Selectivity And Apo

[Virtuous Woman]

I think that everyone has the ability to serve and if Alpha Phi Omega was a service CLUB, then I would say everyone should be able to join. But, APO is about more than service so selectivity based on important factors, NOT things like she used to date my man or he wore a blue shirt to class one day, is a good thing. EVERYONE DOES NOT HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO BE A BROTHER! I think an interview or some other process will weed out some people and the pledge process will weed out the rest. My line was originally a line of 7 and we finished with 4. Now that I am on the other side, I can see that although those other 3 were nice people, they would not have made good brothers.

Also, I find that those who were not selected come correct the second time around to ensure that they are selected.

I find this to be true too. I know of a brother (Spring 02 Kappa Beta chapter), who pleged THREE times. The first two times, she got rejected and she made the necessary adjustments and got in the third time. She gets so much respect because of her persistence. I guess if you want it, you want it.

[I_Candee]

I agree with my Sisters on this one! I think that selectivity will certainly be an asset to our Organization. In my particular case, 37 people participated in Rush, then 10 of us were approved to pledge but only 8 of us were deemed "True to Alpha Phi Omega". While my particular Chapter did not verbally express selectivity, the nature of the process that they used helped to weed out the poor prospects for membership. I love my every single person on my line and I know that we will always be bound forever. While we were SO diverse (every race imaginable), we really struggled and share our love of APO together. In the end, that's what really counts.

8-LN-03
Doc Mottens

[brandyme]

hi to everyone, about selectivity we are very strict here! because loyalty in apo is one of our main strength that is why we are united

[GoldnBlue2004]

I agree that Alpha Phi Omega should be selective. We need to forget about letting everyone into the organization and have interview sections and what so forth. I do believe that if we are selective then you can weed out the slackers from the organization and work with those who want and are willing to work. If those don't believe in being selective, then they need to handle thngs at the discretion of their chapter. I am just agreeing to the suggestion, but as I just stated doing things at the discretion of your chapter will work out finely as well.

[Senusret I]

The older I get in Alpha Phi Omega, the more I realize what a sad topic this really is.

[Virtuous Woman]

Care to elaborate?

[Senusret I]

If one remains active in the fraternity, you can understand better why we are essentially non-selective. Prohibiting people the opportunity to at least start pledging is contrary to what we're all about.

Frequent assessment during the pledge program is key, but no chapter with a rigorous pre-selection process has demonstrated that it builds better brothers. If that was the case, these chapters would have more representation on section and regional staff, national committees, and alumni associations.

The unfortunate truth is that there is nothing which will indicate whether a pledge is in it for the right reasons. It's a mistake to have the type of recruitment process which disqualifies potential members before they have the opportunity to prove themselves worthy.

[emb021]

Senusret- thanks for the response. I think the question was more about where you stood on the question. What you conveyed is what I also believe, which I tried to indicate earlier.

IMO, a good pledge program (by that I mean one that properly teaches the pledges to become Brothers, which can be done without hazing) is a better way to do this then by some kind of bid or selection process.

[arvid1978]

I've always looked at APO as being selective, but on the tail end of the pledge process: Pledge Review. The chapters I see doing the filtering on the front-end of the process don't have any better rates than those who go with the prescribed process (everyone can try, not everybody succeeds). We are non-selective in our pledges because that is the time period for the individual and the chapter to determine if they are right for each other, not some interview during rush week. To deny someone this opportunity is, in my opinion, contrary to the purpose of pledging and contrary to the membership policies of APO. Assuming that because someone was "chosen" to pledge based off of a couple hours of interaction, that they're guaranteed to have a lifelong commitment to APO need to look at what you're actually supposed to be doing, not what other groups around you do.

Just because someone is pledging does NOT mean that they will be activating into the fraternity. You have pledge requirements, and if they don't meet them during the pledge period of 6 to 10 weeks, then they have done the "weeding out" for you. If a pledge has met the requirements set forth by your chapter, then they have met all the filtering requirements you need in order to join the fraternity, and you need to have a damn good reason to deny them membership. The kind of reason that might necessitate a need to talk to a campus administrator, your section chair/region director, or other figures of authority. Not "s/he looked at me funny", or other garbage like that.

Someone earlier several years ago asked about quality vs. quantity, and which one is better. This is a bad question because they're not mutually exclusive.

[Senusret I]

Also wanted to add/clarify:

I don't believe interviews during the rush process are a bad thing, but I don't believe they should be evaluative. They can be a good mutual introduction for those who are shy in groups.

I also think Pledge Reviews or other assessments should happen more than once in the process, and closer to the middle than the end.

I basically agree with emb and arv.

[emb021]

True, but this is something that must be made clear to people (both in and out of the fraternity).

Each chapter should have clearly defined pledge requirements (in line with the National Pledging Standards). ALL potential pledges must understand they must met them. When it comes to that final pledge review, it should be in the light of "did each pledge met the clearly defined and objective requirements?" If they did, they should be voted in. If they didn't, the chapter can choose to 1) vote that pledge in because they were really really close or 2) give a particular pledge more time to complete requirements or 3) let them re-pledge or 4) tell them they didn't met the requirements.

To me, its a 'self selection' process. Not a bunch of Brothers passing in judgement.

[Brother Joseph]

Very good post I think you summed up very nicely many of the things people bring up about APO when they complain about it.

I've gone back and forth on the selectivity issue myself over the years. When I first joined I was flat out against it since when I pledged (fall of freshman year) I probably didn't fit the chapter that well and would not have been accepted. However, as I progressed through the years and the chapter turned around and got very large we began to have many of the problems you so clearly laid out. We had a high percentage of brothers that would pledge and you'd never see them again (except when they wore letters to look cool). We also had major cliques form since the chapter was just too large to know everyone well and the perception/ public opinion of us on campus really dropped. Not all of these things could have been fixed by greater selectivity since it is still a fallible process and we can choose the wrong people but it definitely would have made things easier to fix.

[emb021]

arvid1978- well said.

[naraht]

One additional point.

A chapter that is running as 'paying a fee, a member you shall be' is in violation of the National Pledging Standards, just as much as a chapter that runs a year long pledging process or one that blackballs.