[24437] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Proposed: Older Undergrads as advisors?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Cross)
Wed Sep 8 16:56:02 2004
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 16:00:41 -0400
Reply-To: section.74.chair@apo.org
From: Matt Cross <section.74.chair@apo.org>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <20040908184938.303F35E66E@mail04.your-site.com>
I agree with Brad and Elliot. I did not pledge until 95, when I was
25. I stopped being active when I was 28. However I was not fit to be
an advisor until after I had spent some time away from the Chapter
(enabled by the fact of being Section Chair forced me to look at all
Chapters). While age does help, it is more important to look at the
time away from active status.
I would not support making this change.
Matt Cross
Section 74 Chair -- Alpha Phi Omega
(407) 808-8170
mailto:section.74.chair@apo.org
http://www.section74.org
Brad Barnett wrote:
>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
>
>
>
