Texas A&M: To rush or not to rush?

[TXGreekMom]

UT Dean of Students put a letter out last week to its Greek stakeholders, asking them to please clearly state their organizational policies regarding membership restrictions for PACE students (the Texas equivalent of Blinn Team).

Formal rush at UT starts today. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out in September.

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by TXGreekMom

UT Dean of Students put a letter out last week to its Greek stakeholders, asking them to please clearly state their organizational policies regarding membership restrictions for PACE students (the Texas equivalent of Blinn Team).

Formal rush at UT starts today. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out in September.

Could the bolded above fall under membership selection?

[clemsongirl]

Originally Posted by TXGreekMom

UT Dean of Students put a letter out last week to its Greek stakeholders, asking them to please clearly state their organizational policies regarding membership restrictions for PACE students (the Texas equivalent of Blinn Team).

Formal rush at UT starts today. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out in September.

That will be interesting to see. I feel like that's infringing on MSS a bit, since if a girl knew going in that she couldn't join a certain chapter then she would have no inclination to carry conversation or make an attempt to impress the actives. Obviously rude PNMs will be rude regardless but I would feel disheartened if I had to attend a bunch of parties first round that I had no chance at.

[WhiteRose1912]

Originally Posted by clemsongirl

That will be interesting to see. I feel like that's infringing on MSS a bit, since if a girl knew going in that she couldn't join a certain chapter then she would have no inclination to carry conversation or make an attempt to impress the actives. Obviously rude PNMs will be rude regardless but I would feel disheartened if I had to attend a bunch of parties first round that I had no chance at.

I would think, ideally, panhellenic and the chapters who cannot take them would agree that it's okay not to make the ineligible pnms go to their houses during that round. Easier on the sisters, easier on the pnms.

That's if this information becomes publicly known, of course. I'm not sure how I feel about them requesting this information in the first place.

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by WhiteRose1912

I would think, ideally, panhellenic and the chapters who cannot take them would agree that it's okay not to make the ineligible pnms go to their houses during that round. Easier on the sisters, easier on the pnms.

When does the university stop intruding upon the NPC members right to meet ALL registered PNMs?

The university may someday choose to tell PNMs they don't have to attend rush parties at houses where they do not meet that specific home's GPA requirement.

Or the university may decide to tell certain NPC groups they can't rush upperclassmen, negating the necessity for certain PNMs to attend THOSE rush parties.

The point of recruitment is to meet women from all walks of life regardless of their GPA/social status/legacy status/etc.

[WhiteRose1912]

Originally Posted by Cheerio

When does the university stop intruding upon the NPC members right to meet ALL registered PNMs?

I wasn't aware that they'd started, outside of university-mandated minimum GPA requirements to participate in recruitment.

I'm saying that if it's very clear from national policy that they cannot take these women, no matter how much they want to, it would be nice if they didn't have to waste one another's time and resources. At my alma mater, 3/5 of the chapters could take grad students. Grad student pnms still had to attend the other two chapters' parties for no reason. In situations where those chapters are smaller and may be double rushing pnms, for instance, this hurts them by throwing one more body into the mix whom they absolutely, positively cannot invite back to another round.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by WhiteRose1912

In situations where those chapters are smaller and may be double rushing pnms, for instance, this hurts them by throwing one more body into the mix whom they absolutely, positively cannot invite back to another round.

I'm picking up what you're laying down, but I think at UT, for the most part the chapter parity is such that it really isn't a problem.

There's also the chance that by actually meeting and liking some of the PACE women, the chapters will be more likely to lobby their HQ to alter their policy if HQ is reluctant to do so for whatever reason.

[WhiteRose1912]

Originally Posted by 33girl

There's also the chance that by actually meeting and liking some of the PACE women, the chapters will be more likely to lobby their HQ to alter their policy if HQ is reluctant to do so for whatever reason.

I'm all for that!

Really, I am against the sharing of membership selection information. However, I understand wanting to confirm that the PACE women would be eligible for bidding by at least one of the chapters before telling the women that they may register. Having every single one of them be cut after open house round because no one can take PACE students would be a nightmare scenario.

My unease is in the knowledge that it's probably not going to be one person confirming that bidding eligibility within the panhellenic community exists and then moving on.

I cannot imagine how disruptive to the process it would be if Rho Chi's had to sift through PNM files to determine if specific PNMs could be excused from a party for whatever reason.

Surely no more complicated than a right-click sort in Excel, and then putting the PACE women in their own Rho Chi groups. Easy peasy?