Schools with most inactive NPC chapters

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by oldu

Several of the groups which failed had built new houses which they sold at a loss. (I know because I was involved in one of them.)

Innnnteresting....

[33girl]

Originally Posted by oldu

My point was that as much as we would all like chapters at these major schools sometimes the risk factor is too great.

You mean "we" as in all the NIC fraternities, right?

Would a rickroll be appropriate here?

[violetpretty]

Also, the "success rate" really may not be indicative of a chapter's potential for success today. I'll use Maryland as an example. As has been said, Maryland has 14 active chapters and 6 inactive chapters. Only one of those chapters had closed "eons ago" in the 1920s. The other 5 closed between 1990 and 2000, one for risk management reasons. The other 4 had been small, struggling chapters.

However, this is before release figures or before quota was set to allow for optimum matching. Since I have recruitment data from the past 20 years at Maryland, I was looking at 1994.
Total women participating in bid matching=442
Quota=36
Number of sororities filling quota (out of 15)=5 (4 more came close, the other 6 missed it by a lot)
So, in case you don't have a calculator out, 442/15=29.5, so quota SHOULD have been around 29-30. Why on earth was quota set so ungodly high? NO WONDER smaller chapters closed!

I know Maryland can't be the only school that saw chapters close because release figures weren't figured out yet. If release figures had been used beginning in the 1980s, I really think we might still have Pi Phi, AGD, AXiD, and Gamma Phi, or at least, some of them.

[bejazd]

I'm still trying to figure out what this "info" reveals. Does anybody really argue that the future growth (as far as new chapters) for NPCs is in reviving chapters at the older campuses with large established greek systems vs. establishing new chapters at campuses that currently have smaller, growing systems or no NPCs at all?

I love to see NPCs come on at campuses where there has never been an NPC sorority before. It's such an important part of our mission to bring the benefits of sisterhood, and NPC lifetime membership, to a broad range of university women...including the many many who choose to attend commuter campuses, or campuses without traditional "houses."

[33girl]

Originally Posted by violetpretty

I know Maryland can't be the only school that saw chapters close because release figures weren't figured out yet. If release figures had been used beginning in the 1980s, I really think we might still have Pi Phi, AGD, AXiD, and Gamma Phi, or at least, some of them.

I don't think it's that release figures or the concept of them didn't exist, just that they weren't being used and NPC finally saw that they had to take more of a hand in making sure everyone played fair. I mean, it isn't rocket science to get that if ABC has everyone want to come back to their party, they can invite a lot fewer people to assure they have enough to fill quota. You would hope that ABC would release the girls they had no interest in without being told to do so, but that isn't always the case.

[NutBrnHair]

Originally Posted by violetpretty

However, this is before release figures or before quota was set to allow for optimum matching. Since I have recruitment data from the past 20 years at Maryland, I was looking at 1994.
Total women participating in bid matching=442
Quota=36
Number of sororities filling quota (out of 15)=5 (4 more came close, the other 6 missed it by a lot)
So, in case you don't have a calculator out, 442/15=29.5, so quota SHOULD have been around 29-30. Why on earth was quota set so ungodly high? NO WONDER smaller chapters closed!

Interesting... The NPC Rush Resolutions came out in 1991, but as 33 said -- many campuses chose to still do their own thing. Even without using release fiquers, the simple formula for determining quota has been around for MANY years.

[violetpretty]

Originally Posted by NutBrnHair

Interesting... The NPC Rush Resolutions came out in 1991, but as 33 said -- many campuses chose to still do their own thing. Even without using release fiquers, the simple formula for determining quota has been around for MANY years.

I was thinking maybe that 36 was the optimal number to match as many women as possible. If the big chapters don't make heavy cuts after the first round, the damage is done. The large chapters will have big preference parties and the small chapters will have small preference parties. Then again, this was still back in the days of hand-matching bids, so I doubt the Panhellenic and chapter recruitment advisors would have done a quota range by hand to figure out how to best match the optimal number of women. I just am scratching my head at why they picked 36.

I don't know if many other schools set quota too high, but I am sure that not using the RFM surely didn't help Pi Phi, AGD, AXiD, and Gamma Phi at Maryland.

[ValpoKD]

[QUOTE=violetpretty;1646055]I was thinking maybe that 36 was the optimal number to match as many women as possible. If the big chapters don't make heavy cuts after the first round, the damage is done.

The seemingly high figure could be the result of setting quota too early. In the past, I have seen that some campuses would set quota based on the number of women after the second round, on the night before Preference, etc and not make any adjustments as women withdrew or were dropped from recruitment. Hence an unrealistic quota! It just seems so obvious that the final quota should have been based on a number relating to preference (ex. number of invitations accepted).

I explained this once to a chapter advisor who was complaining that quota was lower. When I looked at the stats for the years she was addressing, there were not enough women attending preference for each chapter to have a decent shot at the quota set 1-2 days earlier.

Would this have solved everything for all chapters? No, but it certainly did not help.

[violetpretty]

Originally Posted by ZTAngel

I always knew that there were tiers among sororites at my school but I never knew there were national tiers until I started seeing these threads and some of the self-important comments within it. Seriously though? Some of you really care which sororities are the strongest nationally? It just seems like a way for grown adults to wield a big stick long after graduation which I personally find sad.

Agreed. The implication/suggestion of international tiers with the stats and commentary is what makes people angry. It's "tent talk" on an international level, and it contributes to why certain NPCs are invited to present/colonize at certain campuses.

[Leslie Anne]

Originally Posted by violetpretty

It's "tent talk" on an international level

Nicely put!

[DSTCHAOS]

Wow. How did you all figure that one out?

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by ZTAngel

I always knew that there were tiers among sororites at my school but I never knew there were national tiers until I started seeing these threads and some of the self-important comments within it. Seriously though? Some of you really care which sororities are the strongest nationally? It just seems like a way for grown adults to wield a big stick long after graduation which I personally find sad.

Originally Posted by violetpretty

Agreed. The implication/suggestion of international tiers with the stats and commentary is what makes people angry. It's "tent talk" on an international level, and it contributes to why certain NPCs are invited to present/colonize at certain campuses.

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

Nicely put!

Yeah, I haven't been here a year yet and I can already identify several GCers (alums) who are guilty of contributing to this over and over and over. It's extremely unimpressive.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by violetpretty

Agreed. The implication/suggestion of international tiers with the stats and commentary is what makes people angry. It's "tent talk" on an international level, and it contributes to why certain NPCs are invited to present/colonize at certain campuses.

I too would like to say thank you for putting a 'name' on his threads. This is how I've felt about them and I'm not even NPC.

[kddani]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Yeah, I haven't been here a year yet and I can already identify several GCers (alums) who are guilty of contributing to this over and over and over. It's extremely unimpressive.

What's even more sad/pathetic, some of the biggest tent talkers are older alumnae who rushed at very uncompetitive schools. If they rushed at a competitive school, they very likely would've never been given a bid to their organization. I don't know if it's insecurity or what. But puffing up your own organization and trying to put down (even if not directly) other GLOs is tacky to the utmost extreme. The people most into sorting out "eliteness" are those who came from very UNelite chapters.

[ZTAngel]

Originally Posted by kddani

What's even more sad/pathetic, some of the biggest tent talkers are older alumnae who rushed at very uncompetitive schools. If they rushed at a competitive school, they very likely would've never been given a bid to their organization. I don't know if it's insecurity or what. But puffing up your own organization and trying to put down (even if not directly) other GLOs is tacky to the utmost extreme. The people most into sorting out "eliteness" are those who came from very UNelite chapters.

I live in Atlanta which is overflowing with women who are sorority alums from competitive schools such as UGA, Ole Miss, LSU, Bama, etc. These women will talk up their own collegiate chapter but do not mention their sorority on a national level and would NEVER put down another NPC sorority based on "national reputation." These women come from popular chapters at competitive schools and have all the right in the world to brag but yet they don't. Some of the people on here constantly brag but yet come from uncompetitive schools where someone with the personality and looks of Marla Hooch probably could've gotten a bid from the most popular chapter there.