Rankings? Part 2

[madmax]

Originally posted by hoosier
Sure, a small chapter might include several "great" members that every other chapter would want, but smallness limits everything: money, manpower, widespread involvement, and "power, prestige, and prominence."

The 25-person chapter can't have people in "everything", spreading the word about their chapter, while the 100-person chapter can have people in almost everything. It creates synergy, which is the ability of a chapter with several people active in a specific campus-wide activity (say the Homecoming planning committee) to get one member as chairman or major committe head, and that member can funnel lessor jobs (asst. chr., etc.) to his chapter buddies.

The small quality chapter (existing mostly in mythology) may win a few things (usually the "highest percentage contributing to the blood drive"), but the large chapter will wins lots, and attract even more members - the wonderful quality and quantity.

Never, long term, will a small chapter enjoy "power, prominence, and prestige."

If I were to use your premise that bigger is better then your 100 person chapter must suck compared to a chapter with 200 members because of the reasons that you have mentioned.

[madmax]

Originally posted by Pi Kapp 142
I agree. My argument to the people that argue that there should be more quality over quantity is, "Why can't there be a quantity of quality?". When it comes to programming and executing events it is always a percentage of people involved actually doing that. If you have the same percentage of peole working really hard to get events going, but it is a percent of 100 people as opposed to a percent of 40 people, then you will have that many more working for a great chapter.

What if the chapter with 100 members has 100 losers vs the chater that has only 50 members who are all the cream of the crop?

If your 100 member chapter get 40 members or 40% to show up at all of your events and the 50 person chapter gets 45-50 members to show up at their events then I think the 50 member chapter is actually doing a better job.

[bolingbaker]

You've come late to the discussion, but let me offer an answer to your legitimate question. You asked whether a 100-man chapter is inferior to a 200-man chapter. You asked if the 100-man chapter is superior to the 50-man chapter if the 50 men are "the cream".
The answer is that it's less important how many members a chapter has than where it stands vs. its competition. If the leading fraternities - the ones that win in intramurals, have the top campus leaders, date in the top sororities - all have over 100 members, then you cannot compete effectively against that with fifty men.
Ambitious men tend to want to be with others like themselves. Men who want success will be drawn to successful groups. A chapter with more manpower has a much better chance of winning. The large, powerful, successful chapters will fight hard for what you call 'the cream', and they have more weapons to fight with. On a campus where the 100-man chapters dominate, there is no 50-man chapter that can compete consistently over time, much less draw "the cream". What really happens is that they tend to make up reasons for their place in the heirarchy, telling themselves that they "have more brotherhood" than the top groups, or that they "have the cream" or somesuch nonsense. Most likely they'll just turn inward and quit trying altogether. And at the moment they quit caring about the competition, they're out of the game.
This does not mean they cannot have a good fraternity experience. They can return again and again to campus for the rest of their lives and reunite with their friends from the chapter. But it does mean that their experience will forever be marked as an underachievement. It just means that they will never know what it's like to be on top, to compete for the most desired trophies, to move among the top sororities with familiarity. It means, frankly, that the future leaders of business, government, entertainment, the professions, will all be coming back to other fraternities at Homecoming. The top fraternities recruit and produce leaders in far disproportionate numbers to the chapters that are less competitive.
Now, what if you're a 50-man chapter on a campus of 100-man leaders and you want to improve and become one of them. Let me offer you the best advice you will ever get on this subject: 1) ignore what the chapter thinks . They have already convinced themselves that small is good, and you cannot change their minds by talking to them. You must decide to lead. 2) Pledge more guys, A LOT MORE guys. The chapter will never AGREE to go out and recruit enough men to make them competitive, BUT if you orchestrate a large pledge class, the Brothers will congratulate themselves on their success. It's Human nature. You chapter will be energized and enthused by their "success" (that you have created), and all the new guys will bring a welcome infusion of new blood. 3) keep doing this over and over until the chapter changes into a competitor. You'll know you've arrived the day one of the big chapters takes you seriously, or says something that gives you the impression they think you're a rival.
Understand that this can be done fairly quickly if you are committed. It can be done quickly becuse hardly anone knows how the mechanics work.

No offense to this conversation and I am playing devils advocate a lil, but..... when did going greek become a "competition"? Isnt the point that most of us picked houses that we felt would be right for us and comfortable in? I mean yeah, some look at well is it one of the better houses on campus, how many members etc.? But if it was the best looking house or campus, with almost the best grades, 200+ members, but yet all of them were either (scuse the language)..a$$holes or b!tches, wouldnt you leave b/c their personalities sucked? I mean I would.
I know quanitity does matter, but I think that when you use it as the MAJOR factor, I think you lose some of the value that your org. stands for. Which for most was to bring quality people together who shared some common thoughts, etc.
Playing devil's advocate...someone might have said this also, but isnt it possible that some chapters are bragging about having high numbers, cuz they have a foot to stand on besides that? Just using UM as an example, but many of the so-called biggest and popular greek orgs are also ones with the highest deactivation rates. Kind of like guy and girls who think highly of themselves and bring down others to make up for their small or zero "package" they have.
Im not saying anyone's opinion is wrong, and this is only mine, but it seems this numbers and whos the best and strongest thing is being blown to a certain extreme.

[IvySpice]

I agree with UMGirl. "Power and Prestige" can bite me as far as Greek life is concerned. If prestige is so important, I guess everybody should go to Harvard, even if they would be much happier and feel more at home (and probably learn just as much) somewhere else. Everybody I've encountered on GC loves their alma mater like crazy and wouldn't trade their Bama or Wofford or Arkansas experience for a Harvard degree if you paid them.

This is even truer for GLOs than it is for universities. If you choose Princeton for its prestige and you're miserable there, that's a terrible loss, but at least you'll have a Princeton degree. Whereas if you don't like or respect your brothers/sisters and chose them for their "prestige," what do you get when you graduate? Just a bunch of lost opportunities for friendship and memories...and that's if you don't disafilliate.

IvySpice

[bolingbaker]

You are both correct, of course. Too much emphasis on competition can be destructive within the Greek system. It can also lead to arrogance, which weakens the good relations between chapters.
As you can tell from reading these threads, those of us who really focus on this subject are very much the products of our own experience. We're interested in the mechanics of how to move our chapters in a specific direction. Most members of most chapters don't care, never hear about these things and wouldn't understand it if they did. We can teach the leaders how to accomplish what they want, what they should. This forum is a good place for us to interact.
But you are absolutely right. If this becomes the main emphasis & subject of discussion among the chapters, Greek life will cease to be fun for a lot of members. No real danger of that happening.

[madmax]

Originally posted by bolingbaker
You've come late to the discussion, but let me offer an answer to your legitimate question. You asked whether a 100-man chapter is inferior to a 200-man chapter. You asked if the 100-man chapter is superior to the 50-man chapter if the 50 men are "the cream".
The answer is that it's less important how many members a chapter has than where it stands vs. its competition. If the leading fraternities - the ones that win in intramurals, have the top campus leaders, date in the top sororities - all have over 100 members, then you cannot compete effectively against that with fifty men.
Ambitious men tend to want to be with others like themselves. Men who want success will be drawn to successful groups. A chapter with more manpower has a much better chance of winning. The large, powerful, successful chapters will fight hard for what you call 'the cream', and they have more weapons to fight with. On a campus where the 100-man chapters dominate, there is no 50-man chapter that can compete consistently over time, much less draw "the cream". What really happens is that they tend to make up reasons for their place in the heirarchy, telling themselves that they "have more brotherhood" than the top groups, or that they "have the cream" or somesuch nonsense. Most likely they'll just turn inward and quit trying altogether. And at the moment they quit caring about the competition, they're out of the game.
This does not mean they cannot have a good fraternity experience. They can return again and again to campus for the rest of their lives and reunite with their friends from the chapter. But it does mean that their experience will forever be marked as an underachievement. It just means that they will never know what it's like to be on top, to compete for the most desired trophies, to move among the top sororities with familiarity. It means, frankly, that the future leaders of business, government, entertainment, the professions, will all be coming back to other fraternities at Homecoming. The top fraternities recruit and produce leaders in far disproportionate numbers to the chapters that are less competitive.
Now, what if you're a 50-man chapter on a campus of 100-man leaders and you want to improve and become one of them. Let me offer you the best advice you will ever get on this subject: 1) ignore what the chapter thinks . They have already convinced themselves that small is good, and you cannot change their minds by talking to them. You must decide to lead. 2) Pledge more guys, A LOT MORE guys. The chapter will never AGREE to go out and recruit enough men to make them competitive, BUT if you orchestrate a large pledge class, the Brothers will congratulate themselves on their success. It's Human nature. You chapter will be energized and enthused by their "success" (that you have created), and all the new guys will bring a welcome infusion of new blood. 3) keep doing this over and over until the chapter changes into a competitor. You'll know you've arrived the day one of the big chapters takes you seriously, or says something that gives you the impression they think you're a rival.
Understand that this can be done fairly quickly if you are committed. It can be done quickly becuse hardly anone knows how the mechanics work.

So basically your 100 man chapter is inferior to a 200 man chapter for all the reasons that you just gave.

[bolingbaker]

or do you just not understand? I don't think there are any 200-man chapters anymore, although there were scores of them in the 1980s.
The answer to your question depends on the specific circumstances of your specific campus. If the big dogs have 100 and you have 25, you're toast. If ALL the major houses had 200 men and yours only had 100, then you'd be at a disadvantage. If all the good ones were in the 100-man range and there was just one that somehow had inflated to 200, they might not necessarily be superior to everyone else.
However, I am unaware of any 200-man chapters in the country today. Penn State has more than fifty fraternities, and I doubt that any of them have more than 65 members. Most of the good ones have 45-55 men. If you have the quality and the numbers you can compete with the top names. At other schools, the top chapters are disapointed if their fall pledge classes do not have 45-55 men. You have to consider the context of the individual campus.
What is the situation on your campus?

[33girl]

Originally posted by bolingbaker
or do you just not understand? I don't think there are any 200-man chapters anymore, although there were scores of them in the 1980s.

**sigh** the 200 man chapter is a hypothetical, dude. Because after you said all you said you pretty much seemed to end up saying "bigger is always better."

I would far rather have only 30 sisters who all participate regularly and care about the other women in the chapter, than say "we have 100 sisters" but have to make excuses in my heart for half of them. I've seen people dump the sorority they really wanted for the "prestige" group and they were miserable. Go for it if you want, but if prestige is all you want, it's most likely all you'll get.

[Peaches-n-Cream]

I would have prefered a larger chapter with the same quality that we had. Total was 85 and we had fewer than 50 sisters. I'm not sure why. Everyone who knew us liked us. There were six NPC sororities plus one local which has since closed. It seemed four of the sororities had quota and total every year very easily while the rest had to work very hard to get new members. They would have 85 sisters with 32 pledges, and we would have 45 to 50 sisters with half as many pledges even with COB. In terms of visibility and division of labor, it was very difficult to compete with sororities twice our size.

Fortunately the chapter turned things around with a large pledge class of nearly 30. That was the shot in the arm that my chapter needed. I wish that I had known about Mr. Heller back then. We had the quality, we just needed more of it.

[KEPike]

The 200 man chapter is not a Hypothetical. Back in the 80s, 200 men chapters were common in fraternities as well as in sororities.

And if there is any chapter of any organization that could do it, Bolingbaker's could. Just you wait.

On my campus (Rockhurst University) with just over 1500 undergrads, our chapter is nearing 100 men. Within two years, we will reach that goal. That's not just competing with other organizations, it's domination.

My view on quantity vs. quality is that the only way you can have quality is through quantity. Not the other way around.

[madmax]

I think many huge chapters suck. Just look at their turnover rate. Some of those chapters have 100 members but they get 50 pledges a semester. That tells me that many of the pledges either drop out , transfer or go inactive right after they get in. That sucks.

If your chapter is so great then why the huge turnover?

[madmax]

Originally posted by bolingbaker
or do you just not understand? I don't think there are any 200-man chapters anymore, although there were scores of them in the 1980s.

Why is that? Is it because your 100 man chapter is doing a half ass job compared to the scores of 200 man chaters of the 80's?

[Cloud9]

All I have to say is, what the hell??? Are we joining GLOs or huge Corporations??? All this talk is in my opinion a smack in the face to the reasons that greek orgs exist. The whole point is brother/sisterhood, not cut throat, dog-eat-dog politics! And I have to tell you, that point about "all the leaders coming from big chapters" um no. I know so many people in big chapters that just sit back on their arses and let the 10 people on E-board and committees do all the work! When you're in a smaller chapter(not TINY, but smaller), everyone is motivated, everyone knows eachother inside out, everyone is learning and working for a common goal. Is that not what the whole premise of being Greek IS? I think that 20 is good, so is 30, 40, 50 is pushing it a little bit, but once you get to 100, that's burdensome in terms of becoming close with all of the members. And it may or may not be great in other areas, but again, I've never heard of a 100 person chapter where each person is invovled, or even more than 30 people are truly dedicated members. Which isn't a horrible thing really, but that PLUS the loss of strong sister/brotherhood isn't worth it to me.

[xp2k]

I think A LOT of you are missing Bolingbaker's point ,as well as blowing them out of proportion.

First of all you have to ignore exact numbers because they're relative to your campus (i.e. the 50 man, 100 man, 200 man argument). At some schools, a 60 man/woman house will do it (be more competitive then a 40 man house).

He also is not suggesting that prospective members choose their organizations based on size. Nor is he saying that your organization is weak because you arent the biggest.

He is saying that houses that have numbers are at an advantage and USUALLY are the strongest on their respective campuses. Look at your campus HONESTLY and see.

Do you find your organization involved (or seeking involvment) with the smallest groups on campus? The average sized? The larger ones?
(*note, I'm not asking you if you choose who you associate with based on size, I'm asking what the size is of the people that you tend to associate with).

Look at it from the other side. Do the larger, average, smaller sized units do much with you?

Ask your peers at other schools the same questions. I know that at Purdue, the larger sororities deal with/favor the larger fraternities. Same thing at IU.

I also think that this post is aimed more at those who want to IMPROVE their GLO locally...or possibly even nationally. Look at Pi Kappa Alpha. Dont you wonder why they put such an insane emphasis on rush nationally? It's because of Heller's finding, and as far as I can tell, its worked for them.

I have a feeling that a lot of these disgruntled replies are coming from people in smaller chapters who may have gotten their feelings hurt. This whole "rankings/size matters" topic isnt a personal attack on anyone. These are just observations.

Being small does not make an organization bad, it just means that they probably wont have the resources a bigger organization has.

Yes, there are advantages to having a smaller chapter...but like someone said earlier, if you havent been in a large chapter, dont knock it.

So please stop attacking Bolingbaker with all of these wierd, hypothetical situations...

thanks

XP2k