Too fat to recruit: or, DePauw, the Sequel

[dgdramadawg]

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

It's really hard to argue with the idea that members are more likely to be retained in groups who don't generally have a hard time with membership. Duh.

Agreed!

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

What seems to be hard for some of us to take was the idea that this talent for retention was presented as an ability to pick which new members would stick around, rather than being a reflection of the group's relative position to start with.

The only way I could see this occurring would be if the group was regionally stronger, and therefore had a lot more info on the PNM's, through alumni recs and personal friendships.

Also, several posters have said they would not hurt a sister's feelings; they would rather close a chapter. Please remember that your chapter belongs not only to the active sisters, but to all the women who came before you. I believe that the current executive board has a responsibility to your alumnae, and must think about the bigger picture. Some will disagree with me, and that is a fundamental difference we will not resolve.

Now, as far as practical solutions, my chapter made the computer committee really fun, so people wanted to be on it. I am not delusional, and I know that when the rush chair asked someone to be on it, all parties understood we were essentially saying that woman would not be a good rusher. However, while 95% of us were practicing chants and cheers in the heat during work week, the computer committee was drinking and watching SBTB reruns at an a/c apartment.

[James]

Closing a chapter because you are afraid to hurt some people's feelings is . . . I would say insane, but maybe not well thought out would be better.

As DeltaBetaBaby said, you have an obligation to all the people that came before to keep your chapter going.

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

The only way I could see this occurring would be if the group was regionally stronger, and therefore had a lot more info on the PNM's, through alumni recs and personal friendships.

Also, several posters have said they would not hurt a sister's feelings; they would rather close a chapter. Please remember that your chapter belongs not only to the active sisters, but to all the women who came before you. I believe that the current executive board has a responsibility to your alumnae, and must think about the bigger picture. Some will disagree with me, and that is a fundamental difference we will not resolve.

Now, as far as practical solutions, my chapter made the computer committee really fun, so people wanted to be on it. I am not delusional, and I know that when the rush chair asked someone to be on it, all parties understood we were essentially saying that woman would not be a good rusher. However, while 95% of us were practicing chants and cheers in the heat during work week, the computer committee was drinking and watching SBTB reruns at an a/c apartment.

[bejazd]

Here's some interesting facts from a 2004 issue of KKG's magazine (but the article was written by a Chi Omega and intended to be shared with all NPC groups.) I think these numbers explain in part why most NPC members don't understand the entrenched sorority culture, gigantic pledge classes and huge chapters that exist on some campuses...that simply was not the membership experience for most of us!

63 % of campuses have 4 or fewer NPC groups
28 % have 5-9
9 % have 10-21

22% of campuses have unknown quotas
17 % have quotas of less than 10
24 % have quotas of 11-19
18 % have quotas of 25-29
19 % have quotas over 30

[kathykd2005]

Originally Posted by James

Closing a chapter because you are afraid to hurt some people's feelings is . . . I would say insane, but maybe not well thought out would be better.

As DeltaBetaBaby said, you have an obligation to all the people that came before to keep your chapter going.

But you also have an obligation to all of the people that came before you to uphold the ideals of the organization, as well, and telling people to "hide" during recruitment REALLY doesn't fit those ideals. Using keeping the chapter open as an excuse to treat your sisters badly is simply unacceptable. Where there is a will, there is a way, and people don't have to sacrifice ideals to recruit successfully. If people do away with basic principles, then they are doing no great service to their founders, who probably sacrificed greatly to found the organization in the first place.

[kathykd2005]

Originally Posted by bejazd

Here's some interesting facts from a 2004 issue of KKG's magazine (but the article was written by a Chi Omega and intended to be shared with all NPC groups.) I think these numbers explain in part why most NPC members don't understand the entrenched sorority culture, gigantic pledge classes and huge chapters that exist on some campuses...that simply was not the membership experience for most of us!

63 % of campuses have 4 or fewer NPC groups
28 % have 5-9
9 % have 10-21

22% of campuses have unknown quotas
17 % have quotas of less than 10
24 % have quotas of 11-19
18 % have quotas of 25-29
19 % have quotas over 30

Very interesting, indeed.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by kathykd2005

Where there is a will, there is a way, and people don't have to sacrifice ideals to recruit successfully.

Again, I ask you to tell me what those ways are, because those of us from big competitive schools don't seem to know what they are.

[kathykd2005]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Again, I ask you to tell me what those ways are, because those of us from big competitive schools don't seem to know what they are.

And again, I will tell you that I already stated ways to do so. Just because you go to a big, competive school does not mean that you have to treat other members unfairly. I suggest that you possibly review the creed of your organization or other historical information if you are still unclear about what I mean or how to treat other members of your organization, even during recruitment.

[James]

I think I am going to have to make a new thread re-framing this scenario better. It appears that all the readers are seeing the scenario differently and many are personalizing it.

All women that I know think they are fatter than they should be. Even the ones in objectively stellar condition, not just thin, but athletic. In an absolute sense I suppose they are all correct.

Even among figure models and other people genuinely viewed as aesthetically pleasing there is always room for improvement.

Oddly, the people in the best shape are often the most obsessed with striving for being better. And the people that are actually and obviously fatter tend to be the most defensive about it.

So if you tell a fitness person they are fat they agree with you and talk about their plan to correct the problem. If you tell your average fatter person they are fat they often wax indignant. Odd eh?

In this case I think people see someone say that heavier girls might be excluded from Rush and they either think of themselves, or picture heavy as something "less heavy" than is probably meant. Especially in a world where "Muffin Tops" may now be "average."

Originally Posted by kathykd2005

But you also have an obligation to all of the people that came before you to uphold the ideals of the organization, as well, and telling people to "hide" during recruitment REALLY doesn't fit those ideals. Using keeping the chapter open as an excuse to treat your sisters badly is simply unacceptable. Where there is a will, there is a way, and people don't have to sacrifice ideals to recruit successfully. If people do away with basic principles, then they are doing no great service to their founders, who probably sacrificed greatly to found the organization in the first place.

[kathykd2005]

Originally Posted by James

I think I am going to have to make a new thread re-framing this scenario better. It appears that all the readers are seeing the scenario differently and many are personalizing it.

All women that I know think they are fatter than they should be. Even the ones in objectively stellar condition, not just thin, but athletic. In an absolute sense I suppose they are all correct.

Even among figure models and other people genuinely viewed as aesthetically pleasing there is always room for improvement.

Oddly, the people in the best shape are often the most obsessed with striving for being better. And the people that are actually and obviously fatter tend to be the most defensive about it.

So if you tell a fitness person they are fat they agree with you and talk about their plan to correct the problem. If you tell your average fatter person they are fat they often wax indignant. Odd eh?

In this case I think people see someone say that heavier girls might be excluded from Rush and they either think of themselves, or picture heavy as something "less heavy" than is probably meant. Especially in a world where "Muffin Tops" may now be "average."

From what you have posted, I am deducing that you are insinuating that those who feel that members of an organization who are excluded from recruitment must be, themselves, overweight. If this is not the case, please say otherwise. I beg to differ with you on this statement, should this, in fact, be what you mean. Excluding a member of one's organization from recruitment, for any superficial reason (barring situations such as low grades or failing to live up to the organization's standards) is unethical and should be unacceptable, based solely upon the ideals of the organization. Just for the record, I am not overweight, either.

[James]

Not so much that. . . although laws of averages say that some maybe even most are you know?

This doesn't lessen the validity of what they are saying mind you. I am pointing out that women as a stereotype tend to be irrationally sensitive to the topic.

I am also thinking that women reading the OP's original post are imagining some girl that is somewhat overweight, versus say morbidly obese, that uses fashion and such to put on a great physical presentation and has the type of personality that can talk jumpers down from ledges.

I am not getting that at all from my reading. I am envisioning someone that is sloppy looking for whatever reason and has a personality that not only adds nothing to the Recruitment event, but may possibly detract from it also.

I am positive if that she had people skills that would allow her to talk jumpers down from heights she would be in the forefront of recruitment regardless of anything else.

National may be shallow but they aren't actually stupid.

Originally Posted by kathykd2005

From what you have posted, I am deducing that you are insinuating that those who feel that members of an organization who are excluded from recruitment must be, themselves, overweight. If this is not the case, please say otherwise. I beg to differ with you on this statement, should this, in fact, be what you mean. Excluding a member of one's organization from recruitment, for any superficial reason (barring situations such as low grades or failing to live up to the organization's standards) is unethical and should be unacceptable, based solely upon the ideals of the organization. Just for the record, I am not overweight, either.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by bejazd

Here's some interesting facts from a 2004 issue of KKG's magazine (but the article was written by a Chi Omega and intended to be shared with all NPC groups.) I think these numbers explain in part why most NPC members don't understand the entrenched sorority culture, gigantic pledge classes and huge chapters that exist on some campuses...that simply was not the membership experience for most of us!

63 % of campuses have 4 or fewer NPC groups
28 % have 5-9
9 % have 10-21

22% of campuses have unknown quotas
17 % have quotas of less than 10
24 % have quotas of 11-19
18 % have quotas of 25-29
19 % have quotas over 30

Kind of oddly, I came across the same stats while I was looking for something else today.

Certainly, I don't think that most people who are Greek has an SEC-type recruitment experience, but as a percentage of total members, since the competitive Greek systems are usually also some of the largest, you can't really assume that because they make up a relatively small percentage of campuses that they also make up an equally small number of members.

Or put another way, one Auburn university with 800 girls pledging cancels out several more moderately sized campuses.

It's hard to say conclusively since we have that 22% of campus quotas unaccounted for, and we don't know what the average quota size is at the campuses where it's bigger than 30.

(It's a little weird to think about, but the SEC alone probably mints 7,000 new NPC members a year. Then you have the big competitive recruitments in other regions, and the number of Greeks overall who can relate to the weirdness of competitive recruitment could be lot higher than you'd first think.)

If we really want to geeky, we could look at the recruitment dates thread and figure the approximate percentages of members coming from each kind of system.

ETA: I was that geeky, and before my eyes glazed over, I realized that there were too many quotas not listed to be able to tell. But here's what I'd guess: the 19% of campuses with 30+ new member classes make up around half of all NPC members. (but of course, we don't really know that 30+ quota really equates with "really competitive.")

[UGAalum94]

James,

For what it's worth, I don't think the degree of a young woman's fatness probably plays in that much to how people view the issue. Even if the woman mentioned in the original post is morbidly obese rather than chubby, I think the folks who are horrified would be equally as horrified because for them it's a matter of resolute principle: you don't diminish one member's place in the group based on appearance.

The people who are more willing to acknowledge the role of image in recruitment in a lot of cases may believe that from the standpoint of image, noticeable chubbiness, if it exceeds what will be seen in other chapters, is as "big" a problem as morbid obesity, if you'll pardon the pun.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by James

Closing a chapter because you are afraid to hurt some people's feelings is . . . I would say insane, but maybe not well thought out would be better.

C'mon, you know it's not that black/white. Chapters forced to make this type of decision did not get to that point because of a couple overweight girls. It's likely an established pattern within the chapter, and it's probably in part due to the sorority culture and hierarchy on that campus. As others here have said, almost every NPC campus has a chapter that gets pecked on every year...the one that all the PNMs drop after first parties if they can. And every year, some PNMs don't get invited back to the "top" houses and are left with only the "bottom" house in the end.

And for the most part, campus panhellenics like it this way, because they know that as soon as that bottom chapter is gone, one of them will be next.

[NutBrnHair]

Originally Posted by bejazd

Here's some interesting facts from a 2004 issue of KKG's magazine (but the article was written by a Chi Omega and intended to be shared with all NPC groups.)

May I please ask who wrote this article?