question

[AZTheta]

Assuming arguendo:

If we are going to apply the "wait a calendar year til the next formal recruitment" (or whatever) idea to every single bid issued, then we are saying that formal recruitment is identical to COB/informal recruitment. That's the first problem. They are two vastly different experiences. "Stigma" of COB is the fundamental issue, and thinking that increasing the wait time to equate to FR if a COB new member drops isn't an improvement. From there, the logic goes completely awry.

There are more issues with a "smaller" chapter than restricting a pnm's ability to re-rush in a certain time period will help or solve in terms of achieving parity in membership size. That's been pointed out by others in this discussion.

Think about it. Just think it all the way through. I know what I'm trying to say but I wonder if it's going to come across at all the way I intend it. I'm NOT talking down to anyone. I'm just looking at the logic.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by AZTheta

If we are going to apply the "wait a calendar year til the next formal recruitment" (or whatever) idea to every single bid issued, then we are saying that formal recruitment is identical to COB/informal recruitment. That's the first problem. They are two vastly different experiences.

Oh, I have no doubt that formal recruitment is vastly different from informal recruitment. But, I don't see why the bid itself - the invitation to become a member - should be different. That's the inequality I'm talking about. If a bid is intended to signify the chapter's desire for a woman to join, I don't see why some bids are more binding than others. A bid is a bid is a bid...

I like AGDee's suggestion of a different time period - maybe a semester or 6 months or something. If this were applied across the board, regardless of what type of recruitment was involved, I think it would help. (Except from a paperwork POV. I'd hate to have to be the one to track which women were issued which bids on which days. Ugh.)

[Titchou]

Correct.

[DubaiSis]

Yeah, I just don't think that is the answer to any problem. I would prefer the COB'ing chapter take a breath before offering the bid, make sure the rushee meets several members of the chapter, and goes in with eyes fully open.

Recruitment and retention are two completely different problems and I think punishing one for a weakness in the other doesn't solve anything.

[Titchou]

While I understand your POV, the bottom line items are:

1) Someone has to track all these dates

2) ALL COB bids would not expire until AFTER FR the following year so ALL COB bids would not be equal once again.

We all need to get the emotions out of this and look at the logistics...which are almost insurmountable.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

Because PNMs who got a bid to a "lower" chapter would drop when a "higher" chapter needed to COB after total is adjusted following FR.

Originally Posted by Titchou

Because you need a restrictive time frame of some sort. Otherwise, you could have people running back and forth with no allegiance. That's why the NCAA finally instituted the rules they have. Coaches used to go kidnap players from other schools and get them enrolled and playing within days. Totally not fair.

Ok, so let's go back to the 6 month/semester wait period...

Originally Posted by SydneyK

I like AGDee's suggestion of a different time period - maybe a semester or 6 months or something. If this were applied across the board, regardless of what type of recruitment was involved, I think it would help. (Except from a paperwork POV. I'd hate to have to be the one to track which women were issued which bids on which days. Ugh.)

Originally Posted by Titchou

While I understand your POV, the bottom line items are:

1) Someone has to track all these dates

2) ALL COB bids would not expire until AFTER FR the following year so ALL COB bids would not be equal once again.

We all need to get the emotions out of this and look at the logistics...which are almost insurmountable.

I guess I'm not understanding why you would have to keep track of when women were given bids in a 6 month/semester system any more than you would have to keep track of when they were given bids in an annual system.

I thought the full-year-rule wasn't specific, in that it basically requires you to wait 2 semesters to go through recruitment again, not specifically 365 days. Why would you have to keep track of the date that each woman received a bid? Maybe I don't understand how this works...

[33girl]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

I guess I'm not understanding why you would have to keep track of when women were given bids in a 6 month/semester system any more than you would have to keep track of when they were given bids in an annual system.

I thought the full-year-rule wasn't specific, in that it basically requires you to wait 2 semesters to go through recruitment again, not specifically 365 days. Why would you have to keep track of the date that each woman received a bid? Maybe I don't understand how this works...

No, you have it perfect. No one comes running into UT rush on August 27 and yelling "OMG!!! You have 20 rerushers from last year and must make them stop NOW because bid day last year was on August 26!!!"

[DubaiSis]

^^^ This ^^^

Regardless of intent, the logistics make the whole point not even worth discussing.

[ASTalumna06]

Perhaps I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but why not eliminate the one-year (or any) wait period altogether?

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Perhaps I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but why not eliminate the one-year (or any) wait period altogether?

Because PNMs who got a bid to a "lower" chapter would drop when a "higher" chapter needed to COB after total is adjusted following FR.

[Titchou]

Because you need a restrictive time frame of some sort. Otherwise, you could have people running back and forth with no allegiance. That's why the NCAA finally instituted the rules they have. Coaches used to go kidnap players from other schools and get them enrolled and playing within days. Totally not fair.

[33girl]

LAWDY MISS CLAWDY this thread went off the rails.

As far as RFM...I don't think that "venom" quote was directed at me, but just to clarify, I think it's great and long, LONG overdue. It does come with challenges as LABlondeGPhiB described, but there are ways to face them, such as Clemson's solution or simply adding more parties.

As for the rest of it....wow. Titchou's pearl-clutching at "she can't go through formal rush again for a year and a half!!!" just verifies the kind of thing I am talking about. A second semester freshman has had a whole semester to check out and get to know members of the Greek system. She doesn't need a week of choreographed parties to know what's up. To imply that she does doesn't say much about her personality or ability to make friends and deal with new situations.

SydneyK, you pretty much hit the nail on your head in all your posts. We tell women over and over again that "it doesn't matter if you were on the first bid list/if you were a snap bid/if you were COBed, you will still have a great experience!" It's true. We all get the same membership certificate from our GLO no matter how we came to it. Your name isn't in gold leaf if you're a legacy, you don't get an asterisk beside it if you were an open bid, and you don't get a free platinum frame with it if you had to decline parties because you had too many. The important thing is you signed your name and made a pledge. And that pledge, according to the rules of NPC for a very long time, lasted for hopefully a lifetime, but barring that, for at least a year.

And I didn't say it should be a "rule" that no one should approach a girl immediately after rush. My chapter did it all. the. time. But some women will fare a lot better and will be much more receptive if they have some time to get used to college in general, than if they have the most-likely extremely frazzled members of the smallest chapter on campus showing up at her door with a bid immediately after she's gone through a lot of really intense emotions. It depends on the girl. That's something that WRCs need to learn how to gauge.

Originally Posted by Titchou

So it's November and everyone is just going to wait to offer COB bids until January so they can have a normal NM period. So she gets the bid in January and accepts. Come time to initiate in 6-10 weeks (depending) she decides it's not for her. NOW she has to wait until FR of the following calendar year - not that fall. That's penalizing her when it may have been the GLO's fault for not giving her a proper NM period. Sorry, but no one is ever going to get me to buy into that one.

I don't understand the part AT ALL about "not having a proper new member period." You give out bids in January (for a school having formal rush in the fall), you run the pledge program for 6 weeks, they initiate. What isn't "proper" about that? Did you think ASTalumna04 meant girls were pledging underground? She didn't.

In these days of 6 week pledge programs, if the chapter wants to, they can have a second pledge class during the fall (unless you're Chi O and pledge all semester) so any girls who dropped could rush again next fall (I'm pretty sure rush rules are seasonal not calendar and always have been) but that's a lot to take on. Some groups now have their pledge programs set up in module form that aren't necessarily progressive (i.e. you don't have to pass module #1 to understand module #2) so women who begin pledging at a later date can be fitted into the program seamlessly and complete the earlier modules later on.

Originally Posted by luv n tpa

I didn't provide a personal point of view. I elaborated on how it was dealt with on my campus at the time. If she doesn't agree, not my problem.

And yeah, that.

[DubaiSis]

So rushee can't rush formal rush because she pledged and dropped a sorority 5 months ago, but she can COB 1 month later. But there's a rush part for a chapter that is a perfect fit for in 5 1/2 months. Whose job is it to police the fact that she is not eligible for membership? And how does that not stray into membership selection interference?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

So rushee can't rush formal rush because she pledged and dropped a sorority 5 months ago, but she can COB 1 month later. But there's a rush part for a chapter that is a perfect fit for in 5 1/2 months. Whose job is it to police the fact that she is not eligible for membership? And how does that not stray into membership selection interference?

What????????

As we have said on here numerous times, the one-year rule is the spirit of a year not a literal calendar year. If a girl depledges in October 2014, she can rerush in fall 2015, whenever rush may fall actual date-wise. If it would go to a 6 month or term period, wouldn't matter if a girl depledged in August or October 2014, she could receive a bid in spring semester 2015.

What does any of this have to do with membership selection?

[DubaiSis]

Originally Posted by 33girl

What????????

As we have said on here numerous times, the one-year rule is the spirit of a year not a literal calendar year. If a girl depledges in October 2014, she can rerush in fall 2015, whenever rush may fall actual date-wise. If it would go to a 6 month or term period, wouldn't matter if a girl depledged in August or October 2014, she could receive a bid in spring semester 2015.

What does any of this have to do with membership selection?

I misinterpreted your premise. I was imagining girl who goes through informal in the spring, drops, and has to wait 6 months before rushing again regardless.

If I'm understanding you correctly now, you think the rule should be RELAXED not tightened. We may have reached the nub of the battle here.