<p>D1 pledged a sorority at her school and decided all the structure and required stuff just wasn’t for her, even though she liked the girls very much.She had become interested in theatre, comedy club, and some other activities and began to resent all the mandatory things which pulled her from that. She “de-activated” prior to her sophomore year, with no hard feelings on either side. </p>
<p>At her school, if a girl maximizes all her opportunities, she is guaranteed a bid. In theory, there should be no heartbreaking devastation as all who go through will be offered the opportunity to participate. What happens in reality is that some girls come in with preconceived notions about which houses are “the best” and which houses are not to be considered. If they don’t receive invitations back from the houses they consider to be “the best,” they drop out. They would rather not be involved than pledge a house which is not on their ranked list of “the best” houses. In this situation, it’s the houses which are being “rejected.” The houses are only so big; they can’t take everyone who walks through the door even if every girl who walks through the door even wanted to be there. But every girl can participate if they are open minded and give every house a chance. That just doesn’t happen, to the detriment of the girls who drop out, imo.</p>
<p>D1 was from OOS and had no idea which houses were considered to be “cool” and which houses were considered to be “less than.” Because she went in with an open mind, she always went back to the maximum number of houses each day to which she was invited. She pledged a house which considered scholarship/academics to be very high on their priority list, as it was on hers, and a house which was known for giving bids to OOS girls at a school which has heavy HEAVY in state admission rates. It was a better “fit” for her than one of the other houses, which seemed to be full of more “sporty types,” or another house which seemed to be primarily made up of girls from a particular region in the state. Whatever. It all worked out in that sense.</p>
<p>Right. I’m agnostic on immediate vs deferred rush but one of the benefits of immediate rush is that you DON’T have time to decide “well, the Kappas are the druggie house and the Chi O’s are the nerd house and the Tri Delts are the superficial blonde house” or whatever. You just go through, meet people and you don’t have any stereotypes associated with them. I didn’t know anything about the houses other than I had heard of several names since my mother had friends who were in some of them. I wound up choosing a house that I hadn’t heard of until I stepped foot on campus. It all worked out.</p>
<p>Why would the random approach solve the problem? Look at all the angst we read about roommate/dorm problems on CC and in IRL every year. Dorm assignment is quite random, but there is still a lot of racial self segregation on campus. Black kids tend to stick together, same with various Asian kids. Asian kids on my D’s floor wouldn’t socialize with her because she wasn’t Asian enough. Some white guy told a group of friends that he would never date an Asian girl (1 month after he said, he got an Asian girlfriend).</p>
<p>Oh, cobrat, for heaven’s sake. I am going to be pleasant and civil to everyone I come across until there’s a reason to be otherwise, but I am not going to be friends WITH everyone in my immediate vicinity. If I went down to the hall to my friend’s room to ask if she wants to come out for ice cream, and her roommate was standing right there, I’d have asked if she wanted to join us, but I’m not going to knock on every single person’s door and invite everyone in the dorm if I really just wanted to go for ice cream with my girlfriend. </p>
<p>Maybe you have a definition of friend that encompasses “everyone you’ve ever talked to.” Which is why no matter what the topic, you always have a “friend” who was in that situation and allegedly talked to you extensively about it. Me, I have a small circle of close friends and then everyone else is an acquaintance.</p>
<p>This raises an interesting point. So far, all of the sympathy has been towards the girls who don’t get invitations back ANYWHERE (which I agree, is very upsetting – and thankfully in my system happened extremely rarely, since there was a place for everyone if they kept an open mind). </p>
<p>I recall going through and there was 1 house of the 13 (incidentally, the one that my MIL had been in, same campus) that was noticeably “different.” Instead of having a house in the sorority quad with 100 or so members, they had a small, off-campus, odd-looking house and maybe 20-30 girls. They were clearly the “weakest link.” They were nice enough girls – I didn’t particularly hit it off with them and didn’t accept an invitation back, but I remember really feeling sorry for them – they were trying to build their own membership, but girls were rejecting THEM left and right. How hurtful that must be. Equal in hurt to the rejection the other way. </p>
<p>While the guys’ system is different enough, the point here I think is illustrative the same way: 2 years ago, S got a bid from House A and House B. House A was one of the biggest houses on campus, very active in various campus organizations, well-regarded, blah blah blah. Let’s say it had 120 guys. House B was a very small, struggling house. Maybe 25 guys. In danger of being too small to be eligible for an on-campus house. </p>
<p>S, who has a heart of gold, really struggled. He really did prefer House A overall, but it hurt his heart badly to have to tell House B no – because they were good guys, and one extra pledge for House B - who maybe only got 6 pledges - was more meaningful to House B than it was to House A, where there were 30 new pledges. I KNOW how hard it was for him to turn down House B and how bad he felt to have to “reject” them when they were already struggling. He still keeps in touch with his buddies from House B and I encourage him in doing so. </p>
<p>My point is, the sting of rejection can work both ways, and it can be PNM’s “judging” houses as not good enough, too.</p>
<p>^^^^Along those lines, D2 noticed a group of girls sobbing one morning after invitations were received. The next morning, she saw them eating breakfast in the cafeteria, clearly not going back to rush. If you didn’t know anything of the situation, you’d think “Oh my God, sorority rush is so cut throat. These poor girls didn’t get any invitations back today! Those poor things, and those sorority girls are such *****es!”</p>
<p>What D2 knew, however, is that these girls came into it saying “If I don’t get Kappa or Tri Delt,” I’m outta here. And that’s exactly what happened. They didn’t get invited back to Kappa or Tridelt, so they said “screw the whole thing.” And sobbed and carried on. Well, maybe Kappa and TriDelt could intuit the whole snob attitude and decided they could do without girls like that. And the other houses who really wanted to see them back also felt the sting of those girls’ rejection, to know that they’d rather drop out than be seen in their houses. </p>
<p>Things aren’t always like they seem.</p>
<p>D2 said she was trying to talk to a PNM during recruitment. She asked her “so which dorm are you living in?” The girl actually sighed heavily and said “Okay, so that’s the tenth time today I’ve been asked that, but fine, I live in Jones.” Well, clearly that girl didn’t want to be there, so there should have been no surprise that she wasn’t invited back the next day. That kind of thing happens a lot. This girl obviously had it in her mind on Day 1 which house she wanted to be in, and it clearly wasn’t D2’s house. No big tragedy for either I guess.</p>
I’m sort what anti-Greek and I do NOT like the random selection method idea at all.</p>
<p>I’m a believer in fit, visiting schools, and finding one’s tribe. In a “well run” Greek system tribes should be allowed, IMO. When I was an undegrade my school had 30+ frats … a lot had clear personalities … a couple where the upper crust guys (like the worst of animal house), jock frats, nerd frats, partier frats, jewish frats, etc. I do not see that as bad … and the random selection method would blow up these tribes.</p>
<p>Using Bama as an example a lot of the angst is about the 10% or so of PNMs that do not get bids … however, that is 10% not getting bids with (I would guess) a large self selection process going on before rush even starts … kids know the game so a lot of those with lower odds probably avoid the process now. So if the random selection process was implemented the number of PNMs would likely increase a far amount. So now what … cut lots more? increase the size of all the houses? add houses? In addition, the current system creates a know Greek class size each year … totally open bidding would allow for the overall class sizes to vary quite a bit from year to year … which would be tough for both capacity planning and financial planning.</p>
<p>It’s a pretty interesting problem. I like Oberlein’s statement that essentially any campus group can not cut members for reasons other than merit … it’s tough to reconcile that worthy goal with a Greek system on campus in a way that works well … but I’m sure there are lots of solutions that could work well given enough effort to work through them.</p>
<p>Sounds a lot like high school seniors who cannot find any safety colleges that they like, because the safety colleges would be filled with “lesser” students and/or have less social prestige and therefore be unsuitable.</p>
<p>Perhaps the campus-specific social climate matters here. If there is a definite social hierarchy among different houses, where joining a “safety” GLO is regarded as being socially less desirable, that may contribute more to the stress on the potential pledges, particularly if the campus social life is heavily GLO-centric.</p>
<p>For the kinds of people to whom the “social hierarchy” matters, these things seem to matter a lot. Which begs the question – I’m not sure why I should care what the kind of people who care desperately about social hierarchy think in the first place. One thing is for sure, though. Social hierarchy only has power if you give it power.</p>
<p>No, I do not support random selection, and – having deactivated – I absolutely positively do not consider myself a sorority woman. IMHO, people should be able to choose their own friends, based on all sorts of personality attributes and interests – some can be articulated and some cannot be. My opposition to the greek system stems from the fact that the sorority is closed, has defined boundaries, and requires “permission” or a formal invitation for someone new to join the group. </p>
<p>Why is this a concern for me? Here are some examples:</p>
<p>In real life, my friendships are very fluid. I spend time with some people whom I really don’t like very much – does that make any sense? For example, I have a friend “Sally” who is very opinionated, forceful in her beliefs, and completely involved in her children’s lives (Said “children” are now 28, 32, and 34.) . She and I walk our dogs together maybe once every six or eight weeks, and I enjoy that time with her. I would not want to see her every day.</p>
<p>I have a friend “Marge” who is absolutely brilliant – she has an MBA from MIT and is one of the smartest women I’ve ever worked with. She has five children (two her own from a previous marriage that ended in divorce, three her husband’s from a previous marriage that ended with his first wife dying). I often don’t agree with how she handles her children – we have different values and different ways of encouraging responsibility. I see her every three or four months and greatly enjoy the time I spend with her. I would not want to see her every day.</p>
<p>I have a friend named Janet who is the sweetest, nicest person. I get together with her for breakfast every three months or so and we catch up on how our children are doing. She is not the sharpest tool in the shed and she works in a very low-stress, low-paid profession. I can’t fathom how she can stand to do that. I greatly enjoy the time I spend with her. I would not want to see her every day.</p>
<p>My point? If I were in a closed social group, I would never want to invite these women to be my “sisters.” We have too many differences and they annoy me greatly sometimes. Nevertheless, I enjoy seeing them from time to time and I am greatly enriched by spending time with them.</p>
<p>We’re focusing on women who were rejected by all the houses because that’s what started this thread. And while it was only a few women, it’s obvious that any black woman would have been rejected. So these sororities are excluding at least 28% of the women at their campus, and have been doing so for decades. Let’s not pretend it’s just a few misfits being excluded,and let’s not pretend the sororities are picking based on values. A whole lot of women are getting the message that they’re not good enough.</p>
<p>The idea of needing to be invited to join a social group reminds me of the junior high school social scene where you couldn’t sit at certain tables in the lunch room unless you were invited to be a part of the group, either overtly or more subtly through body language. By college I would expect kids to have gone beyond the need to create such regimented social groupings. But then, I don’t really understand the appeal of sororities and fraternities. My school didn’t have them.</p>
I think this depends on who “you” refers to. Social hierarchy can have a lot of power on a college campus, and it can affect you as an individual even if you don’t personally care about it. You can choose to put yourself outside it–but that may cut you off from a lot of options that you might have at another campus with less hierarchy. This is why I think it’s worth coming back to the idea that it’s really important to understand the social environment at the colleges you are considering before you choose which one to attend.</p>
Agreed. For me, the smaller the school and the more rural he school the more I would be interested in the affect of Greek Life on campus. There has been a ton of discussion about Greek Life at Bama but there are 15,000+ students who are not Greek. I was an undergrad at Cornell which has a pretty large Greek population but frankly the Greeks only affected my life in one appreciable way … the seating policy for hockey games was rigged in favor of the Greeks at the time … otherwise I went on my merry way at pretty big school living a totally separate life.</p>
<p>My issue with hanging around undergrads who drink a lot during and after college is that:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>IME, their conversationalist/interaction levels nearly matched those of the heavy stoners at my LAC when they had more than a few drinks. Not much/any meaningful conversation/interaction to be had. </p></li>
<li><p>Most weren’t socialized well enough to know their drinking limits…and they were often much lower than they thought from what I’ve seen. I blame a part of this on the over 21 age limits and laws/puritanical attitudes which penalize parents who allow older minors to drink a nominal amount with meals as a means to teach responsible drinking practices. Granted, a part of my attitudes towards irresponsible binge drinking came from growing up in a neighborhood with homeless drug addicts and alcoholics. </p></li>
<li><p>Quite a few who had too much to drink because of #2 end up getting belligerent and inclined to start fights and/or vandalize properties in the local area. Got to see some of this in the Boston area and had this confirmed by local cops who mentioned that yes, the vandalism I and other neighbors reported in fit longstanding issues they’ve had with some fraternities at nearby* colleges. </p></li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>Nearby as it 3 stops on the T or less, not next door.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed. When one says “they can be civil” in some of those contexts, it means being polite, but cold and unfriendly. Thus, it reads to me as putting on the barest minimum of politeness. </p>
<p>Something which I was raised to believe reflects poorly on one’s character…especially when it’s done in the context of assuming things about someone without giving them a fair shake first by starting off on a friendly note and actually getting to know them better through a naturally flowing conversation or few as unencumbered by artificial structures as possible. </p>
<p>Doesn’t necessarily mean I end up being good friends with everyone, but it’s much better than what I’ve heard from classmates who were rejected from every house during rush because they were “too nerdy” or otherwise “weren’t the kind they wanted” as well as from older cousins who were fraternity/sorority members…including one who held a leadership post at her sorority during her later undergrad years in the '80s. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am actually the same way with the exception that I have friends who fit somewhere between close friends and mere acquaintances. </p>
<p>A lot of the distinctions between the former two have to do with frequency of contact due to proximity or schedules, length of time of knowing them, and level of comfort to confide/counsel each other in times of emotional distress. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This varies greatly depending on campus and individuals involved. I’ve always been the person to hang out with multiple races/groups due to where I grew up and due to the fact I enjoy being part of multiple “tribes”*. </p>
<p>Incidentally, I’ve also been snubbed by some Asian-American kids for “not being Asian enough”.** Didn’t really care as I found their hypocrisy to be amusing considering their exhibited ignorance of Chinese/Asian cultural norms and for the Chinese-American ones…most couldn’t speak much/any Chinese whereas I was nearly fluent in Mandarin from having spoken it regularly at home. </p>
<p>Also helped that I ended up getting along far better with the vast majority Asian/Chinese international students in undergrad and afterwards than they did in college and afterwards despite the sometimes serious political differences due to our families. </p>
<p>And yes, I managed to do so while building and maintaining friendships with students from other racial/ethnic groups/“tribes”. </p>
<p>*I.e. Engineering/CS nerds…albeit as an “honorary”, history/political science/IR wonks, artists/musicians/writers, law/finance wonks, mechanical/crafts artisans, etc. Never understood the appeal of confining myself to one or a few tribes…especially considering other friends are also members in just as many or more tribes than I’ve listed above. </p>
<p>** I’ve also been socially snubbed by other Asian-Americans…especially those from upper/upper-middle class suburbs for being “too Asian”. I just dismissed them as a bunch of ignorant idiots.</p>
<p>In real life, social hierarchy can have power even if you personally prefer not to give it power (e.g. in hiring practices where factors other than ability to do the job are considered, or historical examples of overt racial discrimination in housing enforced by covenants, conditions, and restrictions attached to the property). Why would college be any different? (Of course, whether GLOs are powerful enough on any given campus to have an impact on those who are not interested in them depends on the campus.)</p>
<p>My initial thoughts on reading this post is a)My Ds have never seen their sorority sisters every day and b)being in a sorority does not preclude friendships exactly like the ones you have described. </p>
<p>I was friends with girls in sororities in spite of not being in one. So I assume that in spite of being in a sorority, they were not in a “closed social group” in the sense that they only fostered relationships within the sorority.</p>
Or maybe I have that part wrong, but I’ve noticed the same before as well.</p>