NPC Quota, Release Figures and Quota Additions (Updated 8/7/2007)

[gphiangel624]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

This question goes way beyond the scope of anything I'm really entitled to know, but could an official rush advisor anonymously post modified data on a school's rush to basically show how different systems work?

Like make up group names and return rates, and walk up through what happens at schools with different systems?

Again, I'm simply an alum, not any kind of advisor, and I don't really need to know any of this, but I'm curious about how things have actually worked. Quota additions and release figures seem like they would be wonderful, and yet schools (it seems based on threads from the last few years) seem to have trouble implementing them in a way that works.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what you mean so I can maybe provide a response. When you say "official rush advisor," I'm assuming you mean a chapter's recruitment advisor, right? Not a campus' Greek/Panhellenic Advisor, or person administering recruitment? If you're asking to get a mockup from a campus perspective, I'd be willing to share how it works at my university (using made-up names/return rates, etc.) if no one is opposed to it.

[UGAalum94]

I don't need to be able to match the data to any one school or group, but I'd like to read about how the quota additions and release figure recruitment system works.

I wanted it to come from someone who had actual knowledge of one system's result, rather than just someone making something up about how they thought it should work.

A campus greek advisor would be ideal, but I doubt they'd be willing to post on greek chat.

As an advisor to one chapter, do you get to see other chapters' return results and releases?

[gphiangel624]

Ok, that makes sense then...

I work as my campus' Panhellenic Advisor, so I see all of the figures and know how it works from the "inside." Again, if no one objects, I'm willing to make up some sample figures to explain. I don't think it would be a problem to do this, but I'd like to get some thoughts from others before posting how it works on GC.

Advisors for individual chapters should not see other chapters' return results and releases. Those are confidential, so I don't and cannot share that information as Panhellenic Advisor. I treat release figures the same as I do PNM rankings/pref cards. But if chapters want to share, that's their perogative (not that they do on my campus).

[UGAalum94]

I understand wanting to get some feedback first.

You sound like the perfect person to do this.

Were you the advisor before the era of release figures and quota additions so you can contrast the old and new? I'm thrilled if I get to hear about the new alone, but I'd be interested in the comparision too.

Thanks!

[gphiangel624]

Last year was my first year as the Panhellenic Advisor and our campus' first year with the new release figures, but I had to pull together the previous 3 years of release figures info in order to be ready for the new method. I also assisted my chapter for 2 years on the alumnae side before that, so I know how the old method worked as well.

Just from a general perspective, the new method is awesome- not only does it make parties smaller and easier for chapters to manage (there may be some disagreement with me on this part, esp. from larger campuses), it also gives a PNM more realistic choices throughout the recruitment process and keeps a larger percentage of PNMs in the process longer. We saw a lot of great results from it last year, though some of our chapters were hesitant and worried with their release numbers. In the end, 5 of the 6 chapters ended up making quota (4 of them with QAs) and the one that didn't make it was only off by 2 members. It was the best turnout in terms of chapters making quota (and getting close to it) that our campus has had in at least 10 years.

[UGAalum94]

It sound like it's working perfectly at your campus!
Are there groups who still resist using the release figures?

[honeychile]

I have to admit, I was very much against release figures - too much control and all that.

But our campus used it this year. There are eleven constant sororities - just enough that a twelfth one comes on campus as regular as clockwork, and another one goes under. This year, NINE out of eleven sororities made either Quota or Quota Plus. This was astonishing, given the school's greek history.

So, I'm a convert. Another year or two of these Formal Recruitments, and maybe a twelfth sorority can return - to stay!

[gphiangel624]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

It sound like it's working perfectly at your campus!
Are there groups who still resist using the release figures?

Yes, it's working wonderfully for our campus. I'm hoping we get great results again this year.

No one really resists release figures on my campus. When we were on the old method, some chapters wouldn't follow their recommended figures; this ended up helping the chapters in terms of getting more PNMs to maintain their interest, but didn't always help the PNMs (i.e. they'd get cut later in the process which led to hurt feelings and more withdrawls). The chapters weren't all thrilled with the new method last year; chapters that have strong recruiting skills were bothered with having to cut so many in the beginning and less strong chapters were bothered with not having the option to be as selective as they'd like to be. So there are pros and cons, but it works out in the end for everyone.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by gphiangel624

less strong chapters were bothered with not having the option to be as selective as they'd like to be.

Can't they choose to not invite people back, even if they do end up with a smaller group? I thought the release figure methods were to keep the bigger chapters from going overboard, not to force any chapter to invite women they don't want.

[gphiangel624]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Can't they choose to not invite people back, even if they do end up with a smaller group? I thought the release figure methods were to keep the bigger chapters from going overboard, not to force any chapter to invite women they don't want.

This was just one of the drawbacks we saw last year. From what I recall, chapters who were "instructed" to release few PNMs ended up cutting a little anyway, to the dismay of our NPC Area Advisor. I completely agree that even if a chapter is not a strong recruiting chapter (large or small) they should be able to cut as they please because they do have standards and all. I think the chapters with this dilemma ended up cutting for grades (regardless of what the release figures demanded).

[UGAalum94]

I think the sooner that you cut girls that you would not or could not offer bids to, especially for something objective like grades, the better. It doesn't seem to me that you'd want to give them false hope if you knew earlier on there was no way to have them as new members.

I wouldn't expect anyone to have too many of these girls, but large or small, all chapters will probably have a few.

Can you give us a sense of what the release figure range is?

[ADPi Conniebama]

Originally Posted by gphiangel624

Last year was my first year as the Panhellenic Advisor and our campus' first year with the new release figures, but I had to pull together the previous 3 years of release figures info in order to be ready for the new method. I also assisted my chapter for 2 years on the alumnae side before that, so I know how the old method worked as well.

Just from a general perspective, the new method is awesome- not only does it make parties smaller and easier for chapters to manage (there may be some disagreement with me on this part, esp. from larger campuses), it also gives a PNM more realistic choices throughout the recruitment process and keeps a larger percentage of PNMs in the process longer. We saw a lot of great results from it last year, though some of our chapters were hesitant and worried with their release numbers. In the end, 5 of the 6 chapters ended up making quota (4 of them with QAs) and the one that didn't make it was only off by 2 members. It was the best turnout in terms of chapters making quota (and getting close to it) that our campus has had in at least 10 years.

I would love to hear the "new release figure method" from a greek/panhellenic advisor point of view. (I am a recruitment advisor) - AND I AM TOTALLY biased for ADPi - so I can only visualize - any rules - from my chapters or my sororities point of view.

panhellenically yours
connie

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by gphiangel624

This was just one of the drawbacks we saw last year. From what I recall, chapters who were "instructed" to release few PNMs ended up cutting a little anyway, to the dismay of our NPC Area Advisor. I completely agree that even if a chapter is not a strong recruiting chapter (large or small) they should be able to cut as they please because they do have standards and all. I think the chapters with this dilemma ended up cutting for grades (regardless of what the release figures demanded).

I think I've said it before, but there does come a point when you look at the recommendations (which may say to cut no one) and choose to cut anyway, not just for grades. If you don't want a girl on your bid list, leaving her on your bidlist just because someone else said percentages work is not a good idea.

Choosing to COB to quota over being less selective can often be a better choice, I think. One of the ways chapters can fail is being very un-selective, and taking girls who end up being uncommitted. And when the uncommitted ones withdraw from the chapter, you feel even more pressure to take quota and the cycle continues until you close.

/I do think that that the new figures are a good thing, but they are recommendations, not requirements

[gphiangel624]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Choosing to COB to quota over being less selective can often be a better choice, I think. One of the ways chapters can fail is being very un-selective, and taking girls who end up being uncommitted. And when the uncommitted ones withdraw from the chapter, you feel even more pressure to take quota and the cycle continues until you close.

I absolutely agree with this, though I think there is pressure in COB for some chapters as well.

Alphagamuga- I'm not sure if I should share the range given a few GCers know what campus I work at. Not to mention I'd have to check the figures from last year which I wouldn't be able to get to until at least a week from now (fall quarter has definitely eaten me alive already). I'll see what I can share in terms of a "mock" range, maybe?

[UGAalum94]

A mock range, a range from several years ago, a range from a different campus. . .

Anything you feel comfortable with is okay with me.

I've heard rumors about how some of the really amazing groups at UGA have to release at percentages that I'm not sure could work out mathematically to have full parties and yield quota. (Many of the groups are so strong that no matter how many they had to release, close to 100% of the PNMs they invited back would eagerly accept bids, I think, except in the years when it turns out that three of the top chapters all invited the exact same girls back, even though there were more than 1000 who rushed.)

Lately, I've started to wonder if complaining about release figures isn't a new way for the chapters to compete with each other.

For example, member of group QRS*, " Gah, release figures are the devil. Sooo many girls want us that we have to cut 80% after first round."

Member of group XYZ replies, "I knoooww, we have such great returns that we have to release 87%.*"

Not that every member of the chapter even knows how many were released, but I'm curious about how it really works.

* Note, this is a totally fictionalized conversation. No girl from a truly top house at UGA would talk this way or say anything about the girls they released except that the chapter was heartbroken to see them go.