NPC appoints Community College Task Force

[Titchou]

Originally Posted by AZTheta

SWTXBelle & titchou, we're gonna agree to disagree on this one. FWIW I don't see my response as "elitist" or "mean girl clique" and would be more than open to you telling me your perceptions of my own words. Perhaps it wasn't directed at me specifically however I will clean up my own doorstep if necessary. And I will follow DGTess and watch the exploration with some interest. *shrug*

Oh, one more thing: what is with articles from the 1970s dictating Texas behavior in the 2020s? Sheesh. Who has that kind of time?

Last thing first - in some places the past is not dead....

First thing: I'm good with you also and my comments weren't directed at you. You know me too well for that. I just think it's worth exploring. As SWTXBelle said, some places might be a good fit - one here in Bham. But outside of that one, I can't think of a 2yr in Alabama that would be a fit. But I'm stuck in the Heart of Dixie so what do I know????

[carnation]

I honestly can not think of a good fit in Georgia.

[FSUZeta]

If memory serves from back in the dark ages, transfers would not count toward total-meaning that it a chapter was over total and a girl sought affiliation, the chapter being over total would not prevent her from affiliating. That could add an interesting twist to chapter numbers-especially when there might conceivably be 20-30 or more CC girls seeking affiliation into one chapter. Mega chapters could top 500-600 members.

[carnation]

OMG! That means that if you got rejected as an affiliate, you would know that it wasn't because of a rule--they just didn't want you.

[Titchou]

Forgot about that, FSUZeta and Carnation....oohhh..

[breathesgelatin]

Coming out of lurkerdom for this exciting topic

I have a little bit of a different perspective--maybe it's not that different, I don't know.

It's an open secret that the Texas fraternities pledge ACC students. Tons of young men who can't get in as freshmen move to Austin from Dallas and Houston, move into the West Campus student neighborhood, and rush. I don't know if they actually get initiated but they for sure call themselves members. Then they apply for transfer admission as sophomores and make it official.

This practice annoys me and I'd rather consider paths toward making it legal.

I don't think the sororities do this...?

I also think it's OK if some NPC orgs would be interested in colonizing at community colleges and others wouldn't. But some large urban community colleges are huge, offer 4 year degree, and may not resemble the image of community college that some here have...

[FSUZeta]

"It's an open secret that the Texas fraternities pledge ACC students. Tons of young men who can't get in as freshmen move to Austin from Dallas and Houston, move into the West Campus student neighborhood, and rush. I don't know if they actually get initiated but they for sure call themselves members. Then they apply for transfer admission as sophomores and make it official." Breathesgelatin

They also did that in Tallahassee and Gainesville-caused all sorts of trouble.

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

Coming out of lurkerdom for this exciting topic

I have a little bit of a different perspective--maybe it's not that different, I don't know.

It's an open secret that the Texas fraternities pledge ACC students. Tons of young men who can't get in as freshmen move to Austin from Dallas and Houston, move into the West Campus student neighborhood, and rush. I don't know if they actually get initiated but they for sure call themselves members. Then they apply for transfer admission as sophomores and make it official.

This practice annoys me and I'd rather consider paths toward making it legal.

I don't think the sororities do this...?

I know (or know of) several guys who have done this at ACC. Most were successful, some were not. Just like those going to UT fully admitted or via PACE. Most of the kids (girls and boys) whose parents let them do this were just off getting into UT (the auto-admit is now top 6% of a graduating class, and the others admitted outside of that are few and far between). They're already highly successful students, they just want a UT degree & they don't want to spend their first year (25% of a typical 4-year degree) in the wrong city. They want too start making their friends in the dorms with the rest of the first-years.

The sororities do not allow you to go through as a full ACC student - you must have a UT ID# to participate. Most girls load up on college credits the summer before freshman year so that they can apply to UT for spring admittance of their freshman year.

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

I also think it's OK if some NPC orgs would be interested in colonizing at community colleges and others wouldn't. But some large urban community colleges are huge, offer 4 year degree, and may not resemble the image of community college that some here have...

I agree with this, just not sure what it would look like and what the ramifications would be. I also agree that some groups may not want to pursue it, but should consider voting in favor of it it if there are groups who would like to pursue it.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by shirley1929

I also agree that some groups may not want to pursue it, but should consider voting in favor of it it if there are groups who would like to pursue it.

This sounds too much like when we were voting on mixers (which we did week by week). The mixer would get approved, only a third of the sisters would show up, and we would look like asshats. Then it came about that people were voting like this: “well I have a class/study group/rehearsal/what have you that night, but I voted in favor of it so other people could go and enjoy it.” After that, we said: don’t vote in favor of a mixer unless you can/intend to actually GO to the mixer.

I would use the exact same reasoning here. If you don’t intend to ever submit an expansion proposal to a community college, don’t vote in favor of it just because you think ABC or XYZ would want to. Let ABC and XYZ worry about themselves.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by 33girl

This sounds too much like when we were voting on mixers (which we did week by week). The mixer would get approved, only a third of the sisters would show up, and we would look like asshats. Then it came about that people were voting like this: “well I have a class/study group/rehearsal/what have you that night, but I voted in favor of it so other people could go and enjoy it.” After that, we said: don’t vote in favor of a mixer unless you can/intend to actually GO to the mixer.

I would use the exact same reasoning here. If you don’t intend to ever submit an expansion proposal to a community college, don’t vote in favor of it just because you think ABC or XYZ would want to. Let ABC and XYZ worry about themselves.

I don't think that quite applies to the way that NPC works (or at least worked in the past). Several of the groups that joined the NPC after its formation were forced to shed/spinoff chapters at schools that didn't fit the NPC requirements for a school with NPC chapters.

So given *that*, Sorority1 can't have chapters at Local Community College unless the NPC votes to allow to have its groups have chapters at schools that don't grant bachelor's degrees. The question is whether Sorority2which doesn't want to have chapters at Community voting to abstain on such a vote counts as the same as a "No" vote or not (so if 12 vote yes, and 14 abstain does it pass? (Assuming a Majority is required, which I don't know)




(Current policy: The institution must be a senior college or university
that is authorized to confer a bachelor’s degree and that has received a satisfactory rating by the pertinent recognized regional association of colleges and secondary schools or other recognized agency and/or entity that confers accreditation in the relevant jurisdiction.)

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by naraht

I don't think that quite applies to the way that NPC works (or at least worked in the past). Several of the groups that joined the NPC after its formation were forced to shed/spinoff chapters at schools that didn't fit the NPC requirements for a school with NPC chapters.

So given *that*, Sorority1 can't have chapters at Local Community College unless the NPC votes to allow to have its groups have chapters at schools that don't grant bachelor's degrees. The question is whether Sorority2which doesn't want to have chapters at Community voting to abstain on such a vote counts as the same as a "No" vote or not (so if 12 vote yes, and 14 abstain does it pass? (Assuming a Majority is required, which I don't know)

.)

The Unanimous Agreements require just that, I believe - a unanimous vote. I don't know about abstaining.

[FSUZeta]

Remind me again, please naraht, which sorority are you a member of?

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by 33girl

This sounds too much like when we were voting on mixers (which we did week by week). The mixer would get approved, only a third of the sisters would show up, and we would look like asshats. Then it came about that people were voting like this: “well I have a class/study group/rehearsal/what have you that night, but I voted in favor of it so other people could go and enjoy it.” After that, we said: don’t vote in favor of a mixer unless you can/intend to actually GO to the mixer.

I would use the exact same reasoning here. If you don’t intend to ever submit an expansion proposal to a community college, don’t vote in favor of it just because you think ABC or XYZ would want to. Let ABC and XYZ worry about themselves.

I get where you're going with this, but doesn't it have to be a unanimous vote? So just letting ABC and XYZ worry about themselves kinda screws them over, right? If it doesn't have to be a unanimous vote then, your thinking makes sense to me.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by shirley1929

I get where you're going with this, but doesn't it have to be a unanimous vote? So just letting ABC and XYZ worry about themselves kinda screws them over, right? If it doesn't have to be a unanimous vote then, your thinking makes sense to me.

It doesn’t screw them over, it prevents a tiered system from forming. You’re going to have to have some canaries for this coal mine and we all know damned well that it’s not going to be any of the groups that are thought of as nationally prestigious.

[SWTXBelle]

I was being lazy, but now I've done the research:

https://www.npcwomen.org/wp-content/...Agreements.pdf

TL/DR - UA V would have to be amended by a unanimous vote by all 26.