[24433] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Proposed: Older Undergrads as advisors?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Price, Todd)
Wed Sep 8 15:15:51 2004
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:15:50 -0400
Reply-To: "Price, Todd" <Todd.Price@Detroitdiesel.com>
From: "Price, Todd" <Todd.Price@Detroitdiesel.com>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Hmm...I would have thought that the newly minted Alumni members who became
advisors would be at least as much an issue (if not more) than the older,
undergraduate brother. Maybe it varies from Section to Section, but I'm not
sure.
Bottom line though...I truly don't beleive that there is a "hard and fast"
rule regarding who can be an advisor to the Chapter. It instead boils down
to (imho) the following factors, in addition to the "obvious" requirements
for being an advisor (remain impartial, non-interference, the Chapter wants
the individual, etc...):
1. The advisor is "removed" from the current group of undergraduates (no
best friends who are still active)
2. The advisor is someone who is held in high esteem/respect by the current
undergraduates
3. The advisor either cannot (or would choose not to) go to every activity
that the Chapter offers
If there are at least two of the above which are not true, then you are
almost guaranteed to run into problems within 12 months. After having seen
my Chapter go through several generations of advisors, this "rule" seems to
hold salt. Granted, my sample size is not statistically significant, but I
feel it is a good rule. I apply it irregardless of the age/experience of
the person who would be an advisor.
Getting back to the original question, I think that the Chapter needs to be
responsible for determining its membership (in this case, advisory
membership). For an "older" undergraduate who is coming back (or coming for
the first time), they may be at a point where they have a life, perhaps a
spouse, and can't do the service hours, pledge meetings, full requirements.
But they may be able to contribute in a positive respect as an advisor.
Granted, these cases are perhaps not all that common, but they do occur.
25-30 year olds do not generally interact at the same level as 18-22 year
olds. So, I understand where the argument to change the rule is coming
from. And I have to throw my hat in the ring and say that I wouldn't have a
personal issue confirming someone as advisor who clearly demonstrates our
cardinal principals but for obvious reasons cannot make the committment to
participate as a full, active member. Does this mean we should change our
bylaws. That is up to the Chapters. It is they who determine membership.
But if this resolution was passed, I don't think anyone is going to lose
sleep or think it is the end of the world. :)
My 3 cents,
Todd Price
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Barnett [mailto:loaapres@apoloaa.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 2:50 PM
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Subject: Re: [APO-L] Proposed: Older Undergrads as advisors?
Hey Randy!
I don't normally reply to the listserv but this has caused my interest to be
perked.
I think the inherent problem with this is that sometimes older,
undergraduate brothers are not always far enough removed from being an
active to be an effective advisor. The problem lies in the fact, where do
you draw the line? An advisor is there to advise, and the danger is that it
becomes problamatic in a lot of cases for the older undergraduate brother to
remove themselves from chapter affairs. I found that in myself as well. I
also find that true with some new(and hell, some old alumni as well.) It's a
hard thing to remove yourself in that way in something that you've put a lot
into. I think it's just human nature.
To quickly sum up, I think it would be a huge mistake to make that change.
Others thoughts?
Fraternally,
Brad Barnett
Section 92 Chair
-----Original Message-----
From: Alpha Phi Omega Discussion List [mailto:APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On
Behalf Of Randy Finder
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 11:34 PM
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Subject: [APO-L] Proposed: Older Undergrads as advisors?
I mentioned this before, but now with the deadline approaching, I'd like to
hear more opinions.
The proposed amendment would change the last sentence of Article III,
Section 2, (4) Advisory membership from "Such Membership may not be
conferred upon undergraduate students." to "Such Membership may not be
conferred upon undergraduate students younger than age 23."
A brother returning to college for a second undergraduate degree or a
student trying for a first degree after having all of her children reach
school age might feel more comfortable as an advisor than as an active
brother.
Note, this does not remove any choices from the chapters, but does give an
additional possibilitie
(Note making the proposed change as 23 allows any amendment of this age
upwards to remain in scope. An amendment of that age downward would not be
in scope. I personally think the age should be a little older than that, but
would like to give the most latitude for consideration.)
Looking for comments, possible support, opinions on why this will destroy
western civilization...
YiLFS
Randy finder
--
Leadership, Friendship and Service - Alpha Phi Omega
