[22999] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Proposal Question: B-02-035 & B-02-036: Raise Initiate Fee
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Stromberg)
Tue Oct 22 13:39:35 2002
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:09:46 -0700
Reply-To: Christopher Stromberg <cstrombe@STANFORD.EDU>
From: Christopher Stromberg <cstrombe@STANFORD.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <F73EhG0HbmO5fOPWNl9000025db@hotmail.com>
Brothers,
As a long-standing active (I'm in my 7th year as an active, got to love
grad school), and with experience at two different chapters, I really have
to say that a lot of the arguments here are dancing around the big picture.
In my mind, the biggest problem with these proposals is that we would be
throwing up just one more barrier to pledging. Even if it were LESS money
for each active in the long run, I would oppose these changes. The last
thing any chapter needs is to be forced to tell their pledges that, instead
of $35 to pledge, it now could be $100. I guarantee that one change could
kill chapters, mine included.
It is not so much about how much students can afford to spend. There are
two very similar service organizations here at Stanford, APO and Circle
K. If you are a freshman, just coming in to school, and you see two
organizations that you could join that do essentially the same things, one
of which costs nothing to join and another which costs $100 to join, which
are you going to join?
The arguments that dedicated people will still pay the $100 does not
apply. We have not yet given these students a REASON to be
dedicated. They $100 fee would be one of the first pieces of information
that they find out about. They would not have time to find out why they
should be dedicated to APO.
Now, I understand that some chapters have additional fees associated with
pledging, in addition to the national fees, but many don't. Those that
don't usually don't specifically to make pledging accessible to all. This
change would not only put up a real barrier for many students, but it would
also put up a HUGE psychological barrier for all students.
I would rather see the AAMD's raised and the Pledge and Initiation fees
remain the same than the current proposal. Does anyone know if legislation
has been submitted on this topic? Once a person is initiated into the
fraternity, yes, dedicated brothers will pay the increase in
AAMD's. Potential pledges have no reason to be dedicated to the
fraternity, and I fear that a TRIPLING of the fees would drive many of them
away.
Obviously, these are just my opinions on the subject, but I really worry
that these proposals would make recruiting new pledges even harder than it
already is.
Chris Stromberg
Zeta Chapter
Stanford University
