Questions about GPA Requirements and PNMs

[Titchou]

I'm not sure how you desenters would want "mutual selection" to work. In any type of selection process, someone has to make the first selection...even in the jungle! That's a requirement. In NPC, we say the chapters make the first choice because it's their "house" and their organization. They have the right to determine who comes into that circle. The PNMs decide which invitations they would like to accept. And the process goes on. Just because Susie Snowflake has been led to believe that she will always be selected for everything because daddy's little darling is so special and unique that "no" has never been said to her and never will doesn't mean that we (the members) are a bunch of out of step mean *itches. We didn't all get asked to the prom. Someone gets left out. Some don't belong in the first place. That doesn't mean they have no self worth. The only place we are all special is with God. It doesn't extend to everything else.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Titchou

I'm not sure how you desenters would want "mutual selection" to work. In any type of selection process, someone has to make the first selection...even in the jungle! That's a requirement. In NPC, we say the chapters make the first choice because it's their "house" and their organization. They have the right to determine who comes into that circle. The PNMs decide which invitations they would like to accept. And the process goes on. Just because Susie Snowflake has been led to believe that she will always be selected for everything because daddy's little darling is so special and unique that "no" has never been said to her and never will doesn't mean that we (the members) are a bunch of out of step mean *itches. We didn't all get asked to the prom. Someone gets left out. Some don't belong in the first place. That doesn't mean they have no self worth. The only place we are all special is with God. It doesn't extend to everything else.

Am I the only one who's completely confused at where this is coming from?

[DrPhil]

lane swerve/

I do not know where some NPC discussions come from. I keep reading certain threads about letters of recommendation and mutual selection and saying to myself "I feel slow as hell...what is the point of contention." I'm sure some non-NPHCers feel that way about NPHC discussions.

/lane swerve

[Titchou]

From 33Girl, KSUViolet and others who don't believe it is a "mutual selection" process....

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

lane swerve/

I do not know where some NPC discussions come from. I keep reading certain threads about letters of recommendation and mutual selection and saying to myself "I feel slow as hell...what is the point of contention." I'm sure some non-NPHCers feel that way about NPHC discussions.

/lane swerve

I'm totally with you. The problem comes when people think they can make a system designed to fit a region work in a place it isn't used or think they can make a system suddenly stop using them. They have their place. Since Towson was the bone of contention in this thread, I'll explain the difficulties trying to suddenly require women to come up with recs when they have no idea what they are. Most women who go through recruitment in the south are locals to their respective schools. At Towson, MD, a large proportion are from Long Island and other New York locations. It is cheaper to go to school at Towson. Since these recs are for OUR benefit, getting these women to get recommendations is not realistic when they have never done them before. Our alumnae in MD have no idea what recommendations are (I personally had to do any recs for students heading down to Bama and Ole Miss requesting recs from our alum chapter when I lived there.) We do have an alumnae chapter in Long Island, but considering that New York schools don't require recs either, the likelihood is that those women are not likely to go out of their way to take time from their busy schedules to hunt down the GPAs for women attending college in a different state. And...they couldn't get those GPAs without permission of the women going through recruitment anyway so the whole point is moot. Recs are a mostly southern thing. I am from the south and from a chapter from the south that used recs so I'm fully aware of them. You just can't shove a square peg in a round hole.

[Titchou]

I do beg to differ on one point - at least at Alabama, over 50% of the PNMs are from out of state. So they aren't "local"...and that's the case at Ole Miss, etc. It's just that since recs are the norm there, the school's PH web site tells them that they need them. And we don't go "hunting down GPAs". That's on the girl's resume...and transcript - both of which any rec writer should ask for. I know it's a foreign concept to some folks but most people are used to references for jobs and it's really the same exact thing. And there are some GLO's whose national policy is that all new members have a rec. Now, how you go about getting it is another story. Some folks just sit around a table and fill them out after the fact. But they do send them in!

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I'm totally with you. The problem comes when people think they can make a system designed to fit a region work in a place it isn't used or think they can make a system suddenly stop using them. They have their place. Since Towson was the bone of contention in this thread, I'll explain the difficulties trying to suddenly require women to come up with recs when they have no idea what they are. Most women who go through recruitment in the south are locals to their respective schools. At Towson, MD, a large proportion are from Long Island and other New York locations. It is cheaper to go to school at Towson. Since these recs are for OUR benefit, getting these women to get recommendations is not realistic when they have never done them before. Our alumnae in MD have no idea what recommendations are (I personally had to do any recs for students heading down to Bama and Ole Miss requesting recs from our alum chapter when I lived there.) We do have an alumnae chapter in Long Island, but considering that New York schools don't require recs either, the likelihood is that those women are not likely to go out of their way to take time from their busy schedules to hunt down the GPAs for women attending college in a different state. And...they couldn't get those GPAs without permission of the women going through recruitment anyway so the whole point is moot. Recs are a mostly southern thing. I am from the south and from a chapter from the south that used recs so I'm fully aware of them. You just can't shove a square peg in a round hole.

That makes sense. I guess NPC cannot make a mandate that would span across regions and schools. The whole recruitment system is interesting to me because it is one of the explanations for why NPCers across sororities have so many back and forths and share opinions.

At the same time, aspirants/PNMs who really want something will take the necessary steps to make it happen regardless of the region and so forth. NPHC GLOs that require letters of recommendation typically do not remove that requirement for any demographic. It does not matter whether you are a legacy or first generation college student. It does not matter whether all of your high school teachers or people in your church are NPHCers; or whether you do not recall ever meeting an NPHCer before you came to college. You can be from a city with collegiate chapters and alumnae/alumni/graduate chapters or you can be from a city where chapters are more scarce or most chapters have their charter revoked. Regardless of whatever, no exceptions. You better have the basic requirements and it is up to individual chapters and/or schools to assign additional requirements. Despite the fact that many NPHC aspirants have been aspiring and planning prior to their first year in college, the average racial and ethnic minority is a first generation college student who may or may not have any NPHC background info and networks. There are also financial/active NPHCers who have never done a letter of recommendation for an aspirant or who have not kept up to date on their GLO's requirements. Either way, it must all be figured out if aspirants want to be in the NPHC GLOs that have letters of recommendation as a basic requirement.

(The letter of rec contention makes more sense now that I have typed that. The mutual selection contention still doesn't make sense. LOL. Ignore me, though.)


/lane swerve

[Titchou]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

(The letter of rec contention makes more sense now that I have typed that. The mutual selection contention still doesn't make sense. LOL. Ignore me, though.)


/lane swerve

NPHC is actually doing "mutual selection" just in a different way. Your org is sitting there, needing aspirants. So, the aspirant (PNM) does his/her due diligence and follows your intake process. He/she has selected XXX as GLO of choice. Then, XXX decides if they want the aspirant (you select). So you both have selected and that is mutual selection. I don't know why everyone gets so wound up about the term. If a PNM or aspirant could choose any group and be assured of membership, it wouldn't be mutual! And if the GLO could pick any PNM/aspirant and demand they join, that wouldn't be mutual either. Somewhere along the line people have placed a different meaning on "mutual selection" than was intended.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Titchou

I don't know why everyone gets so wound up about the term. If a PNM or aspirant could choose any group and be assured of membership, it wouldn't be mutual! And if the GLO could pick any PNM/aspirant and demand they join, that wouldn't be mutual either. Somewhere along the line people have placed a different meaning on "mutual selection" than was intended.

The bolded is what I do not understand. Why is this idea a point of contention for some NPCers?

GLOs do not force aspirants/PNMs to be interested in us, aspirants/PNMs do not force us to choose them, and GLOs do not force aspirants/PNMs to decide to join if they are chosen. Even if there is sometimes an implication of snootyness and rejectment, is that not okay considering that GLOs are among the organizations in the world with selection processes and no aspirant sense of entitlement?

/lane swerve

[justgo_withit]

I think the problem is that often PNMs get the impression that mutual selection = equal selection, and that it means that their opinions directly impact where they end up in terms of "If I really like group XYZ and I think I belong there, I will end up there". Because "we can't make you join a group, you get to choose if you pledge there or not" seems like such common sense, they assume that mutual selection means their feelings will lead the selection for daily parties, when actually the chapters' does like Titchou said.

The concept that "mutual selection" stands for seems so obvious that PNMs/less than stellar people advising them have put a different meaning on it that isn't actually real. PNMs hear "it's a mutual selection process" and interpret it as "you can get into that top tier chapter that is way out of your league if you want it bad enough because your opinion matters and you're desperate for good news".

[Mevara]

Originally Posted by Old_Row

That's the truth and I don't know why so many people here get bent out of shape when it gets said.

Mutual selection only really exists for the top PNMs and the top recruiting chapters.

This does not only apply to the top recruiting chapters. The top recruiting chapters just get more of the PNMs they want versus the other chapters. Chapters always get to make the first selection where as only the top PNMs get to have their pick. Even then how often is it that a PNM has a full party? 25% of the time, less?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by justgo_withit

I think the problem is that often PNMs get the impression that mutual selection means that their opinions directly impact where they end up in terms of "If I really like group XYZ and I think I belong there, I will end up there," and then they're upset when they don't get invited back. Because "we can't make you join a group, you get to choose if you pledge there or not" seems like such common sense, they assume that mutual selection means their feelings will lead the selection for daily parties, when actually the chapters' does like Titchou said.

The concept that "mutual selection" stands for seems so obvious that PNMs/less than stellar people advising them have put a different meaning on it that isn't actually real. PNMs hear "it's a mutual selection process" and interpret it as "you can get into that top tier chapter that is way out of your league if you want it bad enough because your opinion matters and you're desperate for good news".

Oh I think I get it. PNMs are led to believe that it can matter that they want "us" as much as, or more than, "we" want them. Therefore, they think that their passion and awesomeness will be met with acceptance.

In that case, it sounds like the very common NPHC bitter aspirant or eternal aspirant. However, the feelings of those aspirants do not matter regardless of who gave them misinformation. Regardless of how hard they have tried, we do not have to accept them. It is not uncommon for rejectment aspirants to contact the school, district/local/regional/national entity to force themselves upon the chapter; or to get the chapter in trouble, in general. That sometimes works but they will ALWAYS be the rejectment who had to force herself/himself on the chapter and the GLO.

Not every GLO member made it on their first try for whatever reason(s). That can be disappointing and some people feel rejectment. However, the different interpretations of "mutual selection" does not mean that there is no mutual selection. At the end of this mutual selection, the decisions of the GLO still matter more (even if some aspirants/PNMs choose to decline an invitation for membership).

/pardon lane swerves

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

I've been debating making a thread about the whole "selection isn't really all that mutual" thing (for the benefit of PNMs and parents), but there's no real nice way to say "it's more sorority selection."

But as OldRow just mentioned, that's not true for a weak recruiting chapter. Yes, the chapter still makes the first "cuts", if you will, but a) weak recruiting chapters often make very few cuts under RFM, and b) there are far more women who choose not to return to weak recruiting XYZ than are cut by weak recruiting XYZ over the course of recruitment. It is just as heartbreaking to not see your favorite PNM on a party list as it is not to see your favorite chapter.

I think the difference may be that the women in XYZ have a pretty good idea of this going in; the PNM's may not.

[justgo_withit]

Originally Posted by Mevara

This does not only apply to the top recruiting chapters. The top recruiting chapters just get more of the PNMs they want versus the other chapters. Chapters always get to make the first selection where as only the top PNMs get to have their pick. Even then how often is it that a PNM has a full party? 25% of the time, less?

I think what Old_Row is saying is that at competitive schools and schools with deep-rooted group identities, often only the top chapters actually pick who they want; everyone else picks from the rest as you go further down in desirability.

[Old_Row]

The problem is we give the PNMs the impression that they are somehow in control of the process and very few of them are. Only the really top PNMs (maybe 10 to 15%) are going to have their choice. The top chapters will get who they want (within reason since those chapters are usually after the same PNMs.) The remaining chapters and PNMs have fewer options. How many times do PNMs come here to complain that the chapters they are "cutting" keep asking them back?

While the out of state population at Bama has grown, almost everyone comes from "like minded" areas of the south as far as sororities are concerned.