Automatic Total readjustment

[QueenD]

Hi all,

I've seen a number of different threads that have comments to the effect that certain schools are really unlikely to have any COB because all the chapters made quota or quota-plus and are at total. I would like to know what GreekChatters know about campus adoption of the NPC recommendation (which is really more of a requirement if you read the MOI) to do automatic total readjustment within 72 hours of bid day. As far as I know, the campus I advise is adopting this and will be adjusting to average chapter size. I'm honestly thrilled about this because total should have been raised last year to be in accordance with any of the methods outline in the MOI but some chapters were hesitant for a few reasons. This year should be much better.

Any info you have on how this will be handled at other schools would be appreciated!

[SoCalGirl]

From the 2014 MOI

From Page 48:
TOTAL
Automatically Adjusting Total (2013)

To allow groups to achieve parity as quickly as possible at the conclusion of primary recruitment, total will be automatically adjusted annually no later than 72 hours following bid distribution. The adjustment will be to average chapter size unless the College Panhellenic adopts an acceptable alternative formula according to the Manual of Information.

Options in Determining Total (2009)

Panhellenics will review total annually, and if it is determined total should be revised, after consultation with the NPC area advisor, College Panhellenics can vote to determine total by any one of the following: 1) average chapter size; 2) the median chapter size; 3) the size of the largest chapter and combined with a number that reflects the best adjustment to total to ensure continued growth opportunities, parity, housing obligations, availability of campus facility and vitality of the College Panhellenic community. Campuses with deferred recruitment may review total to allow for a fall recruitment that would assist in establishing parity, using either average chapter or median size, allowing those below the number to recruit upperclass members.

From Page 48:
Two-tier Total (2009)

College Panhellenics on campuses with deferred recruitment may review total in the fall to allow for a fall recruitment that will assist in establishing parity. This review does not replace the review that should be completed after deferred primary recruitment. This would be a two-tier total. If, after consultation with the NPC area advisor and their respective inter/national organizations, it is agreed that implementation of a fall total is advantageous, fall total can be determined by one of the following:

• Using current data, determine average chapter size and allow chapters below that number to recruit upperclass members.
• Using current data, determine the median chapter size and allow chapters below that number to recruit upperclass members.
• Panhellenics should determine in the prior spring if a two-tier total should be implemented for the following fall term and vote to do so. The adjustment to a new fall total should be done as soon as possible at the beginning of the fall academic term.

[SoCalGirl]

Personally, I am against automatically adjusting total. I feel like, and have seen, it cause the big to get bigger and the small to shut down.

I believe total should not be adjusted more than every other year. This gives chapters who are below total time to COB without competition from the larger chapters.


Honestly the only time it makes sense to me to follow AAT is when everyone is above total already but half the groups are considerably bigger and the other half are fairly comparable in size.

[DubaiSis]

I understand what you're saying. From what I've seen here, when there's a chapter that is struggling WAY down below the other chapters in numbers, it doesn't matter if they are 50 members smaller or 100 members smaller; keeping total at 150 where it's been forever isn't going to help them. And if they DO have a really rockin rush and can make up a good chunk of that difference, holding total artificially low means they can't catch up as far as they might otherwise. Let's say total is 150 but most of the chapters are really at 200. And the small chapter is at 100. They have a FANTASTIC rush and get to 150. They are now at total and can't do anything to get to the 200 that the others have because they have met total. They might feel better that they achieved that goal, but they have their hands tied against achieving actual parity. And we've seen chapters double their size twice in 2 years, so this is an actual problem a really motivated chapter can encounter.

RFM works when you use the entire program, including adjusting total annually to reflect the real numbers in play. At some point that will mean adjusting total downward, which will probably freak people out, but will keep the madness under control when the bubble inevitably bursts. Without a history of annual adjustments, people will freak out at the change.

[HQWest]

The other advantage of reevaluating total every year is that it means about half of the chapters would be eligible for COB each year. This increases the opportunities for upperclassman to pledge, and it reduces any stigma about COB if its not always the same one or two chapters doing COB.

That doesn't mean that a chapter that needs to get 24 COBs when everyone else needs 3 or 4 is not still going to have problems, but it gives them a chance to catch up

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

I understand what you're saying...

RFM works when you use the entire program, including adjusting total annually to reflect the real numbers in play. At some point that will mean adjusting total downward, which will probably freak people out, but will keep the madness under control when the bubble inevitably bursts. Without a history of annual adjustments, people will freak out at the change.

Was there not previous GC discussion as to whether this downward adjustment should already have begun at a few schools?

[DubaiSis]

Not that I've seen, but I'm sure there are schools that need it. Not everyone is in an upward trajectory EVERY YEAR.

[QueenD]

DubaiSis, you have outlined the exact scenario that the campus I advise has going on. My chapter was much smaller (like about 40% less) than the other two chapters for years. The other two chapters have not done COB in many years - probably at least 8. My chapter has made great strides in the last few semesters with recruitment. We have about 15-20% fewer members than the other chapters right now and are looking at potentially our largest formal recruitment ever this year. If total is not automatically adjusted and the other chapters are once again hesitant to raise it, we will be in a situation where all chapters are above total, but we still have about 15% fewer people. And the worst part is that nobody would have the option to join thru COB. That's not the best for Greek life on our campus in my opinion.

[SoCalGirl]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

I understand what you're saying. From what I've seen here, when there's a chapter that is struggling WAY down below the other chapters in numbers, it doesn't matter if they are 50 members smaller or 100 members smaller; keeping total at 150 where it's been forever isn't going to help them. And if they DO have a really rockin rush and can make up a good chunk of that difference, holding total artificially low means they can't catch up as far as they might otherwise. Let's say total is 150 but most of the chapters are really at 200. And the small chapter is at 100. They have a FANTASTIC rush and get to 150. They are now at total and can't do anything to get to the 200 that the others have because they have met total. They might feel better that they achieved that goal, but they have their hands tied against achieving actual parity. And we've seen chapters double their size twice in 2 years, so this is an actual problem a really motivated chapter can encounter.

RFM works when you use the entire program, including adjusting total annually to reflect the real numbers in play. At some point that will mean adjusting total downward, which will probably freak people out, but will keep the madness under control when the bubble inevitably bursts. Without a history of annual adjustments, people will freak out at the change.

Originally Posted by HQWest

The other advantage of reevaluating total every year is that it means about half of the chapters would be eligible for COB each year. This increases the opportunities for upperclassman to pledge, and it reduces any stigma about COB if its not always the same one or two chapters doing COB.

That doesn't mean that a chapter that needs to get 24 COBs when everyone else needs 3 or 4 is not still going to have problems, but it gives them a chance to catch up

This is why I think when everyone's above total already it has it's place.



What I've seen happen is the chapter that is at 100 gets to a number after bid day that, if nothing changes, they could have a legit shot at hitting total by end of year through COB. But when total is shifted several stronger recruiting chapters become eligible and essentially "steal" the pool. (Yes, I know not really.)

My thing is that PNMs that are interested enough in greek life to consider the WRC could easily be attracted to one of the SRC. If they didn't have the other options they may have been happy to join the WRC and helped lead to its long term success.

If girls are avoiding the WRC like the plague it's not fair to keep the total down for too long, I get that. But again, I think every other year seems reasonable as a balance.



eta: Does anyone have a copy of the MOI prior to 2009? I would have sworn that back in the day NPC discouraged annual adjustments, which is why I was shocked when I came across it for the first time (before 2009).

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by SoCalGirl

My thing is that PNMs that are interested enough in greek life to consider the WRC could easily be attracted to one of the SRC. If they didn't have the other options they may have been happy to join the WRC and helped lead to its long term success.

My question is around how often this actually happens in practice. This relies on two assumptions, the truth of which probably varies wildly from campus to campus:

1) The SRC actually goes out and COBs. I know most groups want their chapters at total, but a second pledge class takes time and resources to pull off. Is a 200-member chapter that has no problem filling its house really going out to grab 5 more women when total is raised to 205?

2) The SRC and WRC are pulling from the same pool. I guess if there are a lot of women who are interested in COB, and notify the GL office, which forwards them along to the chapters, this is a problem. But if the chapters are COBing their friends and campus acquaintances, the PNM's are not looking at and comparing multiple chapters.

[Titchou]

Originally Posted by QueenD

DubaiSis, you have outlined the exact scenario that the campus I advise has going on. My chapter was much smaller (like about 40% less) than the other two chapters for years. The other two chapters have not done COB in many years - probably at least 8. My chapter has made great strides in the last few semesters with recruitment. We have about 15-20% fewer members than the other chapters right now and are looking at potentially our largest formal recruitment ever this year. If total is not automatically adjusted and the other chapters are once again hesitant to raise it, we will be in a situation where all chapters are above total, but we still have about 15% fewer people. And the worst part is that nobody would have the option to join thru COB. That's not the best for Greek life on our campus in my opinion.

This is when you contact your NPC Area Adviser. She can convince them to do it.

[QueenD]

Our NPC Area Adviser is all about it. We have one chapter that is resisting doing this but the Greek Life office supports it and I'm quite sure this will come out in the wash.

[SoCalGirl]

Queen D - When I've seen the AAT implemented, it wasn't a few more members for the SRC it was more like 20-50. That times 4-5 chapters means the WRC who was within 50 girls of the original total (and could have made a significant dent in their deficit via COB right after formal and a Spring COB) is now behind the 8 ball again.

You are right that it varies from school to school. Which is why it should not be a mandate but more of a "Hey, if the numbers are right do it right after formal." recommendation sort of thing.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by SoCalGirl

Queen D - When I've seen the AAT implemented, it wasn't a few more members for the SRC it was more like 20-50. That times 4-5 chapters means the WRC who was within 50 girls of the original total (and could have made a significant dent in their deficit via COB right after formal and a Spring COB) is now behind the 8 ball again.

You are right that it varies from school to school. Which is why it should not be a mandate but more of a "Hey, if the numbers are right do it right after formal." recommendation sort of thing.

Yeah, it seems like maybe doing it in the semester that does NOT include formal recruitment could be a good idea, too. That would mean women who didn't maximize and went bidless or whatever would have a chance to look at the WRC or wait until the next semester when total *might* be adjusted and the SRC *might* be COBing.

[QueenD]

The scenario we are looking at for my university this year is one where we are all almost 100% certain to be above total after formal recruitment, but one chapter will have about 15 members fewer than the largest chapter. (This is not a campus with chapter sizes in the 200-300 range, think more like 85-95). The odds of AAT causing 50+ member disparities is pretty darn low here.