Quote:
Originally Posted by shadokat
I'm going to take a stab in the dark here, and it's not meant to judge anyone's programming, but maybe our programming that we all have is a bit outdated too. I mean, if you were a part of something providing meaningful experiences, you'd be less likely to drop out of it because the things you would have to sacrifice for it were worth the experience. Again, it goes back to the "loyalty" bond. The other thing is that NM programming is so lax. I mean, it's basically like a meeting or two a week, and that's it. Then you become active and you're expected to do philanthropy, recruitment, sisterhood events, socials, etc., PLUS attend a meeting a week. That's a big jump from what you had to do as a NM.
I don't know. This whole thing has started to bother me as I advise a chapter now, and it's a new chapter, so there's always a bit more attrition with a new chapter than an already established one. As an advisor, I feel like it's my duty to see these big picture things and try to work on them, but I'm at a loss right now.
|
Nearly two decades ago my org asked for major feedback regarding expectations, financials, sisterhood, activities, etc. provided to and expected of both collegians and alums. I responded with a polite, detailed response as to what I thought were outdated collegiate modules and trainings noting many were already provided nationwide at a high school level. My feedback concluded: who would want to join our collegiate org if we only provided the exact same trainings and experiences?
Looking back on the time since their inquiry, while it was great our HQ asked for feedback and they wanted to change it took a decade of spending money 'studying the problem' and seven years of 'testing their theories' before they came up with their 'solutions'. It's swell to want to change, but IMO it isn't coming fast enough to keep our women interested and involved.
