<p>Doubleplay post 23- sorry, just read it: “So why is it that the more "exclusive" a group seems to be (for no apparent reason other than years of carefully cultivated persona), the more that otherwise level-headed girls want to try to get into it?... I'm saying this with regard to the upper-tier sororities that the rushees inevitably get all atitter about...I'm sure everyone here who is at all familiar with the sororities can name that chosen few. The ones that are the most difficult to get into, have a reputation for being the prettiest, the snobbiest, the most "all that"... The other poor sororities that for no apparent reason have not been able to develop this mystique get to feed off the lower end of the food chain. They get the girls who have been cut by the top tiers after the second or third round (in essense, they benefit from being the bottom dwellers). Sounds harsh, doesn't it? But isn't this really the way it works? Really, how many girls actually go out for rush saying, "Hey I really want/hope to get into Zeta Beta Meta (the nice girl-next-door sorority), not Tri-Alpha (the popular "hot" girls)?”</p>
<p>From what I witnessed, the top sororities have, on average, more of the girls who are perceived to be most of the following: cool, charming, good-looking, well-dressed, affluent, smart, athletic, and campus leaders. So what you described is fairly accurate. You can be poor and gorgeous, charming and not good-looking, good-looking but not particularly well dressed, etc. You don’t have to have every quality. I think coolness and charm are probably musts to get into a top sorority. </p>
<p>Doubleplay: “It's strange that the type of sororities that the girls all aspire to (the pretty, sparkling, jet-setter types), are the ones that most guys stay away from in the frat arena (at least my kids do...)- those being the oiled and buffed hunky hair-flicking mousse wearing, work-out-at-the-gym-instead-of-actually-playing-a-sport quasi-jocks. “</p>
<p>My sorority (one of the top two at my school) had some very serious athletes in it – swimmers, field hockey and tennis players, etc. The other one had more jocks than ours did, but we had more campus leaders. Some of those athletes got pretty fixed up at parties, and since it was the 80’s I bet one or two had crunchy hair from time to time. It is hard to generalize. Our sorority tried to recruit “winners’, “high achievers”, and “talented people”. We were really not trying to find empty sweaters. </p>
<p>It is a big misconception that girls in top sororities are meaner, more materialistic, or less serious that those in other sororities. Personally, I think they are mainly girls who make certain things a priority and that is what gets them in. Also, they are probably people who bloomed early in terms of social skills. I bet some of those lower tier sororities had many women who turned out to be swans (if that is what they wanted to be). </p>
<p>At my school, every student there was talented and smart. Even at the easiest sorority to get into, it would be difficult to argue that the girls were “bottom feeders” (I know that wasn’t your term, but what an awful one!). Mainly the derogatory terms assigned to the easier-to-get-into groups had to do with looks, but the top sororities were slapped with nasty-girl labels. People can be mean no matter where you are.</p>