[24443] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Proposed: Older Undergrads as advisors?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mandy Hunter)
Wed Sep 8 21:23:25 2004
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:23:20 -0400
Reply-To: Mandy Hunter <mandy.hunter@gmail.com>
From: Mandy Hunter <mandy.hunter@gmail.com>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <4aa6191404090818014a82a62c@mail.gmail.com>
I thought I would write my prospective since I am the type of person
we are talking about being a young advisor and an older
non-traditional student. I started advising immediately after
graduating at the age of 22. It was really young. However, when I
graduated it was with my associates degree. I went to school for a
year and a half right out of high school which is when I initially
pledged APO. After that year and a half, I took two years off. I
worked and supported myself completely financially during that time.
Most of my friends and chapter brothers who were still in school could
not relate to the "real world" experiences I had had. When I went
back to school at the age of 21 even though I was still considered a
traditional student due to my age, I did not fit in as a traditional
student.
Upon completing my associates degree a year later, I moved out of my
home chapter's section and region. I moved in with my boyfriend at
the time (now husband) and and offered my services to the chapter, at
the university he was attending for graduate school, as a community
advisor. This was a unique chapter in that there had been a major
rift at the end of the semester before and all of the older active
brothers had chosen to leave for the most part and I was an average of
2 years older than most of the actives. I made mistakes as an
advisor. I doubt there is an advisor who does not make mistakes.
Some of my mistakes in the beginning were from inexperience. Some
were probably from youth. In all I advised that chapter for almost
three years, before my husband graduated and got a job that took us to
yet another region in the country. I plan on making contact with an
new chapter this fall and offering my assistance as an advisor.
However, in about a year or so I am hoping to go back to school and
start working toward completing my Bachelors. I am only going to be
going part-time and by that time I will be 26, have been married over
a year, working, and have spent 4 years working as an APO staff member
on the sectional, regional, and national level. I really do not have
a desire to go back to being an active. My active days were wonderful
and I cherish them, but I do not want to try and recreate them. I
think I can best serve the fraternity on the chapter level as an
advisor.
I think a big part of the current rule is also that the national
fraternity is dependant on active dues, and do not want undergraduate
students getting all of the benefits of active membership (except
voting and holding office) and not having to pay anything. That is
not to say that I think traditional undergraduate students have the
experience necessary to be an advisor or all alumni for that matter.
My suggestion is that the issue be handled on a case by case basis
with the chapter, section chair and region director. If the chapter
wants someone who is a non-traditional undergraduate student to serve
as an advisor let them and the potential advisor go to the section
chair and region director. If everyone agrees that this person can do
the job, then great but if the section chair or region director do not
feel it would be a good thing give them the power to veto it. Age
should not be the reason because people mature at different rates
based on different sets of experience. Plus I would think limiting to
a specific age could be considered prejudice and may eliminate some
good advisors who are currently serving.
So that is my story and my thoughts.
In L, F, and S,
Mandy Hunter
Former Advisor to BZ (University of Georgia)
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:01:59 -0400, Charles Brace <brace347@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Such Membership may not be conferred upon undergraduate students,
> except such Membership may be conferred upon undgergraduate students
> who were otherwise ineligible for Active Membership for the _______
> years preceeding the initiation of such undgergraduate students to
> Advisory Membership."
>
> all right, the first clause is from the national bylaws (or at least
> that's how it read in my outdated copy)...
>
> the second clause is an exception to the first...
> advisory membership may be conferred upon undergraduate students only
> when they could not have become active for ______ number of years
> prior to becoming an advisor....
>
> the language is a bit choppy...but it was the best i could think of at
> the time that would be bylaws appropirate...obviouslly, im open to
> better wording....
>
> basically, it would prohibit the recent alum from becoming advisors,
> but does so without providing an "age" limit...but it permits those
> cases where older non trad students could become an advisor despite
> the fact that they are undergraduate studetns
>
> now that i think about it...it doesn't really help the
> situation...technically, all students when they first arrive are
> "ineligible" for active membership
>
> so i think the language needs to be tweaked....but i think you get my idea
>
> --chuck
>
> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:48:19 -0400, Michael Gallagher <famtree@udel.edu> wrote:
> > Chuck, I haven't had time to read the slew of emails & respond to them
> > all, but I don't understand the language you are suggesting, paricularly
> > the second clause (funny for an Active who cited USTC provision 501c3 at
> > a CPW RT). Could you clarify?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Michael Gallagher
> >
> >
> >
> > Charles Brace wrote:
> >
> > > i think the whole point of the legislation was to allow older students
> > > who are technically undergrads to become advisors...it is meant to
> > > permit the "non-traditional" student who was never involved in APO,
> > > but has the experience that a chapter could find useful to still
> > > become an advisor
> > >
> > > the lower age restriction is to prohibit those very recent alumni who
> > > are going back for a second degree, or for those older actives who
> > > have been an undergrad for longer than the traditional 8 semesters to
> > > be immediately elevated to the position of an advisor.
> > >
> > > i think the change makes some sense. think of this scenerio...a staff
> > > advisor...who works for the university in a non-faculty position,
> > > decides to take advantage of the school's employee benefit of
> > > attending classes for free or at a reduced rate....this advisor, by
> > > the fact that he/'she is taking undergrad courses towards a bachelor's
> > > degree is now considered an undergraduate student....so now, this
> > > advisor (maybe long time advisor), must resign from his/her position
> > > as advisor because of our national bylaws.
> > >
> > > or better yet, your scouting or community advisor goes back to school.
> > >
> > > the point of prohibiting undergraduate students from becoming advisors
> > > stems from a traditional view of the college world. the fraternity,
> > > as a policy, does not want students who just got out of high school,
> > > and who could easily pledge, from getting around the pledging
> > > requirement by becmoning an advisor.
> > >
> > > note, that the rule is NOT that students cannot become advisors.
> > > graduate students are permitted to become advisors (even if that grad
> > > student is 21 and just graduated with a bachelor's)....also note that
> > > grad students are permitted to pledge (however, that may not be the
> > > case at every chapter, because of school rules)
> > >
> > > we say that grad students, although permitted to pledge, may become
> > > advisors because (1) they may have experience that the chapter could
> > > utilize; (2) they usually don't have the time to commit to being a
> > > full time active (yes, being an advisor is no where near the same
> > > committment as being an active).
> > >
> > > an older undgergrad also has the same reasons....they may have
> > > families or full time jobs that take up time....they may have world or
> > > other applicable experience that could assist the
> > > chapter....further....while there are some exceptions, many
> > > non-traditional undergraduate students do not want to become actively
> > > involved in student organizations, (i'd imagine partly because student
> > > org membership is made up of younger, traditional, college students)
> > >
> > > ultimately, however, any change would do very little....i don't see
> > > any chapter going out and "recruiting" advisors from the
> > > non-traditional student ogranization. Many advisors are either school
> > > staff/faculty, fraternity alumni, or civic leaders (including scout
> > > leaders).....this legislation would merely permit those few cases
> > > where otherwise eligible adviors decide to go back to school to finish
> > > up or obtain a degree to continue to be or become advisors.
> > >
> > > NOW, THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT
> > > is that by placing an age....we are (1) determining a base age one has
> > > to be in order to be an advisor...(2) saying that only those under
> > > this age are permitted to be active brothers.....
> > >
> > > while none of these statements are completely accurate...i feel that
> > > that will be the preception....
> > >
> > > for example....a younger, say age 25, non traditioanl student, decides
> > > to get involved in campus life, and wants to get involved in the
> > > fraternity...the chapter, knowing of the age provision, suggests that
> > > this student become an advisor...however, that student, wants to
> > > become an active member...now, this prospective pledge is basically
> > > told that he/she is told old to pledge and that he/she should consider
> > > becoming an advisor instead...the fraterntiy may lose a great active
> > > brother because of the age provision
> > >
> > > or, let's say that the student expresses concerns about the time
> > > committment in pledgeing (as many prospectives and even pledges
> > > currently do who are 18, 19, 20 years old). now, we have a student
> > > who wanted to be active, being admitted as an advisor because of time
> > > concerns, and who will, in practice, act as an active (and not as an
> > > advisor)
> > >
> > > our fraternity is diverse....we should not be placing age limits on
> > > levels of membership.
> > >
> > > so then, what do we do? if we don't adopt the age provision,
> > > university staff who go back to school and others such as that cannot
> > > become advisors or are forced to resign.
> > >
> > > if we do adopt the age provision, we begin to create the preception
> > > that we are only a fraternity for the traditioanl
> > > student....non-traditional students need not apply.
> > >
> > > i proprose the following language
> > > "Such Membership may not be conferred upon undergraduate students,
> > > except such Membership may be conferred upon undgergraduate students
> > > who were otherwise ineligible for Active Membership for the _______
> > > years preceeding the initiation of such undgergraduate students to
> > > Advisory Membership."
> > >
> > > this avoids the preception of an "age" limit and solves the problems i
> > > mentioned abvoe.
> > >
> > > thanks for reading this entire post....and i hope that i've helped in
> > > the discussion....
> > >
> > > lfs
> > > --chuck brace
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 14:49:43 -0400, Brad Barnett <loaapres@apoloaa.org> 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
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ________________________________________________
> > > Charles Brace, Esq.
> > > Admitted in Pennsylvania
> > > brace347@gmail.com
> > >
> > > Alpha Phi Omega, National Service Fraternity
> > > Pi Chi Chapter (Duquesne University) - SPC '97
> > > Phi Chapter (Syracuse University) - S '02
> > >
> > > Region II Leadership Development Chair
> > > Achieve Director
> >
>
> --
> ________________________________________________
> Charles Brace, Esq.
> Admitted in Pennsylvania
> brace347@gmail.com
>
> Alpha Phi Omega, National Service Fraternity
> Pi Chi Chapter (Duquesne University) - SPC '97
> Phi Chapter (Syracuse University) - S '02
>
> Region II Leadership Development Chair
> Achieve Director
>
