|
My chapter faced a similar situation when I was our chapter president back eight or so years ago. We had historically been a weak recruiting chapter, but our recruitment chair had been an absolute rockstar that year and we were ready to improve our chapter recruiting strength. Our problem was that we had an unusually high number of sisters who were on study abroad/internships so our recruiting number was lower. Increased recruiting strength + lower numbers = total double rushing disaster. I was the chapter president and I wound up having to double rush women. What a mess. This was at a large competitive school in the south where each party can involve bringing eighty PNMs through your house.
Our school was implementing RFM that year and there was strong pressure on us to offer invitations to second and third round for women that we did not think were a match and who we could not reasonably handle coming through our doors. We felt that inviting back fewer would mean smaller parties for us than for other houses but that we'd have a better chance of retaining them if we weren't double and triple rushing them, and if the other women under the tent with them were more of our "preferred" PNMs. (We also knew PNMs talked, the "well that chapter invites back EVERYONE" awful tent talk, etc. etc.)
At any rate, we were in agreement with DeltaBetaBaby's argument. Now, with a few years behind me and some perspective, I understand why our HQ and Panhellenic were so adamant that we stick to the RFM figures. (I think we were a pilot school for RFM, so if our chapter went "rogue" it would have messed with things.) I do think there's an argument to be made that releasing more women than RFM recommends is risky but has potential upside.
|
Threaded Mode
