If deemed necessary, reported comments will be removed within 7 - 10 days but usually sooner. Please submit this report ONLY if you STRONGLY believe this needs to be removed. Multiple illegitimate reports slow down the administrative process of removing the actual and more seriously unfavorable content.

Poster Name:
SMU alum

Poster Message:
You need to look at the Release Figures Methodology that National Panhellenic put into place a few years back. It requires that the stronger houses cut more girls in the first rounds, while the weaker houses release fewer, if any. National Panhellenic is trying to even out the process - fewer girls will get their first choices, but in the end at least they will have a choice. You can argue that it hurts the better houses (it definitely does), while forcing girls to have fewer choices in the end (probably). I remember the "good old days" - the Big Three dominated at the expense of the weaker houses. Since I was in one of the Big Three, I didn't pay attention. We all competed for the same girls and could keep the same number, whether or not the last five years you didn't meet quota. However, looking back, I remember how many girls were cross-cut (my best friend, who pledged sophomore year and by senior year was homecoming queen). The top tier was SO strong that the second tier was simply invisible. You can look at this as social engineering, or communism (all houses are equal, blah blah, blah), or you can look at it as letting more girls experience Greek life and the wonders that it offers. Personally, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but I still understand why they did it. Elevate the smaller houses at the expense of the Big 3 (or Big 4 or 5, depending on the school).That is why you hear of amazing houses not making quota - they simply had to cut too many girls.