<p>I personally prefer to make my own choices. Random selection already occurs for dorm assignments. If you do this for greek affiliations and college admissions, why not post - college jobs? or housing? Doesn’t feel right to me. Life doesn’t work like that.</p>
<p>I was in a sorority and rushed with my 3 roommates. They all chose one house and I chose another. Not a problem. I agree with the comment above that its the rushees who don’t have an open mind about their options. They severely limit their choices by not having an open mind.</p>
<p>@alh - I couldn’t give a rip about sororities. It’s not about me or what I want. I wouldn’t care if my d was or wasn’t in one. It’s been good for her and worked well for her, but if it didn’t or she didn’t want to stick it out, I wouldn’t care. She was actually very ambivalent about it all this semester. She even still says it’s just okay and not what she thought it would be. I told her it was her decision whether to initiate or not. My point was knowing what I know from the girls I’ve met and what I’ve seen, if it were completely random as suggested, the appeal would diminish greatly for many girls. I don’t think many want any nondescript sorority, they want to go see the houses, get the feel, be excited for their sisterhood. But if your idea could actually gain traction, more power to you. I just don’t see national organizations being for this in the slightest.</p>
<p>In sorority systems, popular girls and popular sororities get to make their own choices. Unpopular girls and unpopular sororities don’t; they get the leftovers. Even if there is a quota system where the leftover girls are assigned to sororities that don’t make capacity, unpopular girls will never end up in the “top” sororities, because the top sororities will already be full.</p>
<p>If you’re defending this system, you’re necessarily defending a system of social elitism, because that’s what it is.</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>
<p>That’s not a fair accusation, CF. There is no one on here who has said that they want to exclude unattractive women, or that all their sisters have to be stunningly beautiful, or anything of the sort.</p>
<p>However, we all click with certain people, and don’t click with others. Such is life. The girls down the hall in my dorm may not be my type; we should be polite and cordial to one another, of course, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to be bestest-of-friends, ever. If there were a big cocktail party meet-up on CC, I know who I’d be interested in meeting / hanging around with, and who I wouldn’t - and I’m sure there are people who would be interested in meeting me and people who would have no interest whatsoever, and so be it. There is always going to be some social stratification, no matter how you slice it. It’s not as though campuses without Greek presence don’t have such stratification. </p>
<p>And if you did a random selection process a la what alh proposes - you’d still wind up with some little mini-cliques inside each house as girls found those girls with whom they were the most comfortable. Heck, in my house I wasn’t equally BFF’s with all 120 girls. I was more friendly with some, and less friendly with others. Some people are more my type and some people aren’t, and of course vice versa too. You can’t ever stop that from happening.</p>
<p>I don’t know that people have to be “stunning beautiful.” But there are people who take some effort to present a polished and pleasing appearance, and others who don’t make that a priority. And how you present yourself does make an impact on how you are perceived and treated. </p>
<p>This has NOTHING to do with gobs of money / gobs of makeup / wearing designer logos / teetering on stiletto heels when you are running to class, so please don’t go there. On CC, there is always a contingent who takes “presenting yourself well” into “oh, so I can’t present myself well unless I slather on makeup, am a perfect size 2, and carry a Louis Vuitton bag visible from across the room, is that what you’re saying?” and that’s not at all what I’m saying. </p>
<p>CF: I don’t see this as wanting “the wrong people” from joining.These women are interviewing the people that they need to live with. I can tell you with absolute certainty that even when I was advising for a chapter that closed due to lack of members (a true low-tier in a deferred campus), the current members were not just desperate for numbers. They wanted people that were friendly and mellow, with shared interests. They didn’t want the loud party girls that were so desirable to the house next door. It is nice in college to find a place where you can just be yourself, and to many of us that was our sorority. In another thread, everyone is encouraging someone to live with a friend in college, since studies show that people tend to get along with people with shared interests. This is the same thing, but with chants and skits to endure along the way. </p>
<p>CF - most girls are looking to find other girls to expand their friendship circles from - looking for reasons to like, find out more, want to include – not looking for girls-who-are-inferior-to-me-so-I-can-look-down-my-nose-and-sneer-at-them. You have spoken honestly about being socially awkward and I wonder if that is your own insecurity coming through. I cannot speak for everyone, of course, but I assure you we were not looking to find girls-to-sneer-at, nor was any sneering allowed during the membership selection process. About the worst thing you can say about a girl is that she was difficult to engage in conversation, or seemed uninterested in the house / discussions, and so therefore you didn’t want to invite her back. </p>
<p>“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>I think part of the difference in our systems is also that we all were “assembled anew,” if that made sense, since we were gathered from all over the country and girls didn’t really know one another til they got to campus. </p>
<p>The summer before I left for school, I worked at a local sporting goods shop. Two sisters (by which I mean blood sisters) came in wearing NU gear and so naturally I struck up a conversation - oh, I’m going there in the fall! - and we chitchatted for a few minutes. And I realized later that when I came through rush, they “recognized” me and told the house that they’d met me in my hometown and thought I’d be a good addition and blah blah blah. But that was about that. Overall, we simply weren’t in situations where any of us “knew” the incoming girls, except superficially as in my example. That may make a difference as well because I get the sense that in your system, lots of girls already knew girls in incoming classes. We simply didn’t, aside from a here-and-there situation.</p>
<p>And my experience was that the house was trying as hard to make a good impression and attract the rushees we wanted. It was both sides trying their best. I don’t recall it ever being demeaning.</p>
<p>CF - so how do you choose/make friends now? are you friends with everybody? are you friends with ALL of your neighbors?</p>
<p>@Pizzagirl I totally agree with you, and thankfully that system now exists and is being used at hundreds of campuses nationwide. It’s called RFM. It’s a concentrated effort to maximize bids. It requires chapters with more successful retention rates to release more PNMs in earlier rounds in order for other houses to retain them. And it all but guarantees anyone who maximizes invitation receives a bid. You can read about it at NPC women dot org. I wish every campus would adopt it (which is the eventual goal).</p>
<p>@alh I quite respectfully disagree that a blind lottery would solve tier problems that simply exist in our society. After a few rounds of NMS, I believe that undoubtedly a few of these groups would be seen as more desirable and we’re back at square one. </p>
<p>As far as legacies, it’s more of a problem on large campuses. But remember we’ve had a whole new generation (or even two if you were a 60s or 70s NM) born since then, and numbers are thus increasing. Here are two public stats for one sorority in 2014: University of Georgia: Legacies 75 Quota 63; Auburn University: Legacies 94 Quota 60. </p>
<p>Osseepusser, are those legacies for that house on that campus (mom went here) or just legacies for that house in general (mom went elsewhere)? I guess I see those as two very different things. I can see more of a feeling of entitlement / loss if mom went there, too, but not elsewhere. After all, if you were a Gamna Phi at College A, why would you possibly expect the Gamma Phis at College B to be anything like them / you / your daughter? </p>
<p>Alh, do you believe houses have consistent “personalities”/types across campuses? Do they in the SEC? </p>
<p>Even the former* is not completely benign – it indicates a high level of *self-*segregation in the system (and perhaps on the campus) that may be uncomfortable for a student who is used to associating with people of other race/ethnicity as well as his/her own. Racial (self-)segregation may not necessarily be due to active racial discrimination by the institutions (e.g. fraternities/sororities in this discussion), but it may result in a less desirable campus environment than one with less racial (self-)segregation.</p>
<p>*Including white students not rushing historically black/Latino/Asian fraternities/sororities.</p>
<p>Right, but if a Hispanic house, or an Asian house, colonizes on campus and siphons away students who might have otherwise gone through regular rush, that doesn’t prove the other houses are discriminatory because their percentage of Hispanic / Asian members has dropped. </p>
<p>The presence of, say, AEPhi, SDT, ZBT. AEPi, SAM (historically Jewish) siphons off Jewish kids. In some schools, they are “Jewish ghettos”; in others, they aren’t. But that’s neither good nor bad, just a difference. </p>
<p>I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a black, Hispanic, Asian student preferring a “place of their own” (assuming it’s a real choice and they are welcomed in the other system). Do you? Is there a difference between a kid wanting to join an Asian house, and wanting to join, say, the Chinese Student Association? </p>
<p>One major difference is that unless the latter usually must allow anyone interested to join as members or officers…including non-Chinese/Chinese-American students without any admission screenings of one kind or another.</p>
<p>Not to mention the anti-discriminatory clauses in many US colleges would ban most student organizations from discriminating on the basis of EEOC classes if for nothing else, to avoid potential legal liabilities. </p>
<p>About a decade ago, there was some controversy over a religious campus group trying to bar a student who wasn’t as fundamentalist as many of its officers from becoming an officer. Said student ended up winning and the other officers were forced to leave/resign and attempted to form their group on more restricted officer selection criterion where potential officers must agree to their fundamentalist interpretation of the religion concerned. College said they cannot do that as their officer selection criterion violated the campus policies against discriminatory policies by the college and campus organizations wishing to meet on campus or get student activity funding. </p>
<p>That’s not to say they cannot organize and meet. They just won’t be recognized as a campus organization which means they can’t use student organization meeting spaces or get funding from student activity fees. </p>
<p>I didn’t say anyone on this thread wanted to be in a sorority, or wanted their daughter to be in a sorority, of stunningly beautiful women. That’s not my claim at all. I merely say that top sororities get to pick the women they want, and exclude the women they don’t want. And if some popular sorority wanted to choose members mostly based on beauty, they would be able to do so, and they’d be able to exclude unattractive women. </p>
<p>If you have the sorority system as it exists now, popular sororities can exclude women they deem unpopular or unacceptable from darkening their doors, and they do. In every sorority system that doesn’t have enough spots for all who apply, some women are going to be rejected.</p>
<p>This is not an argument against sororities. It’s just a fact. Sororities and fraternities are based on inclusion and exclusion. It’s nice to be included. It sucks to be excluded.</p>
<p>If you have a lottery system to randomly choose girls for each house, what will happen is there will be cliques within each house, and it would be even more difficult for girls who are not as social or shy. People form social groups because they have common interests and values, otherwise why bother. I have never understood forced association or friendship. </p>
<p>I was not claiming that the houses themselves were racially discriminatory. I was pointing out that, even in the absence of any kind of racial discrimination by the houses, a strong tendency to self-segregate may not be desirable for a student who genuinely likes the idea of a diverse group of friends. Indeed, such self-segregation tends to defeat the idea of diversity on the college campus.</p>
<p>Of course, a new colony of any fraternity/sorority could, in theory, attract a diverse group of pledges, including white, black, Latino, Asian, and Jewish students. Why is it assumed that a historically white/black/Latino/Asian/Jewish fraternity/sorority will only attract pledges of its historic racial/ethnic group, even as a new colony that is a “blank slate” in this context?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(What about white students preferring a “place if their own”?)</p>
<p>However, if students who prefer a “place of their own [racial/ethnic group]” are dominant in a fraternity/sorority house, wouldn’t that make it more likely for them to apply racial/ethnic discrimination in selecting new pledges?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A few big differences:</p>
<ol>
<li> See #214.</li>
<li> Fraternities/sororities are exclusive in that someone only joins one. In contrast, other student organizations are non-exclusive, in that someone can join many of them (including multiple ethnic-interest student organizations).</li>
<li> Fraternities/sororities are often housing, and most students spend a large percentage of their time in where they live. Racial segregation in housing is considered an undesirable thing these days, for various reasons, so that there are various laws that attempt to prevent the types of actions that make it worse.</li>
</ol>
<p>Full disclosure- the sorority I belonged to was one of the “popular” ones on my campus. There were a handful of stunningly beautiful members (as there were in all of the other houses), but most of the girls did not fit that stereotype.
We did not choose members on looks. Our members were all over the scale looks wise. Speaking of scales, not everyone was thin, either. We did not consider young women who were not beautiful to be unacceptable. </p>
“Why is it assumed that a historically white/black/Latino/Asian/Jewish fraternity/sorority will only attract pledges of its historic racial/ethnic group, even as a new colony that is a “blank slate” in this context?”
“Historically white” is a different animal.
The Asian houses now at my S’s school are not “historic”’- they were founded explicitly to promote Asian fellowship and culture, so it stands to reason they will attract primarily Asians - kind of like how Hillel attracts Jews and Sheil attracts Catholics.