University of Southern California Recruitment Begins

[DubaiSis]

The big problem is the transition between the old and new systems. When sororities have to make WAY bigger cuts after the first round than they ever did before, it really freaks out the rushees who then quit because they no longer have the "good" houses left. It seems to take a few years and girls figure out that it's a lot more competitive than it used to be, and start to accept chapters they wouldn't have before, and then the rising tide in fact raises all ships. But not right away. And of course, it's not really more competitive. It's just more competitive earlier so it feels like more of a blow. Back in my day it was pretty unusual to not have a full schedule all or most of the way through. Now I think it's the other way around.

But it does seem to me that there is a certain amount of forecasting of quota that happens, and maybe someone can address that. If chapter A is really strong and has to make big cuts after each round, I'm confused about how that is determined. Let me give a scenario and maybe someone can jump in.

Chapter A has 90% return rates after each round. There are 1000 girls going through recruitment. Let's say parties go from 12 to 9 to 5 to 3. How is it determined what percentage of girls they have to cut? I mean it seems there has to be a presumption of a final quota for them to work for. So if the quota at the end is forecasted to be 50, they'd want 150 at pref (a pledge class at each party is what I was always told), 250 the 3rd round, and 450 at round two, with a buffer of 10% for the girls who will cut them. That would answer the whopper cut after round one and a steady drop from there. But is this anywhere near what really happens? And how would they forecast the final number? Or is that based on return rates as well? 1000 girls go through rush. Historically 70% get placed, or 700 girls. Divided by 12 chapters, that puts a forecasted quota at 58. That would allow for a fairly sizeable discrepancy when it came to real life. Maybe this year the girls figure it out and DON'T drop out after round one, or the chapters are all fighting over the same small pool of girls and too many girls get inadvertently cut completely. But in general this seems to make sense to me. Am I right or completely off target?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

The big problem is the transition between the old and new systems. When sororities have to make WAY bigger cuts after the first round than they ever did before, it really freaks out the rushees who then quit because they no longer have the "good" houses left. It seems to take a few years and girls figure out that it's a lot more competitive than it used to be, and start to accept chapters they wouldn't have before, and then the rising tide in fact raises all ships. But not right away. And of course, it's not really more competitive. It's just more competitive earlier so it feels like more of a blow. Back in my day it was pretty unusual to not have a full schedule all or most of the way through. Now I think it's the other way around.

But it does seem to me that there is a certain amount of forecasting of quota that happens, and maybe someone can address that. If chapter A is really strong and has to make big cuts after each round, I'm confused about how that is determined. Let me give a scenario and maybe someone can jump in.

Chapter A has 90% return rates after each round. There are 1000 girls going through recruitment. Let's say parties go from 12 to 9 to 5 to 3. How is it determined what percentage of girls they have to cut? I mean it seems there has to be a presumption of a final quota for them to work for. So if the quota at the end is forecasted to be 50, they'd want 150 at pref (a pledge class at each party is what I was always told), 250 the 3rd round, and 450 at round two, with a buffer of 10% for the girls who will cut them. That would answer the whopper cut after round one and a steady drop from there. But is this anywhere near what really happens? And how would they forecast the final number? Or is that based on return rates as well? 1000 girls go through rush. Historically 70% get placed, or 700 girls. Divided by 12 chapters, that puts a forecasted quota at 58. That would allow for a fairly sizeable discrepancy when it came to real life. Maybe this year the girls figure it out and DON'T drop out after round one, or the chapters are all fighting over the same small pool of girls and too many girls get inadvertently cut completely. But in general this seems to make sense to me. Am I right or completely off target?

The chapters who have higher return rates usually don't get 3x quota for prefs.

[33girl]

I kind of understand what DS is saying though - it seems like RFM and changes in QAs all came at the same time. They should have worked the kinks out of one before moving on and changing the other.

[LAblondeGPhi]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

But it does seem to me that there is a certain amount of forecasting of quota that happens, and maybe someone can address that. If chapter A is really strong and has to make big cuts after each round, I'm confused about how that is determined. Let me give a scenario and maybe someone can jump in.

Chapter A has 90% return rates after each round. There are 1000 girls going through recruitment. Let's say parties go from 12 to 9 to 5 to 3. How is it determined what percentage of girls they have to cut? I mean it seems there has to be a presumption of a final quota for them to work for. So if the quota at the end is forecasted to be 50, they'd want 150 at pref (a pledge class at each party is what I was always told), 250 the 3rd round, and 450 at round two, with a buffer of 10% for the girls who will cut them. That would answer the whopper cut after round one and a steady drop from there. But is this anywhere near what really happens? And how would they forecast the final number? Or is that based on return rates as well? 1000 girls go through rush. Historically 70% get placed, or 700 girls. Divided by 12 chapters, that puts a forecasted quota at 58. That would allow for a fairly sizeable discrepancy when it came to real life. Maybe this year the girls figure it out and DON'T drop out after round one, or the chapters are all fighting over the same small pool of girls and too many girls get inadvertently cut completely. But in general this seems to make sense to me. Am I right or completely off target?

It was my assumption, and I could totally be wrong, that quota forecasting was being done throughout recruitment, and tweaked each day depending on overall PNM retention. I can only speak for my limited experience, but it seems that a strong Greek Advisor and/or RFM specialist will be able to make decent predictions (within a range) of how many PNMs who start the process will be placed on Bid Day.

I've never had the Greek Advisor give me the return targets for each round of recruitment ahead of time - usually I get the figure during that day's parties, depending on drop rates.

[Titchou]

That's correct, Dubai Sis. There is a presumption made when the campus goes on RFM. And actually before RFM, there was a methodology for that but it's tighter now. So, once a campus has a history under RFM, that percentage will be used the following year, with adjustments year to year based upon the chapter's return rates each year. So it's fluid in that it can go up or down each year depending on a chapter's performance the previous year.

And AOIIAngel, at one time that was the general formula..depending on how many prefs you had. The basic assumption was that with 2 prefs you had to have 2.5 times quota (which had already been set earlier in rush) in order to have quota at the end. Obviously, that only worked on campuses where there was parity. With RFM, that assumption is gone and it is based on chapter performance averages.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Titchou

And AOIIAngel, at one time that was the general formula..depending on how many prefs you had. The basic assumption was that with 2 prefs you had to have 2.5 times quota (which had already been set earlier in rush) in order to have quota at the end. Obviously, that only worked on campuses where there was parity. With RFM, that assumption is gone and it is based on chapter performance averages.

A big change with RFM is that they also take into account the % of women who list a chapter first on their bid cards.

So, old system at a school with 2 prefs: If quota is forecasted to be 50, invite numbers would be set so that every chapter would get 100 girls at prefs. 50% return rate? You get to invite 200 girls. 75% return rate? You get to invite 133 girls.

However, you can see that this is predicated on the assumption that all the chapters suddenly equalize and half the PNM's at each chapter pick it. That is obviously NOT the case. If ABC is so awesome that every PNM will list them first, they don't need 100 girls, they only need 50. Letting them have 100 can be disastrous for the weaker chapters.


Another change with RFM is better forecasting. Previously, they used a 3-year or 5-year moving average to calculate return rates. So let's say ABC had 50% in 2009, 60% in 2010, and 70% in 2011. Their forecasting return rate would be 60% in 2012. Well, anyone paying attention would say that is a low assumption, because they are clearly doing better, and it makes sense to assume they'd have at least 70% in 2012. These types of things are now taken into consideration.

[gatordeltapgh]

I read more than I post, but I just wanted to chime in here to clear up a few questions/misconceptions about RFM, changes to QAs, etc.

The first campus started using RFM in 2003 and each year small improvements are made by the leadership team. We are in good hands.

Someone asked about the averages - they are weighted averages and most recent performance is the most critical. Someone mentioned the numbers are watched closely each day so that adjustments can be made. However, if a chapter under performs at a preference event they may not have enough women attend to made quota. It happens from time to time to even the strongest recruiting chapters.

The change remove the 5% cap for QAs was removed in 2008. This change has allow the specialists to do what is best for each situation without having their hands tied. There have been a few campuses over the years where the QAs have been distributed in an unusual manner but this is the exception rather than the rule. The overall goal is to grow the community.

There are very few campuses where a chapter are still listing women who did not attend their preference event on their bid list. Where this situation exists the Delegates and NPC AA are working to fix this issue as it is counterproductive to the process and often leads to other issues.

The 2011 MRABA clearly states that a PNM may only list on her MRABA chapters whose preference event she attended. We actually have them initial this section as well as sign.

All in all the statics are amazing to see the numbers of chapters making quota and the % of PNMs matched. Many NPC groups are working on retention as that is the other critical piece to the puzzle!

[33girl]

Originally Posted by gatordeltapgh

There are very few campuses where a chapter are still listing women who did not attend their preference event on their bid list. Where this situation exists the Delegates and NPC AA are working to fix this issue as it is counterproductive to the process and often leads to other issues.

Would those campuses most likely be the ones where pref = the first invite only event and RFM has been employed perhaps too zealously?

Originally Posted by gatordeltapgh

The 2011 MRABA clearly states that a PNM may only list on her MRABA chapters whose preference event she attended. We actually have them initial this section as well as sign.

It's on the form, but is it actually in the Green Book? Again - what happens at campuses where there was no cutting before pref?

I know you know where I'm coming from on this.

[gatordeltapgh]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Would those campuses most likely be the ones where pref = the first invite only event and RFM has been employed perhaps too zealously?

It's on the form, but is it actually in the Green Book? Again - what happens at campuses where there was no cutting before pref?

I know you know where I'm coming from on this.

Yes, I do know where you are coming from! I should have clarified that I was talking about schools that have fully or partially structured recruitment. There are very few of those schools where chapters list women who did not attend their preference event on their bid list. I can think of one who just corrected the situation on the chapter and PNM side last year, thankfully!

For schools that use minimally structured or continuous recruitment they still use the MRABA script and those women sign the COB acceptance binding agreement.

Yes, the info is in the MOI again in the "What Every Potential New Member Needs to Know About Recruitment" section in the recruitment handbook. The info is also on the script and on the form. Hopefully covering all bases!

The school you are thinking about isn't using RFM and we are still working on figuring out the best format. Always a work in progress, onward and upward!

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Titchou

That's correct, Dubai Sis. There is a presumption made when the campus goes on RFM. And actually before RFM, there was a methodology for that but it's tighter now. So, once a campus has a history under RFM, that percentage will be used the following year, with adjustments year to year based upon the chapter's return rates each year. So it's fluid in that it can go up or down each year depending on a chapter's performance the previous year.

And AOIIAngel, at one time that was the general formula..depending on how many prefs you had. The basic assumption was that with 2 prefs you had to have 2.5 times quota (which had already been set earlier in rush) in order to have quota at the end. Obviously, that only worked on campuses where there was parity. With RFM, that assumption is gone and it is based on chapter performance averages.

Right. This is what I was saying. In the past you wanted about 3x quota at prefs. They don't necessarily let the higher power chapters get that many at prefs anymore...as explained well by DBB below.
BTW, I think we're saying the same thing.

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

A big change with RFM is that they also take into account the % of women who list a chapter first on their bid cards.

So, old system at a school with 2 prefs: If quota is forecasted to be 50, invite numbers would be set so that every chapter would get 100 girls at prefs. 50% return rate? You get to invite 200 girls. 75% return rate? You get to invite 133 girls.

However, you can see that this is predicated on the assumption that all the chapters suddenly equalize and half the PNM's at each chapter pick it. That is obviously NOT the case. If ABC is so awesome that every PNM will list them first, they don't need 100 girls, they only need 50. Letting them have 100 can be disastrous for the weaker chapters.


Another change with RFM is better forecasting. Previously, they used a 3-year or 5-year moving average to calculate return rates. So let's say ABC had 50% in 2009, 60% in 2010, and 70% in 2011. Their forecasting return rate would be 60% in 2012. Well, anyone paying attention would say that is a low assumption, because they are clearly doing better, and it makes sense to assume they'd have at least 70% in 2012. These types of things are now taken into consideration.

[Titchou]

Yes, they start out with a range assumption based on the number of PNMs at that point. It will adjust as the week goes on. And you should be given the number you can invite back each day - not all days at the beginning. The number may need a little tweaking based on your return numbers each day. So if one day was waaaaay off, they would adjust for that for the following day.

Make sense?

[SWTXBelle]

My super-great pnm pledged Kappa!

[DubaiSis]

Well that's what keeps us all on our toes, right? Suddenly this sleeper is competing with the big girls and throws everything into chaos. I'd definitely rather have it that way than the 75 year, fixed in stone tiers that no one can break.

[Titchou]

"I think it is hard to make a simple model of the bid matching process with all the unknown pieces. My problem with the "artificially" low quotas is the quota additions. At all the schools I've been involved with (granted, only three) the QAs are based on PNM preference, not helping the smaller chapters."

The PNM should be matched to the smallest chapter on their bid card. So if they can put 2 choices down and they don't match to either by quota, then they are a QA to the smallest of the two...which may be their first choice...or may be their second. It doesn't matter. All that matters is that as a QA you go to the smallest chapter.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Titchou

"I think it is hard to make a simple model of the bid matching process with all the unknown pieces. My problem with the "artificially" low quotas is the quota additions. At all the schools I've been involved with (granted, only three) the QAs are based on PNM preference, not helping the smaller chapters."

The PNM should be matched to the smallest chapter on their bid card. So if they can put 2 choices down and they don't match to either by quota, then they are a QA to the smallest of the two...which may be their first choice...or may be their second. It doesn't matter. All that matters is that as a QA you go to the smallest chapter.

(Please bear with me, the caffeine isn't fully kicked in)

While that sounds good, I think I can understand why some systems would do it the other way. If QA = going to the smaller of your chapters, some women will probably automatically not put all chapters down on their bid card because they don't want to go to that chapter. And if your non-fave teeny chapter has asked you back all through rush, you have to put them down or not get a QA at all.