GreekChat.com Forums

GreekChat.com Forums (http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   Sorority Recruitment (http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=217)
-   -   An interesting read by a U of Michigan Recruitment Chair (http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=245012)

GreekOne 10-02-2018 11:04 AM

An interesting read by a U of Michigan Recruitment Chair
 
Has anyone else read the U of Michigan's Recruitment Chair's take on her chapter's membership selection process? I graduated well before the advent of social media so our process in the "olden days" was certainly different. I guess this mirrors the all too common pnms who base their rankings entirely on superficial "tiers". Sad so many chapters have come to this. I do find her introspection at the end interesting.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...Z6xthshRM/edit

clemsongirl 10-02-2018 11:36 AM

What horrifies me most is her claim that the national organization is actively involved in the process of ranking PNMs by looks and sorting active sisters into bump groups based on looks.

33girl 10-02-2018 11:46 AM

I thought that her terminology made it definite to which chapter it was, or is that still speculation?

This is long ago enough that I don’t think I’m telling tales out of school, but our chapter and system was small enough that every sister (in my chapter anyway) voted on every PNM. I would have felt so - I guess disenfranchised is the word - to only be able to offer my input on such a small fraction of the women we were inviting into the chapter. But obviously this wouldn’t be expedient at large rushes, and when you only know what you know, you don’t miss anything.

oncegreek 10-02-2018 12:19 PM

If you look at UM on that "other" website, the name of the chapter is revealed.

DaffyKD 10-02-2018 12:21 PM

I'm very much old school. We discussed and voted on EVERY rushee (told you, I'm old school). It was not left to a committee, it wasn't left to an arbitrary number system, it was not prearranged.

I wonder how much of this is factual and how much of it is like the book "Pledged." I can't see any national sending someone to monitor each and every chapter's recruitment in order for National to determine who stays and who goes. If everyone is only based on their superficial appearance, why are there so many diverse chapters across the country? Not just by race, but body build, hair color etc. Something does not seem right to me about this article. As I said, maybe its just because I'm VERY old school.

DaffyKD

UVASquirrel 10-02-2018 12:35 PM

I wonder how rampant stuff like this is at the "big" competitive greek systems. It makes me wonder about what was going on behind the scenes at my school during recruitment. Of course, that was 30+ years ago and we didn't have a computerized system like they do now.

Iota_JWH 10-02-2018 12:57 PM

I believe all sororities have rating systems, this is an effort to rationalize recruitment, (I think is it called Values Based Recruitment.) So the chapters don't just emotionally vote. That being said, as much as we try to do rational decisions based on facts, emotions often overrule. So, putting a ranking on will this person fit in or contribute to the chapter can be usefull if the ranking is based on rational judgement.

I am sure most chapters also determine who are their strongest rushers. And you don't want to overwhelm the PNMs with ratios of 5 to 1 in the later rounds. However, this past month I did spend quite a bit of time with a chapter during recruitment and did notice the actives that were "not needed"in the recruitment room were the ones that have fuller figures. This saddenend me, I wish the chapter coupld have worked harder to make everyone feel valuable during recruitment.

Now, to a National org actually having the chapters pre rank based on looks? and then having an alumna be the enforcer? If this is true, I would be shocked and appalled. I do realize that ranks and tiers are TOTALLY based on looks, and the chapters are trying to appeal to 18 year-olds, who value that far more than they should.

33girl 10-02-2018 02:56 PM

Rating systems on various components have been around a long time. “Values Based Recruitment” is a silly buzz phrase that basically means get rid of the frills and have nothing but 3 hours of deep and meaningful conversations with rushees. (I’m sure someone is going to jump on me for being so cynical, but I just read 3 articles about it and I couldn’t find a clear and concise definition of what exactly VBR is and how it’s conducted.)

ForeverRoses 10-02-2018 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 2461556)
Rating systems on various components have been around a long time. “Values Based Recruitment” is a silly buzz phrase that basically means get rid of the frills and have nothing but 3 hours of deep and meaningful conversations with rushees. (I’m sure someone is going to jump on me for being so cynical, but I just read 3 articles about it and I couldn’t find a clear and concise definition of what exactly VBR is and how it’s conducted.)

but your are forgetting that they added a CRAFT to embody the philanthropy!!!

33girl 10-02-2018 03:06 PM

Oh yes, silly me 🤣

clemsongirl 10-02-2018 03:50 PM

The specific issues I have reading it again:
-the preranking of every PNM based entirely on their perceived attractiveness
-forcing sisters to rank each other based on perceived attractiveness, so that only the "best" sisters talk to the "best" PNMs
-the ranking of PNMs after each round based on how much they "fit" into the chapter, which by necessity means that the pledge classes recruited each year are all going to be homogenous in many meaningful ways
-the national orgs' endorsement of all this through the presence of their consultant, especially when she removed PNMs the chapter would otherwise have wanted to invite back

I imagine every chapter scores women in some way based on their conversations-I know mine did. That isn't controversial to me. What is controversial is the way in which it was done based entirely off of looks and ignored who the chapter members actually wanted to invite back. I know that no matter what a PNM looked like, if we'd wanted her as a member and she was otherwise qualified no one from our national organization would have stopped us from giving her a bid.

panhelrose 10-02-2018 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clemsongirl (Post 2461560)
What is controversial is the way in which it was done based entirely off of looks and ignored who the chapter members actually wanted to invite back. I know that no matter what a PNM looked like, if we'd wanted her as a member and she was otherwise qualified no one from our national organization would have stopped us from giving her a bid.

This situation feels similar to ones with local orgs who broke off from NPC sororities decades ago because they were not, at the time, permitted to extend a bid to a PNM of another race/religion. I can swear up and down that my own chapter has always been diverse in race, religion, wealth, political thought, major, etc since I joined but I know that was not always the case. Chapters of my organization in the past made the decision to disassociate from our national body in order to bid a WOC, but if my chapter were faced with a similar challenge from our HQ, would we make the same decision? I truly do not know. I have to imagine a decision that serious would be nearly impossible for a group of collegiate women to make (Harvard comes to mind), and if this chapter's situation is accurately reflected in these posts, I can understand why the actives didn't immediately surrender their charter.

33girl 10-02-2018 05:35 PM

I think making a decision like that also has a lot to do with whether the campus will be behind you. Call me cynical but I have a feeling that even if these women had decided to surrender their charter and explained exactly why, even if they had alumnae and school support emotionally and monetarily, no matter how much people might admire that reason at the time, in a few years they would be derided as “irrelevant” because they weren’t national and didn’t have a house.

GreekOne 10-02-2018 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clemsongirl (Post 2461560)
The specific issues I have reading it again:
-the preranking of every PNM based entirely on their perceived attractiveness
-forcing sisters to rank each other based on perceived attractiveness, so that only the "best" sisters talk to the "best" PNMs
-the ranking of PNMs after each round based on how much they "fit" into the chapter, which by necessity means that the pledge classes recruited each year are all going to be homogenous in many meaningful ways
-the national orgs' endorsement of all this through the presence of their consultant, especially when she removed PNMs the chapter would otherwise have wanted to invite back

I imagine every chapter scores women in some way based on their conversations-I know mine did. That isn't controversial to me. What is controversial is the way in which it was done based entirely off of looks and ignored who the chapter members actually wanted to invite back. I know that no matter what a PNM looked like, if we'd wanted her as a member and she was otherwise qualified no one from our national organization would have stopped us from giving her a bid.


^^I agree completely. Recruitment, for me, was a time that our chapter really pulled together to accomplish one of our most important challenges of the year. I liked being in rotation groups with women that I might not have known so well and getting to know them better during all those long days. I felt we came out of the process closer than before (maybe a little case of ptsd :)). I would have been heartbroken if I had been relegated to a service job or positioned to keep the "undesirable MGs" busy. How hurtful to put those you care about into that position.

BraveMaroon 10-02-2018 07:20 PM

They let me work "behind the scenes" my senior year because we had plenty of actives to rush. I know my appearance probably factored into it - I had put on a few extra pounds and I was dealing with some weird haircut issues. I was also not a strong rusher. And I admit that freely.

I could set up chairs and tables, I could get up at zero dark thirty and iron tablecloths, inflate hundreds of balloons, sweep the front porch. I wrote song parodies and made costumes and sets for skits, and I was a solid officer on Exec as a Junior. But I couldn't do chit chat. Plus, the hair.

I remember asking if it was my weight, and they told me no. Which was a lie of kindness. And I was so glad to get out of the first few rounds I didn't press it. I do remember hanging out at the apartment of one of my pledge sisters a few months later. One of them commented that with the new pledges being so different, none of us would be offered a bid in our own sorority if we were rushing. That is how much it had changed.

I think social media does a huge disservice to PNMs. And actives, too. Every wants the fully curated pinterest-perfect experience.

What they don't see is the night you chewed out your roommate for borrowing your lipstick without asking, or the extra long chapter meeting a night before the make or break calc test. They don't see the work that goes into making events a success. They don't realize that they are going to be doing that same hard work in mere months.

And I guess my big question is, Freshman 15 aside, how can someone who was a ten at your pref party be a three after they initiate?

I have a bad feeling this is more true than not.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.