Just failed my new member exam- need some encouragement

[littleowl33]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

^^^ Not to be in your business, but I am assuming what you're saying is that the NMs have to attend presentations on history, policy, whatever else the sorority deems as important, but there is no tool for assessing whether they retained any of the info?

If that's the case, is there also any objective tool for disqualifying someone from the process entirely? (Attendance points, for example)

You're correct. Attendance at the weekly presentations is required for Initiation, but no, there are no checks on whether a New Member has studied/retained the information. I wish there was, and I think the organization would benefit by requiring that New Members show that they know Fraternity history, but I understand why they're careful. In my experience the New Members are respectful, pay attention and learn... if they were snots, we probably wouldn't have bid them in the first place!

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kappamd

YOU may be surprised by what you learn when you listen to others before dismissing them as misinformed.

Oh shut up.

I didn't say she wasn't right. How the hell would I know? I said it would interest her to find out whether she's right. She's the one who included the "so I was told" disclaimer as though she didn't know.

[KSUViolet06]

My sorority is one that does have a NM exam and I believe a few others do as well. As far as Sigma is concerned, it counts. A NM must pass the exam before she can be initiated.

If you fail, you may re-take it, but you likely aren't going to be initiated with your class (due to time constraints).

[Kappamd]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

^^^ Not to be in your business, but I am assuming what you're saying is that the NMs have to attend presentations on history, policy, whatever else the sorority deems as important, but there is no tool for assessing whether they retained any of the info?

If that's the case, is there also any objective tool for disqualifying someone from the process entirely? (Attendance points, for example)

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to respond to your question.

New members must complete the new member program, which at my university meant one presentation/week on history, risk management, philanthropy, etc. There is nothing in place to assess their understanding of the material, nor do I think there needs to be. If the new member does not complete the program, she cannot be initiated.

[Senusret I]

Why don't you think there needs to be assessment?

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by littleowl33

You're correct. Attendance at the weekly presentations is required for Initiation, but no, there are no checks on whether a New Member has studied/retained the information. I wish there was, and I think the organization would benefit by requiring that New Members show that they know Fraternity history, but I understand why they're careful. In my experience the New Members are respectful, pay attention and learn... if they were snots, we probably wouldn't have bid them in the first place!

I'm sorry but I don't see how requiring attendance and making sure they actually paid attention are separate. Also I fail to see how test would be hazing as you would expect the sisters to know your history.

[thetygerlily]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

^^^ Not to be in your business, but I am assuming what you're saying is that the NMs have to attend presentations on history, policy, whatever else the sorority deems as important, but there is no tool for assessing whether they retained any of the info?

If that's the case, is there also any objective tool for disqualifying someone from the process entirely? (Attendance points, for example)

Correct. Some KKG chapters do use a point system for attendance and grades and such, but it's not org-wide. Our chapter was fairly small so we self-regulated without points. If someone missed mandatory events and didn't get excused, they could face the standards board. Initially just a "hey what's up" type of thing, but it could be a disqualifier if it got to that point. But as a small chapter (and small school) people generally were pretty good at attendance and participation. We also didn't have the semi-typical "senior apathy" (although we had heard it existed), boy was that a shock when I started working with a PAC 10 school


ETA:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I didn't say she wasn't right. How the hell would I know? I said it would interest her to find out whether she's right. She's the one who included the "so I was told" disclaimer as though she didn't know.

The reason I used the disclaimer is because I didn't have our Bylaws & Rules/Regs handy. Better safe than sorry, lest I get beat up on GC!

[Senusret I]

This is all fascinating to me.

*no judgment here*

[Kappamd]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Why don't you think there needs to be assessment?

Honestly, because I've never seen a need for it. The information, while only FORMALLY presented once, is DRILLED into the new members in other ways (for example, we would have trivia contests for the new members during informal meetings). I just don't think an exam is necessary for what really shouldn't be difficult information to retain.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

I'm sorry but I don't see how requiring attendance and making sure they actually paid attention are separate. Also I fail to see how test would be hazing as you would expect the sisters to know your history.

Tests in any form are always hazing.

I can definitely see a reason for considering a NM exam hazing.

I disagree with removing them, but I understand.

[Kappamd]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

I'm sorry but I don't see how requiring attendance and making sure they actually paid attention are separate. Also I fail to see how test would be hazing as you would expect the sisters to know your history.

I believe that Kappa defines hazing as any activity that is not required by ALL members (active or new member) and that is why exams are not allowed.

Edit: Now that I think about it, isn't that the basic universal definition of hazing?

[pshsx1]

Originally Posted by littleowl33

I wish we were allowed to do New Member exams... but you're correct, they are not allowed by Kappa nationals because they are considered hazing. I think they would be a useful tool for getting the NMs acquainted with Fraternity history outside of the required presentations. Oh well.

That's what my friend in DPhiE told me. It shocked me that girls weren't exactly required to actually learn and retain the org's history.

I mean, I guess ours isn't technically required either (maybe?), but everything is definitely highly encouraged.

[Psi U MC Vito]

I don't get it. You expect brothers or sisters to know the info, so shouldn't the NM be held to the same standard? Psi U doesn't have any official policy but most chapters won't cross pledges if we feel they don't have a good enough concept of our history and traditions.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by Kappamd

Honestly, because I've never seen a need for it. The information, while only FORMALLY presented once, is DRILLED into the new members in other ways (for example, we would have trivia contests for the new members during informal meetings). I just don't think an exam is necessary for what really shouldn't be difficult information to retain.

I see.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a Kappa educator introduced a version of "positive behavior intervention systems" into the organization.

Giving the new members the information to learn for a prize has a similar effect of giving them information for a quiz. Just that rather than punishing those that fail, you reward the ones who pass.

I think both have a place in fraternal and sororal education, just as they do in schools where I have seen PBIS introduced.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kappamd

I believe that Kappa defines hazing as any activity that is not required by ALL members (active or new member) and that is why exams are not allowed.

Edit: Now that I think about it, isn't that the basic universal definition of hazing?

I have heard that definition but many organizations to not subscribe to it. And neither do I. New members and actives don't have to do the same thing for a reason. But, actives had to do it when they were new members.