<p>shrinkrap: Thank you. Very impressive.</p>
<p>garland, intparent: I am wondering if PG was the one left out on the hall? If the sorority was a better alternative in that regard?</p>
<p>Huh. I hadn’t thought of that. What a shame if that’s the case. Even I, terminally shy, did not run into that kind of behavior. I was hoping it was hypothetical, as it is so dismaying.</p>
<p>No, it was a hypothetical. But don’t you think that it goes on? Not meanly, but that people form friendships and others can feel excluded? You can’t be friendly with everybody you come across.</p>
<p>You can be friendly. You don’t have to be friends.</p>
<p>I think one of the misconceptions is that we’re talking about a group of people choosing their friends. That is not what joining a lifetime values based organization is about. As for parties? We had one mixer a month. Parties were not our primary focus. We had study hours weekly. We did monthly service projects. We had bi-monthly leadership skills programs. We had a weekly sisterhood event that was purely social. It was more like a Girl Scout troop or NHS with a fraternity mixer tossed in once a month than anything else. </p>
<p>As for how women were selected, none of us knows anything except what our own organization does, but there was nothing in our process about ranking weight or appearance in any way, shape or form. We had very little discussion during the process. It was very individual. We had no idea what anybody else in the room was thinking or doing. </p>
<p>A lot of people are forgetting that the women going through recruitment get to rank the chapters too. It is not a one way thing. They judge chapters sometimes on superficial things like whether the skit was well practiced or if they had good desserts or which fraternity they hang out. Those are the kinds of girls no chapter really needs. </p>
<p>I was in a super small greek system. My chapter had a whopping 30 members when I joined so if you really disliked one of them, it would be miserable. There were 4 chapters on my campus and they each had a very distinct personality and drew women who were similar to them. So yeah, there was a cheerleader sorority, a “girl next door” sorority, a “smart girls who were campus leaders” sorority and one that were girls who were just friendly and sweet all the time with no other stereotype. My own chapter grew very quickly, very suddenly, but all the newer members were heavy duty partiers. I distanced myself from them and hung out with the women who were in the chapter when I first joined, but it was about the lifelong commitment to the organization whose values I cherished dearly. </p>
<p>At these schools with 200-300 members per chapter though? There is no way, in a chapter that large, that someone wouldn’t find a niche, whether it was the top tier or the bottom tier. At these huge greek schools, it’s more about who you happened to meet during recruitment and whether you happened to meet the women you would click with. </p>
<p>Honestly? I think some people are organization joiners and thrive on being part of organizations with meetings and planning and structure. You see the same parents being on all the boosters organizations and parent organizations, coaches, scout leaders, etc. They are the joiners. They like that stuff and thrive on it. As a social introvert (yes, there are such things), I prefer a structured organization like that as a social outlet. It provides me with the social interactions I like without me having to initiate random social encounters (which make me VERY uncomfortable). Not everybody likes that. </p>
<p>I think of it like the excursions on cruises. Some people enjoy going off the ship and exploring on their own. Others enjoy taking a structured tour of the place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless the venue/group of people nearby happen to be hostile or it’s not the appropriate venue, I’d think it’s the bare minimum of civility to be friendly to everyone I come across. </p>
<p>Speaking for myself, of course.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sometimes, I’ve mused about whether there’s some generational/personality differences determining whether one was inclined to join/not join pan-hellenic/socially exclusive oriented student organizations with notable exceptions like the ones at MIT. </p>
<p>My age group came of age when grunge/pop-punk was popular and from what I’ve seen/read, pan-hellenic and other student clubs using social exclusivity as membership evaluation criteria like Harvard’s Finals clubs were at their lowest points of popularity during my early-mid college years. Even if one wasn’t at my anti-Greek/social exclusive student org LAC, being a “joiner” wasn’t considered very cool among many back when I was in college. </p>
<p>In contrast, plenty of folks who were late boomers/early GenXers like my older cousins were much more likely to find such organizations to be appealing and to some extent…I’m finding/reading the same is with those who entered undergrad after I graduated. </p>
<p>Just throwing the above out there as food for further conversation…</p>
<p>I’m not saying it doesn’t happen - although when “it” is excluding one person from a group gathering, I think it is indeed unkind. I’m saying that in most ordinary social settings, there are far more tactful ways to make - and choose not to make - friends. </p>
<p>There’s another woman in my graduate program who I consider myself friendly (not friends) with. Earlier in the program, we met for lunch/drinks now and then. At a certain point, I had asked her to lunch on a few occasions, and she hadn’t reciprocated. I backed off, and we settled back into comfortable acquaintanceship. </p>
<p>Now, it is possible that this woman found she didn’t actually like spending time with me all that much and deliberately distanced herself. It is also possible that she is more introverted than I am, quite happy to get together when asked, but not as liable to initiate a meeting. I live alone, while she has several roommates, which might be one reason not to feel as much of a need for seeking new friends. Or she might have been especially busy, or had a significant other who was taking up more of her time than usual, and when neither of us followed up for a while, the moment passed. </p>
<p>But that’s the point - I don’t know which of those things it was, so I’m not offended or hurt. Lord knows there are times I’ve probably missed opportunities at friendship by not being as proactive as I could have been. It would be very, very different if there were some way that she could formally tell me that she had decided not to pursue my friendship because I didn’t seem to be the type of person she wanted to get to know better</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cobrat- there are valid points to what you say. The Greek orgs had a significant decline in the '70s when the general feeling among college students was “anti-establishment” because, let’s face it, organizations that use Robert’s Rules of Order are definitely establishment. Currently, college students are not only entering college in record numbers, they are a generation who are very used to having all of their time structured in organized activities. </p>
<p>There is a significant population drop coming and greek orgs, which are thriving right now, expanding at very high rates, are going to experience a drop too. Perhaps these kids, who are so used to structure, will feel like their kids need LESS structure and those kids will grow up not wanting to be in organizations. These trends typically cycle.</p>
<p>
What, you mean the intensive investigation into the personality, background and values of each prospective pledge didn’t reveal that they were partiers? And here I thought the rush process was the perfect way to sort the wheat from the chaff. Or wait, was it that this “lifetime values based organization” decided to adopt a whole new set of values and party hearty?</p>
<p>Being a partier can also be a lifetime value. People’s values change, why can’t an organization? One fraternity maybe known as a football house for few years then change over time. Bernardmom’s idea of party hearty maybe someone else’s idea of just having few drinks with friends.</p>
<p>My kid’s sorority has around 40-50 girls per pledge class. She hangs out with girls in her class. Sophomores all live in the house together and they are the ones who go to most mixers. Once they move off campus they do not go to as many fraternity parties. When you live a group of girls for a year, very strong friendship is formed. They live through each other’s highs and lows. My kid is not best friends with everyone in the house, but she feels when she goes back to the house there will always be someone for her to hang out with.</p>
<p>LOL… no MommaJ. There were no investigations into the backgrounds of sorority women at my school- we rarely got recommendations. And yeah, believe it or not, some women joined for the wrong reasons. And then they brought in more women who would join for the wrong reasons. </p>
<p>See, there’s a flaw with the process- it is done by humans, who are flawed and who sometimes make bad decisions or change their attitudes, or pretend to be one way when they are a different way. Kind of like government- of the people, by the people, for the people?</p>
<p>"As a social introvert (yes, there are such things), I prefer a structured organization like that as a social outlet. It provides me with the social interactions I like without me having to initiate random social encounters (which make me VERY uncomfortable). Not everybody likes that. "</p>
<p>Yes, yes! Well stated.</p>
<p>Who said the new girls who were parties were “chaff”? The composition of houses can change year to year. Sometimes they start attracting more outgoing girls, more athletic girls, more brainy girls, etc. What’s wrong with that, mommaj? Is there a stereotype that all must appeal to? </p>
<p>I have to laugh because I’ve reconnected over FB with sisters I’d lost track of, and the first two notifications on my newsfeed were from 2 who couldn’t have been more different. One runs a yoga studio, is a published poet, lives a very bohemian lifestyle, and is very involved in left wing causes. The other is a leader in the Tea Party in her town! But the first one’s father, a noted academic, recently passed away and the second left a sweet message of condolence. So much for all the stupidity that it’s all just about “girls just like me.” But, I guess they were both white middle to upper middle class girls, and they were slim and attractive, so I guess they were interchangeable.</p>
<p>“It would be very, very different if there were some way that she could formally tell me that she had decided not to pursue my friendship because I didn’t seem to be the type of person she wanted to get to know better”</p>
<p>I think some of you are imagining that a girl gets told by every house all at once, which would indeed be devastating. But if there are multiple houses who invite her back, then the sting is lessened, no?</p>
<p>Example: my system had, at the time, 13 houses. You went to all 13. You got invited back and could go to a maximum of 8. Most girls HAD enough invitations to fill all 8, and you were strongly encouraged to take all 8 and not preemptively decide you didn’t want x house. Then, you got invited and could take a maximum of 5. Then you got invited back to your final 3 and you ranked them. I was a rush counselor. Most girls got invited back enough to fill all these slots. I myself chose only to go to 4 of the 5 at that stage, but how could I feel rejected at that point? I think there were 2 or 3 houses that cut me at some point. Well, so what? Others didn’t! Maybe individual personalities and reactions matter most. My D would have taken these “rejections” a lot harder than me, I think. </p>
<p>And cuts hurt worse when you’ve decided you absolutely must be an XXX. Don’t we tell kids all the time on CC not to get overly invested in one “dream school” and to keep an open mind?</p>
<p>Most recruitment systems would not allow a PNM to choose to skip houses if she has not maximized her options (i.e., with 5 invitations, must attend 5 parties on 5 day, even if she did not care for one).
The rejection goes the other direction, too. PNMs decide just as quickly that a house is or is not a place where they will feel comfortable, and weaker houses have a compounding struggle to attract new members.</p>
<p>Once again, I agree with VeryHappy</p>
<p>Well - the random selection method solves the problem of potential pledges cutting houses and houses cutting potential pledges. It solves the problem of some groups making quota and some not. It solves the problem of tiers. What is the downside? You don’t have as much control over the friend choosing? My sorority had between 200-300 members during my time in school. If I couldn’t have come up with a friend group from among that number, I think that would have said something about me. As it is, I can remember an evening I wanted to go to a campus film festival and see some movies that weren’t readily available for viewing in the days before video. I asked every single woman in our house and no one was interested. Then I walked over to the sorority house next door and one of my friends there was willing to go. I could have been in that sorority just as easily as my own. My sorority friends were spread out among a lot of different groups. They had more in common than not. They all had in common that they were interested (or at least resigned;)) to being in sororities.</p>
<p>I don’t think the random selection method has any chance of implementation, but it is interesting no other sorority women have posted in support. Unless I have missed that. Basically I hear women saying they don’t want to change the system. The system needs changing. We see that at Alabama. The question is how much change we need. I think we could use a lot of change.</p>
<p>ETA: maybe VeryHappy supports random selection? If she still considers herself a sorority woman? That’s not clear to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this is very well said. It describes D2 very well. She’s very social and loves the structure of sorority life. There is always a function around the corner, whether it be chapter meeting, her particular pledge class activity, a party, mixer, or philanthropy event. She is a big sister now and is loving taking part in that aspect. All these planned events give her an opportunity to meet new people or bond with girls in her sorority. She doesn’t have to always be planning or initiating activities on her own in order to meet people or socialize.</p>
<p>I was not like that. I had my small, close group of friends (and NO, we did not invite the whole dorm every time we went for ice cream, good grief, we just would get up and go) and we did our thing on the fly. I had a serious boyfriend with whom I spent a lot of time. Between that, my reserved personality, and the fact that I could barely afford to pay for my college life and had no left over money for sorority dues, I had no interest in being in a sorority.</p>
<p>That’s a whole lot different than saying “I just don’t GET Greeks. I would NEVER want to be a part of that. Therefore NO ONE SHOULD.”</p>
<p>Different strokes.</p>
<p>And what’s wrong with theme parties? D2 went to a function recently where the theme was “Flower Power.” D wore a flower headband, a “Peace” tee shirt and fringed boots. She looked cute. What’s the big deal?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, now I’m thinking that when PG made her comment above, she in no way, shape or form meant that she couldn’t be minimally “civil” to everyone she comes across. I mean, seriously Cobrat? I think she was responding to former posts and meant that you can’t be chummy with everybody you come across or even that you are not going to make friends with everyone in your environment.</p>
<p>It may depend on your definition of “civil”. I have lived in different places with very different cultural expectations with regard to civility. However, to avoid going too far off topic, I am willing to concede the mid-west definition is absolutely the “correct” definition if such a thing as “correct” even exists.</p>
<p>alh, I certainly did not end up as a “sorority woman”, but did go through rush. And think the random approach would cure a lot of what ails the Greek system.</p>