Transcript Sorority Recruitment: The Next Generation of Release Figures

RFM – Release Figure Method
University of Illinois – April 2006
Laura Malley-Schmitt
NPC Release Figure Team Leader
NPC Delegation Member – Alpha Phi
Purpose of Release Figures
(aka Carry Figures)
Goal 1
 To give each sorority a statistical chance to attain quota
Goal 2
 To allow each PNM to investigate available options and ultimately
to match with a sorority for which she has a preference
Goal 3
 To optimize the number of matches while coming as close to
chapter size parity as possible
Goal 1: Giving each sorority a
statistical chance at quota

The “old” method, which had been in existence for over 30 years,
made it statistically impossible for all chapters to make quota
–
–

Created “Threatened Chapter Syndrome”
Many chapters throughout North America struggled and eventually
closed because of it
The “Law of Averages” approach was a flawed premise for release
figures
The Law of Averages Approach
The Theory
Preference Bid List Length
Beta
Iota
Epsilon
150 PNMs
150 PNMs
150 PNMs
Estimated Quota = 50. So, theoretically all three of these chapters should
make Quota, because each sorority has a one in three chance (33%) with each
PNM. The approach assumes all sororities are equal.
The Law of Averages Approach
The Reality
Preference Bid List Length
Beta
Iota
Epsilon
150 PNMs on list
150 PNMs on list
100 PNMs on list
Matches Q of 50 at
# 80.
Matches Q of 50 at
# 130.
Matches only 20.
Leaves 70 women
below line. Many
become QAs to
large chapters
Leaves 20 women
below line.
1st choices = 60%
1st choices = 33%
1st choices = 15%
The RFM Approach
Preference Bid List Length
Beta
Iota
100 PNMs on list
150 PNMs on list
Matches Q of 50 at
# 80.
Matches Q of 50 at
# 130.
225 PNMs on list
1st choices = 60%
1st choices = 33%
Matches Q of 50 at
# 185.
Epsilon
1st choices = 15%
Goal 2: To allow each PNM to investigate
options and match with a sorority

The “old” method, which had been in existence for over 30 years,
raised expectations for a large number of PNMs that could not be
fulfilled
–
–

Created “Recruitment Casualty Syndrome”
Many systems left a large number of PNMs unmatched because of it
The “Law of Averages” approach led many PNMs to believe that
affiliation with a popular chapter was possible, and then “crosscut” them at preference
Sarah Sevencee
B
             
D
             
Z
             
Q
             
I
             
K
             
H
             
A
G
             
             
E
             
150 PNM’s
10-7-4-2
Goal 3: To optimize the number of matches while
coming as close to chapter size parity as possible

The “old” method, which had been in existence for over 30 years,
made it impossible to place all the PNMs that completed the
process in good faith AND achieve relative chapter parity.

Greek life administrators were forced to choose between placing
PNMs and keeping weak chapters viable
–
–
QSM #1 placed most all PNMs, but left at least one chapter very
weak
QSM #2 fostered relative parity, but many PNMs were statistically
eliminated from the system
RFM: How Are We Doing at Illinois?
After 2 years of RFM implementation
Goal 1
 To give each sorority a statistical chance to attain quota
–
–
–
–
We are succeeding at sending the right number of women to each
chapter for them to have a chance
All chapters in the top half of strength are still making quota even
though their lists are shorter
For several chapters that are not as strong in recruitment, the RFM
has made a huge difference in their ability to succeed
For a couple of chapters, it appears as though the RFM alone may
not be the answer
RFM: How Are We Doing at Illinois?
After 2 years of RFM implementation
Goal 2
 To allow each PNM to investigate available options and ultimately
to match with a sorority for which she has a preference
–
Successful. More PNMs are receiving their first choice on their
MRABA (aka pref cards)
1st Choice
2nd Choice
3rd Choice
2000
71 %
22 %
7%
2005
84%
14%
<2%
RFM: How Are We Doing at Illinois?
After 2 years of RFM implementation
Goal 3
 To optimize the number of matches while coming as close to
chapter size parity as possible
–
–
–
–
–
–
Making good progress, considering only 2 years of implementation thus far
We are still matching over 98% of bid matching participants
15 out of 18 chapters made quota in 2005
However, some chapters do not comply with their figures (under-invite)
However, some chapters need to do a better job with preference
There is always a set of PNMs that are unwilling to adjust expectations
regardless and choose to withdraw.
(These women were typically cross-cut before preference under the LOA approach.)
Do we have a Withdrawal Problem
at Illinois?

The Most Important Metric Used to Address this is Percentage of the
Open House Pool Matched:
Number Matched______
Open House Pool (OHP)



Overall National Average = 76 %
National Average for Campuses Using Priority Recruitment = 78%
Under the RFM, two-thirds of all campuses achieve the same overall
percentage matched or improve in this metric when compared to the LOA
approach
Do we have a Withdrawal Problem
at Illinois?
10 Years of Statistics
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
OHP
Matched
Matched %
1090
1086
997
1041
1101
1044
934
1085
1070
1191
1256
869
871
811
810
911
906
754
913
901
927
939
79.7%
80.2%
81.3%
77.8%
82.7%
86.8%
80.7%
84.1%
84.2%
77.8%
74.8%
• The LOA using QSM #1 was used 1995-2003.
• The RFM was used in 2004 and 2005.
Do we have a Withdrawal Problem
at Illinois?




The Answer is Both YES and NO
The overall percentage matched at Illinois is within range of current
national average and is in striking distance of the results posted in
previous years at Illinois.
The results under the LOA may seem better in this metric, but these
results were achieved by making it impossible for all sororities to
succeed. (Too few invitations to preference for weaker chapters.)
Results in the 80-85% range for overall percentage matched are possible
under the RFM, but two things need to happen:
–
–
A few chapters need to refrain from under-inviting.
Some chapters need to strengthen preference.
HOW WILL RFM IMPACT
OUR CHAPTERS?
RFM Impact

The Impact of the RFM Depends Upon Your Chapter’s Circumstances:
Release Pattern for a Sample of Illinois Chapters:
Beta
Zeta
Iota
Eta
Epsilon

1st Round
2nd Round
3rd Round
775
650
400
100
60
250
240
250
130
70
60
50
90
50
60
Based on an estimate of 1200 participating in Open House Round
Common Initial Concerns with RFM




How can we make decisions about dropping this many PNMs on
Day One?
You’re cutting us to the bone by making us release so many
PNMs!
Won’t all the PNMs think we’re superficial snobs for dropping so
many of them?
How will we recruit this many women with the relatively few
members we have?
Implications for
Chapters with High Returns
•
You must be prepared to release more PNMs earlier in the
process.
•
You will be inviting fewer PNMs to all events, which may
leave you with excess members on the recruitment floor.
•
Your lists will be shorter, so there may be an initial fear that
you won’t reach quota, or a perception that you’ve “gone to
the bottom of your bid list.”
Implications for Chapters with Middle
and Lower Returns
•
•
•
•
All of the women stronger chapters are releasing are looking
at your chapter!!
You may have a lot more PNMs attending your events.
If you have a small chapter, you may need to double or triple
rush.
You will be entertaining women who have never seriously
considered your chapter before – BE READY to sell your
experience!!
Implications for All Chapters
•
CONVERSATION
•
•
•
•
Make it Meaningful
Focus on Expectations of Membership
Organizational Values
Devote more time to this, and less to
entertainment/fluff
Implications for All Chapters
•
MEMBERSHIP SELECTION
•
•
•
Follow your national group’s guidelines!
Define your criteria
Minimize subjective criteria and focus on objective
criteria
Implications for All Chapters
•
PREFERENCE
•
•
The most important round of all
•
If your chapter does poorly in preference compared to
previous years, there is a risk your chapter will not make
quota.
•
Focus on preference conversation, but resist the
temptation to bid promise
The RFM will get the right number of PNMs to your
preference round. However, the RFM cannot persuade the
PNMs to choose your chapter. It is up to your chapter to
close the sale.
Implications for All Chapters
BID PROMISING
Hurts the PNMs
•
It is unethical to lead them to believe that they are assured a bid with your
chapter. You can’t possibly affiliate all of the women who will attend your
preference. So, if you push them too hard and promise bids, they may ISP.
As a result, they may be “cross-cut” out of the system.
Hurts your chapter!
•
•
There are hefty penalties for chapters who are caught promising bids.
Bid promising can result in an artificially high percentage of first choices.
Next year’s bid list will be determined by first choice percentage for your
chapter. The higher the first choice percentage this year, the smaller the list
for your chapter the following year. Essentially, you risk falling short of
quota next year by playing the bid promising game this year.