No, it means that she'd be a sophmore.

To the boys of the NIC, and those who don't use our recruitment system and find it unappealing...

It's worked fairly well for the last 100 or so years. I understand that you don't get it and you may not like it, but for the love of pete, get over it. We're not asking you to join the house, and nobody's holding guns to PNMs heads saying you take this bid or you're toast. There's always a choice...if you don't like your bid, you wait a year and go again, or you don't join. I've said it before, and I'll say it again...Greek Life isn't for everyone, but most folks can find a place if they want to be Greek.

[clap clap clap]

thank you.

I have said it before, but I will say it again...I do not think that NPC has a perfect recruitment system. But I believe it works as good as possible. NPC is changing recruitment slightly now to try to improve some of its current issues (there's a thread on this somewhere). The point. I don't like everything about recruitment. But as many people have pointed out...there is a reason for the way it is. I'm personally not a big fan of quota and total, but I understand why they exist and the role they play in the NPC system (please don't post explanations, I get it! :)). Its about what is best for the most amount of people...and this system is. Even encouraging pnm's to reconsider a house that they weren't originally interested in. The system has flaws...its made up of humans...but it works.

I agree that it's pretty annoying to have guys of the NIC coming in here and questioning our recruitment methods. I have yet to see an NPC sorority woman questioning the guys' method of recruitment.

The house I ended up joining was not my favorite at the start of the rush week (although it was my favorite on pref night). Now, having seen the Greek system from the inside out for the last two years, I'm incredibly thankful that I ended up where I did -- if I had gotten my "favorite" houses from the beginning of rush week, I would have ended up dropping. That's why I'm a big fan of mutual selection and the way the NPC process is run -- most of the time, it works.

So tradition for the sake of tradition?

If it works, why mess with it?

Do you not think that it could possibly work better?

A second semester sophomore. Might as well be a Junior.

Many groups simply will not take a sophomore. Very few will be interested in people that have already dropped another house. They have rooms and slots to fill and want someone that's going to have the best potential of staying around.

Whether the reason for leaving is legitimate or not, it's definitely not as simple as trying on another pair of shoes.

This is NOT the case at many, many, many, many etc schools. No generalizations please.

Astro's example shouldn't be looked on as "how the system works" because her rho chi ucked fup. At campuses that don't allow women to suicide, there's usually a legitimate reason, and it's to protect the rushees not the sororities.

We could all say the same about the NIC. I personally think it's ghastly that they don't even have to meet all the fraternities and half the time can't even name the ones on their campus.

How would you propose to make it better? Staying within the confines that the NPC will never operate like the NIC and doesn't want to, of course.

ktsnake, your understanding of the "waiting a year" and sophomores rushing is flawed (although many women on GC have the same problem). If a girl rushes in the fall of her freshman year, signs a bid card for ABC and then depledges, she can rush again in the fall of the next year. You are required to wait a "year" -- an academic year, not a year to the day you depledge. As for schools where they don't take juniors or sophomores -- as illustrated on GC, they are not the norm. Many of those schools are the ones with hardcore rushes where they would never take a rushee that had pledged another group anyway.

Preach on 33 and S & S!

The cream rises to the top. Those who do not compete fail.

It's the free market at its finest.

And that's my point.

Someone said (don't want to go look to see who) that it's like trying on shoes. If you don't like one pair, go try another one.

Unfortunately, in many cases, with the sorority system, it's like having a salesman come up to you, shove some shoes in your face and say "Here they are... do you want shoes or not?".

But I agree, systems vary. People vary. Situations vary.

Oftentimes though, the system is very unfair to the individual.

If I wanted to deal with generalizations, I would not have said "many".

You're equating "marketable" with "good."

Often, in both the NIC and the NPC, the smallest groups are the ones that do the best job of staying true to the goals of their founders and their headquarters. Because they aren't as "fun," their numbers are lower and, under the NIC system, they are shut down.

Popular appeal is not the be-all/end-all of what we want in our chapters in the Greek system. Different groups appeal to different people -- some people want a GLO that's focused on academics, some want brother/sisterhood, others want partying, some want sports. Some want a smaller chapter, some want a large one, some want one in between.

Just because a group is large doesn't mean that it's a good chapter, nor does the fact that it might be small mean that it's a bad one.

Next argument?