Quota Additions at Super Competitive Schools

[DeltaBetaBaby]

With SORUSH, you could get an invitation from a chapter you hadn't been to in the previous round. Can that happen with PRUSH? And is anyone using SORUSH anymore?

In theory, you could get a pref invite from a chapter you hadn't seen since open houses. Would you be required to go there/list them on a bid card in order to be eligible for QA?

[Titchou]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

With SORUSH, you could get an invitation from a chapter you hadn't been to in the previous round. Can that happen with PRUSH? And is anyone using SORUSH anymore?

In theory, you could get a pref invite from a chapter you hadn't seen since open houses. Would you be required to go there/list them on a bid card in order to be eligible for QA?

You have to "maximize your options" in order to be eligible for QA...this means that:

1) if you have an invite and you have an available time slot, you have to attend. So if there are 3 prefs and you receive 2 or 3 invites only, then you have to accept all of them. If there are 2 prefs and you received 3 invites, you can decline 1.

and

2) you have to list all available groups on your bid card. So if you attended 3 prefs and you can list up to 3 on your card, you have to list all 3. If you only had 2 invites, attended both but can list 3 on your bid card, listing those 2 only is acceptable. You could always list another group that you attended earlier in the week and liked but were released from and that would be OK.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Titchou

You have to "maximize your options" in order to be eligible for QA...this means that:

1) if you have an invite and you have an available time slot, you have to attend. So if there are 3 prefs and you receive 2 or 3 invites only, then you have to accept all of them. If there are 2 prefs and you received 3 invites, you can decline 1.

and

2) you have to list all available groups on your bid card. So if you attended 3 prefs and you can list up to 3 on your card, you have to list all 3. If you only had 2 invites, attended both but can list 3 on your bid card, listing those 2 only is acceptable. You could always list another group that you attended earlier in the week and liked but were released from and that would be OK.

I am all for parity, but I think it would be absurd to have to list a group who you haven't visited every round. Maybe the situation doesn't come up that often now that most campuses use RFM, though.

[Titchou]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I am all for parity, but I think it would be absurd to have to list a group who you haven't visited every round. Maybe the situation doesn't come up that often now that most campuses use RFM, though.

Well, it might be absurd but it is allowed and we are, after all, talking about 18 year olds! Just saying it can be done, not that it should be.

[IndianaSigKap]

They may be using them now, but back in my day, our panhellenic did not. Thankfully, they are moving with the times. But as is pretty common knowledge, my campus is a little set in its ways.

Side question: Does RFM account for schools who use bed quota and therefore each chapter has its own quota? It's been over 8 years since I looked at a Green Book.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by IndianaSigKap

Side question: Does RFM account for schools who use bed quota and therefore each chapter has its own quota? It's been over 8 years since I looked at a Green Book.

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...19#post2019919

[IndianaSigKap]

Thanks for the answer to my question. Doesn't surprise me that special accommodations have to be made.

[carnation]

This is a great thread! Does anyone have any new insights?

[DubaiSis]

I just reread this thread (can't I find ANYONE to buy a vacation from me in the travel dead zone between Thanksgiving and New Year's to keep me busier?), and I got a chuckle out of how things have changed in just a year and a half. First, the addition of 2 chapters at Arkansas and Indiana was a huge thing. Of course, we have yet to know if they will be successful, but I'm confident that they will be, and that there will be more expansions at both schools. And it turns out land WAS available at Arkansas. Who knew?

Second, all the discussions about lower recruiting strength chapters and relative success in rush has me thinking
1-alumnae chapters and alumnae panhellenics should be doing a better job at educating rushees (I am sticking with my boycott of PNM and new member) about RFM, Quota additions and SIP. They can do a lot to help the members and the rushees understand the process.
2-I think the highly competitive schools HAVE gotten more parity, as seen through the continued wild expansion happening nationwide. At Iowa, for instance, RFM made everything worse in the short term, but as the rushees have discovered that they are actually in a competitive rush, they are more accepting of the lower tier chapters, and parity is happening there, just like at so many other schools. Also, the tiers seem to be changing, which is an unexpected consequence of girls a couple years ago sucking it up and accepting the bid they got. They aren't expanding at Iowa yet, but as I've mentioned, I think they are a year or 2 from ready.
3-I think RFM is great, but I do really like the idea of allowing a girl to cut A chapter, and maybe that's at each round of rush. I don't think it's a wise thing to do from the rushee's perspective, but if she feels like she has more say in the process, maybe she'll be happier with what she's left with at the end. I don't think that should change the QA rules, however. Cut a chapter if you want, but it kills your chance to be a QA. I am picturing the ranking form saying list your top 10 chapters and rank the final 4. Then at the 4th slot the girl can choose to actually CUT this chapter, and she has to sign a MRABA-type statement that she understands that by cutting a chapter, she surrenders her ability to be a Quota Addition at bid matching and that she severely limits her chances of finding a sorority match. But hey, if you hate em that much, go for it.
4-I still say a rushee should be more calculating in her rankings, keeping a lower tier chapter in the hunt and dropping a top tier chapter that she's assuming she'll like better later because everyone else does. While cuts hurt at every round of the game, playing it with the big picture in mind could keep the middle-prestige rushee in a better position through the process.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

1-alumnae chapters and alumnae panhellenics should be doing a better job at educating rushees (I am sticking with my boycott of PNM and new member) about RFM, Quota additions and SIP. They can do a lot to help the members and the rushees understand the process.

This would require much more uniform regimentation of alumnae panhellenics and alumnae chapters. I doubt that is going to happen.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by 33girl

This would require much more uniform regimentation of alumnae panhellenics and alumnae chapters. I doubt that is going to happen.

I think a better option is for CPHs to stop lying to women. I never want to see "mutual selection" or "no recs needed" again.

[carnation]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

I still say a rushee should be more calculating in her rankings, keeping a lower tier chapter in the hunt and dropping a top tier chapter that she's assuming she'll like better later because everyone else does. While cuts hurt at every round of the game, playing it with the big picture in mind could keep the middle-prestige rushee in a better position through the process.

I know several women who would probably now be in a "middle" chapter rather than a "bottom" chapter (which many dropped out of within days or weeks) had they played the game like that. Unfortunately, those of us who could see it coming had no way we could bring it up to the women or their moms! ("Sarah Jo, we perceive you as a middle level rushee and here's how you should play recruitment.")

Many of them think they're at the top of the game because they were that in their high school or their town. That does not = top of the pile in a large school's recruitment. A couple of exciting days of parties with hardly any cuts reinforces this. Then BAM! The "top" groups have disappeared from their list.

[HQWest]

OK-I'll bite.

Back pre-RFM - there was a tendency for the new members and panhellenics to be negative or gossipy about a chapter if a chapter missed quota, even if a typically VSRC missed it by one or two girls which could happen because someone dropped out of rush or a legacy listed them as second choice.

Now with RFM - I think this has helped encourage women who aren't sure about the Greek system or are not legacies to consider the advantages of going Greek because of what they see as a greatly improved chance of getting a bid (~that is the likelihood of going bidless or being cried on pref night is much much smaller.) All and all - it is a very good thing for CPCs. (And may have helped save several struggling chapters if we had instituted it earlier.)

But in the way that RFM works - based on the historical strength of a recruiting chapter, CPCs are often setting quota such that everyone makes quota - leading to many (or many many) quota additions for some chapters. This has now led to the gossipy types to talk about chapters that got quota additions in the same way as WRC or chapters that previously did not make quota. This even though those QAs often come about either because that chapter had to have done better as compared to the previous year, or because one or more of the typically SRCs may have had an off year. We see PNMs worried about being a QA or having a pledge class with many QAs as meaning that chapter was "less selective" or less desirable in some way. A similar phenomenon of tent talk occurs when there appear to be many more women at one group's pref parties than another.

The other thing (which I did not think statistically likely) but does pan out is that with more QAs more women get their first choice on Bid Day.

Having more QAs also does not seem to affect retention numbers - those seem to stay about the same but I do not have the statistics to verify this.

thoughts?

[AnchorAlumna]

Originally Posted by carnation

Many of them think they're at the top of the game because they were that in their high school or their town. That does not = top of the pile in a large school's recruitment. A couple of exciting days of parties with hardly any cuts reinforces this. Then BAM! The "top" groups have disappeared from their list.

Exactly. I know one well-known Alabama university (not mine) where this was the practice for many years. LOTS of excellent rushees (to use the old term) dropped out at that point and never tried again. An alum of a top group told me her group routinely cut no one until third round and she saw nothing wrong with it.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by carnation

Many of them think they're at the top of the game because they were that in their high school or their town. That does not = top of the pile in a large school's recruitment. A couple of exciting days of parties with hardly any cuts reinforces this. Then BAM! The "top" groups have disappeared from their list.

On the PNM side, I had no idea what was actually a liability, too. For example, we've talked here about pledging a 16-year-old, which I thought made me stand out in a good way, and was probably just the opposite.

I think there are a lot of things that fall into this category, like "oh, I'm in band; that shows I'm involved and have school spirit" translates to "oh, she's in marching band, that means she'll always have conflicts with recruitment" or "my brother is an XYZ, that shows my family supports Greek life" translates to "her brother is an XYZ, that means she probably has her heart set on ABC".

Maybe I was just the most clueless rushee on earth, but I think that, if this is the stuff you are supposed to tell your rec-writers, it's normal to think these are all positives.