a recruitment manual), or does it simply serve as an extra roadblock that has to be manipulated or tolerated on the way to "getting the hottest pledge class everrrrrrr"?

This post isn't meant to disrespect any national organizations or collegians who really believe in the value of their nationally mandated membership values. I just think GLOs are an interesting experience because on one hand, they are a great way to instill leadership, maturity, responsibility, and confidence. But on the other hand, we have to remember these are 18-22 year old men and women who still have a way to go before true maturity. Some chapters are going to vote in rich bombshells over born leaders, some chapters are going to fudge community service hours or giggle through ritual, some chapters are going to cook the books so their finance adviser doesn't notice the money spent on alcohol. Pretending these things don't exist and that every chapter subscribes to national ideals just makes us look foolish in the eyes of people on the outside who can see a shallow chapter from a mile away. They aren't seeing the values national GLOs want to be used in their pledge class selection, they see the end result, and half the time you'd have to be drinking the kool aid to still buy the party line after seeing the "smart, accomplished, classy pledge class that was not judged on looks or expensive clothes at all!".

(And for the record, I'm not specifically targeting sororities, IFC rush puts even less focus on grades, activities, etc.)