<p>I was in a professional sorority. Does that count? :)>- </p>
<p>No</p>
<p>The most important skill I learned from being in a sorority? I can speak to ANYONE for 5 minutes. I can ask open ended questions.</p>
<p>After reading these 12 or so pages, I really don’t think people understand that sororities are different at every campus. The popular houses at one school may be the least at another, and the ‘rating’ can even change at the same school over the years. My chapter was not particularly popular, but we all liked it. We really had a mishmash of personalities, majors, economic backgrounds, beauty. We made it work and made it fun. One sister had gone to Miss Porter’s school and been a debutant, but you’d never know it because she was extremely shy. Others were scraping nickels and dimes together to stay in school, but you’d never know that either because we never made money an issue. We borrowed clothes if we needed to, we did events that didn’t cost anything, we tried to include everyone. We never made quota and always welcomed anyone who wanted to join at any time of the years. We had a lot of very shy, very immature girls join and they really did bloom. We had just one minority member, but that was probably more than any other house had as our school was pretty white at the time. We had religious diversity too, and I attended my first Seder in the dining room. We had many engineering majors and a dance major and a whole bunch of history and English and poly sci students. </p>
<p>This house is now (30 years later) the most popular on campus. It has 5x the number of active members as when I was there, and always takes quota ‘plus’. It couldn’t be more different than my daughter’s chapter (same sorority) where they also took quote - 13! My niece, same sorority, is also in the ‘top house’, but actually there is no house and they all live in apartments (she lives with members of other sororities).</p>
<p>At really big greet schools like Alabama, there are 16 houses but I’ll bet 10 or more took quota. How can you not be considered ‘top’ if you are succeeding in rush and the members are happy? </p>
<p>ahl, the problem with legacies is that there are just too many of them to ensure they all get to join their mother’s house or their sister’s house. Years ago, probably 1980, the quota at one big (huge) flagship was 25. The quota was always 25 as each house could have 100 members and it was rare that anyone left. That year my house had 33 legacies going through rush, and most were legacies from that chapter (the school everyone in the state went to). In those days, it was almost unheard of to drop a legacy and the requirement was you had to call the member (mother, grandmother, aunt, etc) to break the news. The chapter sent TELEGRAMS to all the members explaining the situation. IIRC, they pledged 8 legacies and the rest from the general rush group.</p>
<p>Not long after that, the definition of legacy changed to direct line only, and my niece was not considered a legacy. From my group while I was at school, my daughter is the only legacy given a bid by our house, and many of the others were very disappointed because they did want it to be their daughter’s choice whether or not to join ‘our’ house. Sometimes the numbers just don’t work, and of course the chapter they want to join is the same as their mother’s house in name only.</p>
<p>I agree with Pizzagirl that if a sister is a current member of THAT chapter, it should be an automatic bid. It happened to a girl who joined our house that she was a triple legacy at another house, he sister was an officer in the house, and they dropped her. She was shy, she was very young, and she just didn’t rush well. That was no excuse. Luckily for us, she pledged our house and was very happy. Her sister resigned her office and finished out her time at college very angry. No excuse for that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We had a comparable number of houses. Quota was between 50-60 during my years there. So our house, which always got quota, usually had around 150 active members and 50-60 pledges. Some girls left to get married, a surprising number in retrospect. 55 could live in the house. All the houses were about the same size and seemed equally nice to me. Some houses only had about 20 members total. That may sometimes have included pledges. I don’t really understand how they kept going, so maybe I’m underestimating their numbers. I know they had very small pledge classes. </p>
<p>My lottery system equalizes membership right down sorority row, after a few years. Everyone should have a full house. I see this as desirable.</p>
<p>adding: If my house had cut one of my sisters, I’d have walked right out the door and never looked back and not even be on this thread. In the lottery system, I don’t have to worry about my sisters. They are going to be taken care of. I wrote about my sisters in #113 and the legacy problem in #61.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s completely not. Under the current system, sororities can say they don’t want a person, and women can say they don’t want a sorority. That would be impossible under the Fang system.</p>
<p>Under the Fang system, suppose we first pick Sarah Awkward. Her first listed sorority is Ravenclaw. Ravenclaw has ranked her last-- she is the rushee they liked the least. Too bad for them, but good for Sarah. She’s a Ravenclaw now.</p>
<p>Next we pick Hufflepuff. Hufflepuff’s first choice is Suzy Smile. Suzy prefers Ravenclaw, then Griffindor, then Hufflepuff, then Slytherin. Welcome to Hufflepuff, Suzy.</p>
<p>Now a rushee will pick. It’s Emily Hufflepuff. She wants to go to her namesake sorority. They ranked her high, but it doesn’t matter. Even if they hadn’t, Emily would be a Hufflepuff.</p>
<p>Now Slytherin picks, and so forth. </p>
<p>It’s not a random system, but it’s nothing like the current system. Unlike a pure lottery, it’s Pareto optimal, which means that no two girls switching would make all involved (the two sororities and the two girs) happier.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Looking at chapter photos from web sites of sororities at both schools, it seems that the sororities at both schools remain highly racially segregated. In that respect, someone from the 1920s might not notice much difference just by looking at the sororities of those schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can go to each school’s fraternity system web site and follow the links to each chapter’s web site, then look at the photo albums to see whether the fraternities are racially segregated or not. However, it does appear that fraternities are less likely than sororities to have photo albums that can help you here, although it does appear that, at some schools, fraternities may be slightly less racially segregated than sororities.</p>
<p>Racial segregation in fraternities and sororities is not unique to schools in the south, based on chapters’ photo albums. However, racial segregation is not universal among fraternity and sorority systems either. A student who is highly interested in joining one but is concerned about racial segregation should investigate whether that is a problem in each school’s system before matriculating to the school.</p>
<p>In the Fang system, there would be no need to have rush at all since no one is really picking. It’s all random. No one would be happy with that system. How about if we picked colleges like that. Sixteen colleges accept their classes, but then all freshmen get put in a pool. First name drawn gets to pick her college, any one of 16 colleges, and they have to take her. Next Harvard gets to take one from the pool, probably a high stat one. Next a kids gets to take a spot at Yale, even though his scores really aren’t that great but he was accepted to Hampshire, and that’s one of the schools in the pool, so them’s the rules. Those schools are all the same, aren’t they, teaching English and math. Should it matter which kid gets assigned to which college? They are all interchangeable, aren’t they, and everyone in the pool is at least minimally qualified. Sure they have different mascots and colors and songs, but that shouldn’t matter. No one cares what the vibe of the school is, just that they are all randomly balanced and no discrimination.</p>
<p>That’s just silly to think the houses are interchangeable, from either the rushee’s perspective or the members side.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The time spent attending chapter meetings, participating in rush, and other mandatory chapter activities can be such one doesn’t have much/any time left for socializing outside one’s fraternity/sorority if the chapter decides to be the be all and end all to their members’ campus existence. This is especially if one’s chapter house is away from the dorms. </p>
<p>Sometimes, it can even cut into one’s time/ability for academics(studying or co-curricular activities) as my older cousin found at his boozy chapter where not drinking to excess was looked down upon. Then again, that aspect didn’t bother him considering that fitted his inclinations well back in his teens/young adult years. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I also have some “Greek” friends. With the exception of the MIT frats, it seemed as if heavy drinking and being heavily occupied by fraternity/sorority activities/duties took up much of their time. </p>
<p>And with the cousins being chapter officers, their respective chapters became an even more central part of their college experience. Sometimes to the expense of academic performance as was the case with a couple. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While this may apply to sororities, most fraternity dudes I knew…including a few cousins who were undergrads in the '80s would laugh at the idea of learning table etiquette back when they were in college. </p>
<p>I have read this has changed considering there’s more articles about fraternity chapters holding table/dining etiquette classes for their members. Maybe I’ll crash one such event for the free food. :D</p>
<p>The current system is still very close to what Fang is alluding to. After each party, the houses rank the Potential New Members and the PNMs rak the houses. Even if Suzie Sorority ranked ABC last she may be back on their party list if houses DEF, GHI and XYZ did not rank her high enough to make the numerical cut. Suzie then gets to attend another party by ABC. At the end of all parties, her option is to rank the houses in order. If she ranks all houses at pref, she will be in one of those houses (unless she is at Indiana). Her only way to guarantee that she doesn’t get ABC is to not rank them in the end. However, if she doesn’t rank them and she is too low down the list for her favorite QPR, she will not get into any house.If she ranks them both and she is low on both lists, she could be added to QPR as a quota addition.
Confusing, huh? </p>
<p>Also, to discuss the difference between alh’s experience and the current system, the revised ranking system favors the “less popular houses” to the point that at most of the big Southern schools you have much more parity. The pledge classes are larger and more even,. They are also less likely to be labels as the blonde house, the smart house, etc. Great people end up in all the chapters. This doesn’t happen at schools that have bed rush and less so at deferred recruitment. More girls tend to drop out of deferred recruitment the minute they don’t get an invite to XYZ. </p>
<p>BTW, I was a member and until last year was an advisor at different chapters. I can truly attest that not all sororities are alike. Seeing DS go through his fraternity experience has been eye opening as well. </p>
<p>“CF: that is what happens now. Everyone wants the “top” houses. Or enough everyones that they stay top and keep turning away lots of disappointed girls.”</p>
<p>I don’t GAS that not everyone who wants to be a Kappa gets to be a Kappa (just like not everyone who wants to get into Harvard gets into Harvard). That’s not the disappointment I want to prevent. I want to prevent the disappointment of not getting into ANY house. (Like I want to ensure everyone who wants a good education could get one.). </p>
<p>CF, the matching system underway does “help” the less popular houses … As long as rushees keep an open mind and keep them on their lists. Lots of the disappointment comes from “I wanted to be a Kappa and they cut me.” Ah, but the Chi Os and Pi Phis loved you. Did you go back to their houses with an open mind? </p>
<p>"You can go to each school’s fraternity system web site and follow the links to each chapter’s web site, then look at the photo albums to see whether the fraternities are racially segregated or not. "</p>
<p>Of course, you have to distinguish between:
- Students of color don’t show up to rush these places because there are other places they prefer to congregate; and
- Students of color show up in good faith to rush these places and are explicitly cut BECAUSE they are of color.</p>
<p>There are, as I’m sure you know, ucb, black fraternities and sororities. It’s not “bad” to me if a black student wishes to join those organizations; I totally get how students may want a comfortable place of people just like them. It’s only bad if they want to join another organization and are prohibited from doing or are discriminated against.</p>
<p>There are now also Hispanic-oriented and Asian-oriented fraternities and sororities which have been colonizing rapidly.
They are going to “siphon off” some of the Hispanic and Asian students who otherwise might have gone into the rest of the Greek system. One would have to be careful not to assume that that meant the other system was racist or segregated in nature. You can’t pledge people if they don’t show up for rush.</p>
<p>"Adding: If my house had cut one of my sisters, I’d have walked right out the door and never looked back and not even be on this thread. " </p>
<p>Were you an active in the house when your sisters went through? What I’m referring to were situations where the active was, let’s say, a junior or senior, with a freshman sister going through. In the cases I remember, the younger sister made it in, but it was a lot harder than it needed to be, and we all should have just collectively said “of course thumbs up!” and moved on. </p>
<p>As a rush counselor, I did counsel a junior transfer who was (IMO) a REALLY desirable young lady. She wound up at Sally305’s house, and her younger sister, a freshman, wound up at mine (I didn’t know this, since I only knew the girls in my group). So they were sisters in different houses, but chosen simultaneously, so that was all good.</p>
<p>D tells me she has two sets of twins in her house. Twins will generally go together, sisters of different ages will go together. </p>
<p>Funny thing is, if it were me, I wouldn’t want to be in my sisters house, I’d want to be in anyone but hers. </p>
<p>It’s not the sorority rush that’s the problem, many times it’s the girls going through who think they can ONLY be abc or xyz - and if she doesn’t make their cut, but she still has many other great groups to choose from - she drops out instead of giving a different group a chance. </p>
<p>I can guarantee a bunch of girls would not go through rush if it were completely random as suggested. </p>
<p>I knew a couple of sets of sisters who were in different houses when I was in college. One of them was in my house and her sister went through rush with me. I found out later that our house actually declined to give her a bid because she had a “reputation,” but her sister stayed in our chapter. I don’t think I could have done that. </p>
<p>PG: I was active when sister #1 came through. Still in town for #2 and far far away for #3. I was there for the voting on sisters 1 & 2 and directed them to be there for the voting on 3. Please understand I mean at the house, not in the room. That wasn’t allowed. There was zero discussion of my sisters or anyone else’s sisters at the recruitment meetings I attended. That I can recall. My concern wasn’t so much they wouldn’t be offered bids but that they were made to feel very wanted, valued and loved. </p>
<p>I do recall a discussion that may offer you additional insight into my southern group. We had a senior member, also with three younger sisters but none would be coming through rush till she was gone. She had brothers between her and the sisters. A girl from her hometown came through and she was passionately arguing for her admission. This rushee was the big sister of one of our member’s little sister’s best friends. Got that? Current member said, “If we don’t pledge hometown girl, her younger sister is going where she goes and my little sister is probably following her” This was seen as a very serious discussion. Besides a sorority sisterly respect for current member’s feelings, we were going to want her sisters. All these girls were the nicest people imaginable: never talked about themselves, only you, and never ever gossiped… and were just as stunning beautiful on the outside as the inside. Youngest ended up on tv and in the movies. When you start talking about friends of sisters and sisters of friends in a system that already has more legacies than quota = no win situation. And it has nothing to do with hoity-toity southern traditions. </p>
<p>One of my sister-in-laws has a much younger sister not in our sorority. I don’t know the details. She was in the sorority after I was gone, but with my sisters. I once asked something about SIL’s sister’s lack of sorority affiliation (none at all) and the answer was pretty vague and obviously I didn’t pursue it at that point. I am guessing she must have been cut. If she had been my sister-in-law when her sister went through, and I had been aware of what was potentially going to happen, I would have done my very best to change that outcome. Maybe she just didn’t want to be part of the system, but I doubt it, and I’ve spent quite a bit of time with her over the years. Her kids and my kids share cousins. And that becomes important.</p>
<p>Cardinal Fang: What I am trying to get away from is the idea one sorority is preferable to another… for any reason whatsoever, for any person whosoever. Repeatedly on these threads, sorority members say rushees should be able to make a home and be happy in any group. Let’s make it so! 
And yes, I am absolutely arguing the point <em>should be</em> to be in a sorority not to be in a particular sorority.</p>
<p>*I can guarantee a bunch of girls would not go through rush if it were completely random as suggested. *</p>
<p>eyemamon: You aren’t a sorority member. What do you care if girls want to rush or not? Are you concerned it impacts your daughter’s sorority experience?</p>
<p>alh, I’m on board for totally random selection-- because then instead of having sororities, we’d have a house system like Yale has, but only for people who chose to join the house system. </p>
<p>Clearly on this thread, a number of people want exclusivity. They want to be able to prevent the wrong people from joining their sorority. They want a sorority of “stunning beautiful” women to be able to keep unattractive women out of their sorority. </p>