<h1>157 - cross posted</h1>
<p>I am just explaining what it is and how we got there: A fairly closed society in a small geographic area competing for limited spots in exclusionary social groups. It is a legacy issue.</p>
<p>I am offering a solution. No one is biting</p>
<p>alh - I’m in favor of your legacy lottery idea. It would open up the houses to “new blood” and soften the blow to legacies who get cut (lottery vs personal). I think it would be difficult to garner widespread support for the idea because most mothers imagine their D will get a bid. In which case, they’d view the lottery as increasing the chances that their D wouldn’t be admitted. And the places where such a system is most needed are the places where the “same school, same sorority as mother and grandmother tradition” is the strongest. </p>
<p>I’m not sure I understand the point of the lottery. A private organization should be allowed to let in who they want as long as they aren’t discriminating. This is a social organization, not something life or death. </p>
<p>Another plug, in case anyone thinks I’m negative. It just wasn’t my cup of tea. However, for my d, who is way more extroverted than me, she went 1,000 miles away to school with no one there she knew. There is a lot of mentoring available that she took advantage of that really helped her transition to college. From study tips, to laundry, to helping her get to the dr when she was sick, to having someone being encouraging when she was a little homesick. One of the girls actually took her around before classes started and showed her where her buildings and classes were, where the good places were to eat, where to study, etc. Sure she would have figured it out, but they took the anxiety out of it for her. It’s been more to her than just the socials and formals - which she has certainly enjoyed. It helped get her out there and belong at just the right time. She has never had trouble making friends, but some of these girls were truly the sisterly kind of help she needed. She even talked over her hometown boyfriend and relationship. So, I am a fan because of the support. And she’s in the more relaxed one, which is more her speed. I’d hate to see all of them have to be the same. Different things appeal to different people. </p>
<p>overthehedge: just to be clear, I’m proposing lottery for all prospective members, not just legacies.</p>
<p>Every rushee’s name goes in a hat (in some computer) and they are randomly assigned to sororities. I see no downside. I understand it is a radical, not how we do things, sort of idea, but aren’t we about ready to democratize the process?</p>
<p>PG: Isn’t this basically what you are arguing for when you object to southern stereotypes? This gets rid of as much elitism as possible in a system that is inherently elitist. imho</p>
<p>Actually, no - I’m not objecting to the idea of both sides picking who they want. What I’m not in favor of is systems in where girls are competing for a limited number of spots and so invariably a certain number will be entirely shut out. (The Indiana system is supposedly the worst of this.) As a disaffiliated rush counselor, it would have been absolutely awful to say to dozens of girls - no one wanted you. There’s no way to break that nicely, at all. So let’s design systems where, if you go back to the maximum number of houses, you will get in someplace, even if not your first choice. </p>
<p>I really do wonder to what extent the physical locale of the houses influences things. I was used to a system in which the houses were on campus but were adjacent and / or connected to “regular” dorms. So being Greek didn’t mean isolating yourself to some off-campus Greek row where you wouldn’t be walking to class alongside non-Greek students. The houses were also of approximately equal size and “niceness” in terms of furnishings and so forth, so there wasn’t competition on that basis either. Having seen other campuses where the Greek houses are off by themselves, it feels more isolating because then you’re living out of the regular flow of the campus. </p>
<p>For the girls, they typically only eat one meal a week at the house (unless they are living in), although of course they can drop by for snacks, study breaks, etc. For the guys, it’s more typical that they have to shift their meal plan there even if they aren’t living in. I prefer the girls’ system insofar as you’re still then eating in the regular cafeterias / dining halls, so you’re still eating with Susie from down the hall or Bobby from chemistry class or Jane from the newspaper club. It’s less isolationist as well.</p>
<p>I’m not 100% sure what I think of deferred rush. There was something I kind of liked in going through the system before I had a chance to form stereotypes that this was the party house, or this was the nerd house, or whatever. But I get the arguments on the other side.</p>
<p>I think it’s hard for me to get the magnitude of the legacy issue you guys “live” under, because I just don’t remember all that many legacies going through, because so many girls going through were first-gen college, or just hadn’t had mothers into that (my mother certainly wasn’t). But I could be misremembering that. </p>
<p>Are you okay that tiers of houses exist? This seems to be an accepted fact, nationwide. I have been reading about it on-line. </p>
<p>Osserpusser: Your posts on this were pretty fascinating to me. Thanks for all the insider insight.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is a huge population of rushees that already know these stereotypes long before they ever arrive on campus.</p>
<p>At my d’s school the sororities are in the dorms. Each sorority has a big meeting room, then the sophomores live on the hall. I like that and think it eliminates the who lives in the best house. As for tiers- if you can figure that out in high school with the cool kids table then you could figure it out at colleges. The issue is theta at one school is top tier, and the lowest at another. So you could transfer and not fit in at all at the same sorority on a different campus. My hubby was in a frat - lucky for him it’s known as the wild man frat country wide - lol And you can figure it out in about 10 minutes when rush starts. I’ll never forget going to orientation and some random mom started telling me who was what tier, who only took in state girls, etc I didn’t even know the names of the sororities let alone know for sure my d was rushing so I was taken aback by how in tune this woman was with sorority life at campus. I still couldn’t really tell you, or name all of them. But d thinks sororities aren’t as fun and great as she initially thought. She thinks the frats do a better job of building brotherhood among them. </p>
<p>“Are you okay that tiers of houses exist? This seems to be an accepted fact, nationwide. I have been reading about it on-line.”</p>
<p>At kind of a macro level, yeah, some houses tend to be strong on a lot of campuses. Having said that, a strong house nationwide could be weak in a given campus and vice versa. </p>
<p>My question is whether we want to go ahead and get rid of differences in popularity among houses at both the macro and micro level? Just even it all out. Since one is pretty much the same as another, as you and some others have correctly, imho, pointed out. And it gets rid of all Cardinal Fang’s objections, I think, which is kind of important to me.</p>
<p>Sure, why not 
</p>
<p>I don’t get the point of random selection. Part of the mutual selection process is deciding which group you mutually feel comfortable. Random selection seems like joining a sorority just for the sake of “being in a sorority” rather than joining a group you feel compatible with. </p>
<p>If you have alh’s system, you have what I’d call a house system. Sounds nice to me.</p>
<p>You could have a semi-lottery system. Houses and rushees would each make ordered preference lists. Then, randomly, the computer would pick a girl and assign her to her favorite non-full house. Then it would pick a house, and assign to it its most favored rushee. Repeat until all houses are full.</p>
<p>That’s what happens now CF. </p>
<p>I agree w/ FallGirl. </p>
<p>VaBluebird: Am I remembering correctly you are not a sorority member? And yet you are arguing for exclusivity?</p>
<p>Fallgirl? </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>adding: I’m okay if we add a questionnaire to determine interests and then mix it up so all houses have a mix of girls.</p>
<p>Remember high school? Not our kids’ high school. The high school that WE went to…so many years ago. Were tiers in place? Yes, you bet…tiers of achievement, tiers of social groups, tiers of cars…the principal and school board, and the teachers could have outlawed anything…put a lottery system in place…It would have meant nothing. You cannot choose people’s friends for them.</p>
<p>I was in a sorority (I know quelle surprise!) and one of my daughters was in one as well. I am still friends with some of my sisters…as is my daughter…One thing that I do know: is Ms. Ellebud was choosing friends based on beauty (most young women of that age are all pretty) or money or family background…boy did she blow it. One set of parents were coaches, another lived two blocks away from our first house…these were not wealthy girls…No D & B for us.</p>
<p>FallGirl: apologies. I now see your earlier post about your sorority.</p>
<p>Deleted. Posting on iPhone can be so aggravating! </p>
<p>Right, I was never one and have no knowledge really other than watching friends go thru the process. But, there really is something to be said for the courtship, the legacies, the I choose you, you choose me stuff. Like any social club, right? I wouldn’t want to just have my name pulled out of a hat and be “assigned to” DKW’s.</p>