COBing fresh when upperclass quota isn't met

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Anchored4Ever

Well, if you shouldn't be able to take underclassmen in place of upperclassmen for quota during formal recruitment, why should you be able to do so during COB?

Because they are under total.

Originally Posted by Anchored4Ever

Purposfully underinviting and then not making upperclassman quota is wrong. Why should a chapter who does this get to fill those spots with underclassmen once recruitment is over?

Because they are under total.

Originally Posted by Anchored4Ever

If we cannot pledge more underclassmen during formal recruitment, then why can they once it's over?

Because they are under total.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Anchored4Ever

What is unfair about then new system is that everyone is allowed only quota of underclassmen during formal recruitment and same goes for upperclassmen. Well, if you shouldn't be able to take underclassmen in place of upperclassmen for quota during formal recruitment, why should you be able to do so during COB?

Because to be eligible to COB, you are under Total so you can take whoever you want to try to catch up in numbers.

Originally Posted by Anchored4Ever

Purposfully underinviting and then not making upperclassman quota is wrong. Why should a chapter who does this get to fill those spots with underclassmen once recruitment is over? THAT is what is not fair. If we cannot pledge more underclassmen during formal recruitment, then why can they once it's over?

What makes you think they are purposefully underinviting? Without sitting in their membership selection meetings or knowing their membership selection processes, you can't know why they aren't inviting as many upperclassman. Perhaps the upperclassmen don't meet their membership criteria. They aren't required to take just anybody simply because they are below Total. Are separate release figures calculated for upperclassmen?

Originally Posted by Anchored4Ever

The chapter who did this got their quota of 29 underclassmen during formal recruitment last fall, then got 3 quota additions and just pledged 5 more freshmen during COB. So this chapter now has a freshman class of 37. That's wrong.

So it will be their problem when, in 3 years, 37 of their members graduate all at once. Is this affecting your chapter's numbers at all? No. Your chapter is not required to take the quota of upperclassmen either.

[Drolefille]

This is just coming off as "it's OUR job to have the big pledge class and be over total"
You don't know what happened in their MS, and you were obviously OVER TOTAL so it wasn't an issue.

If quota doesn't increase over the next year or two, or this becomes a trend, then lower total otherwise be happy with your new members and stop stomping your feet yelling "It's not FAIIIIIR."

[33girl]

Does 12 seem like a large upperclassman quota to everyone else? Especially if "regular" quota is 29? I was under the impression that upperclass quota was usually 5 or 6 when "regular" quota was 50+.

You had a significant bump in total. When did it get raised? What you should have done is: if formal rush is in fall, total should have been raised in say November. Then the chapters not at total would have had all of spring semester to bid up to total and have an additional pledge class - so all chapters could go into the next formal rush on the same footing.

I think I finally get what you're saying though.

• Rush is in the fall. XYZ fills their freshman quota.
• XYZ allegedly underinvites upperclassmen, or maybe they have reasons to cut them all, but who knows. All that's certain is that they don't fill the upperclassmen quota.
• Now it's spring. XYZ is still 5 under total, so they start COBing. However all 5 girls that they COB are second semester freshmen.

I can understand where that would be irksome - it's a variant on the old "suicide and then we'll pick you up in COB" - but as several people said, there's really no way to prove that a chapter did this intentionally.

Also keep in mind that if there are still chapters out there under total - not because they "planned" it but because they are the 2 chapters that you mentioned who are always under total - they can decide to COB only freshmen too.

I'll say what I always say - there's no guarantee that those freshmen are going to participate longer than the junior you just gave a bid to. No I am not saying go out and take all juniors, but don't get hung up on class standing as a guarantee of a group coming back with everyone intact.

[Drolefille]

12 does seem high, but if they have a high number of juniors and seniors due to transfers - and without the upperclassmen quota you had seriously disproportionate pledge classes - it may be a good thing. Sounds like they need to adjust total if quota doesn't pick up next year.

[AGDee]

12 seems extremely high to be having a separate quota for. It also seems like she's including sophomores in the upperclassmen total because she refers to the "freshman class", which is unusual. Usually we hear "Junior quota".

Thinking about the numbers here.. if 3 or 4 of the 7 chapters had to COB to Total after formal recruitment, then they raised Total by too much. You had 203 freshmen women attending prefs and 84 upperclassman. If a chapter took quota for both F and U, then they have a new member class of 41. To be under Total after taking 41, that means they started with less than 66 members that term. Generally, on campuses where they have a separate upperclassmen quota, most chapters can reach Total with just the regular quota and the upperclassmen quota are a bonus.

I'm very curious how many of the 84 women attending as Upperclassmen were Sophs, Juniors and Seniors. It seems to me that Sophs should just be included in regular Total.

Is your campus getting assistance from NPC in setting release figures and quota/Total?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Anchored4Ever

To answer some questions:

* XYZ's advisors openly stated in an advisor roundtable discussion that they underinvited upperclassmen. That's how I know what happened.

Originally Posted by Anchored4Ever

* Yeah, maybe I am a little ticked off at this point for certain reasons related to recruitment (dirty rushing, lying, etc.), but that still does not erase the fact that XYZ group is not following the stated intent of (U) quota. And, the fact that our Office of Greek Life is such a push-over doesn't help...they let this group get away with murder and yeah - I don't feel like it's fair. Because my group is a large group, we're made to follow every little detail and called out when we don't...fine. But, make it that way for everyone! This group can basically do whatever they dang well please all year long and then this happens and it just sends me over the edge.

I would definitely contact your regional Panhel rep. #1, they shouldn't be so boldly flouting the rules and #2, the advisors have gone WAY over the line of their own group as far as membership selection and keeping it secret. If my chapter advisor or ANY of my sorority's chapter's advisors were saying things like that in a roundtable, I, to not put too fine a point on it, would shit.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Anchored4Ever

Purposfully underinviting and then not making upperclassman quota is wrong. Why should a chapter who does this get to fill those spots with underclassmen once recruitment is over? THAT is what is not fair. If we cannot pledge more underclassmen during formal recruitment, then why can they once it's over?
You have no idea why they realeased any upperclassman during formal recruitment. Did they release ALL upperclassman? Apparently not since they are only 5 under and upperclassman quota was 12. No chapter can be forced to take women they don't want. Your obsession with this sounds very unpanhellenic and smacks of sour grapes. One would think you disliked you upperclassman new members.

The chapter who did this got their quota of 29 underclassmen during formal recruitment last fall, then got 3 quota additions and just pledged 5 more freshmen during COB. So this chapter now has a freshman class of 37. That's wrong.

It's not wrong. This is what the 26 NPC organizations have agreed on. If a chapter is not at total at the end of formal recruitment, they can continue to recruit until they reach total. You, as another chapter, have absolutely no say in that. If you would like to face the stigma of not making quota, your chapter can decide not to bid any upperclassman PNMs and COB freshmen to your heart's content.
You may not like the scrutiny.

Apparently you posted as I was writing this. You seem to be such a "rules" oriented person. I've gotta tell you that this "fairness" issue will get you nowhere. Fair is in the eye of the beholder. Fair is being able to recruit the same number of girls. If that means getting them all in formal recruitment... that's great, you don't have to waste your chapter's time and effort COBing. If you get your numbers through COB and formal recruitment, you have to work harder for the same numbers. It is the other chapter's business if they "underinvited." You still DO NOT KNOW why they did that. There are a plethora of reasons for them to legitimately do that. The release figures are a suggestion not a mandate. Just be happy that your chapter is at total with the minimal amount of effort applied. That's the ideal. Being mad at the other chapter for choosing to do it another way is silly.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Anchored4Ever

AGDee -

Your math on the 203/84 numbers is not really accurate because quota is not established until after bid matching now, and we only get a 'quota range' when making our bid lists. So, if you consider that all groups made (F) quota, which was set afterwards at 29, and several groups got quota additions, then those #s are not 100% accurate. Plus, you're not considering those PNMs who intentional single pref (suicides) and do not match...which, unfortunately, does happen on our campus.

Yes, my numbers were minimums.

I'm not as "up in arms" about the advisors saying they underinvited, necessarily. I could see a conversation going like this...

Advisor of ABC: "I'm surprised your chapter didn't make quota"
Advisor of XYZ: "Yes, it turns out we underinvited"

Underinvited can mean that you should have invited 3X quota instead of 2X quota, in hindsight, because not as many women accepted invitations as they anticipated. That's different than intentionally underinviting in order to be able to take more Freshman in COB. After all, there are no guarantees that they'd be successful in COB. It's a risk to do that.

[Drolefille]

^^ What Dee said.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Yes, my numbers were minimums.

I'm not as "up in arms" about the advisors saying they underinvited, necessarily. I could see a conversation going like this...

Advisor of ABC: "I'm surprised your chapter didn't make quota"
Advisor of XYZ: "Yes, it turns out we underinvited"

Underinvited can mean that you should have invited 3X quota instead of 2X quota, in hindsight, because not as many women accepted invitations as they anticipated. That's different than intentionally underinviting in order to be able to take more Freshman in COB. After all, there are no guarantees that they'd be successful in COB. It's a risk to do that.

Heck, I don't even care if they did say "we didn't want to take the full upperclassmen quota, because we wanted to pick up some more freshmen." It's a strange decision, but it's their decision to make.

[prettyv]

Originally Posted by Anchored4Ever

I appreciate the thoughtful insights (and am surprised at some of the strangely hostile commentary...)... Being new to this site, I guess I now know what to expect when I ask a question of this nature. I'll be more guarded next time. I really expected more sympathy than scrutiny. Now I just feel like I've gotten slammed for being a part of a successful chapter who doesn't have to COB...whereas if I'd been part of a smaller chapter & had a question like this, everyone would've been kind & helpful. At least now I know.

This post is pretty reflective of your "sour grapes" attitude.

It may be questionable behavior in some people's eyes but you can't force them to take upperclassmen. If anything, they might get some flack from their HQ, maybe not.

I think you're just going to have to swallow some of your pride and acknowledge that not all things recruitment are 100% fair.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Anchored4Ever

Not sure why you'd think I have sour grapes about being in a successful chapter...whatev. Like I said - next time I'll be more guarded when asking an honest question.

Jealousy then. It comes off as not fair that these struggling chapters got to take more freshmen than you did. Your naming of names in the rivalry thread is enough to tell me exactly what your level of panhellenic spirit is. Newsflash, we are a LOT of alumnae here, and therefore we're giving you advice from beyond the "It's not fair" and "OMG TATTLE" grounds that many campuses devolve into during recruitment.

Put the big girl panties on and take the responses you get as they are given. You don't have to agree, but don't play hurt. You can be more 'guarded' however you like, but you'd do better to try and change your perspective instead.

[AOII Angel]

Maybe they should just let you choose their new members for them so it will be "fair." Do you not see how at some point you are infringing on another group's membership selection rights? No one broke any rules. Who cares who has more freshmen, you all have the same number of members. It just means that each of your chapters will have a bigger class than usual graduate in different years. DG will and has survived much worse.

[AZTheta]

Darn it, the OP deleted most/all of her posts and I am trying to follow this thread to learn something, and I'm now completely lost. I'll just ask AZ-AlphaXi to explain all that RFM stuff to me next time we have lunch. This is too confusing.