aTmAg said:

---

Bryan98 said:

---

Sir, you've created a total false dichotomy by comparing contract cadets to the general population, instead of contract cadets to D&C cadets. Virtually the same selection process occurs with D&C cadets that occurs with contract cadets. In fact, except for the 1% or so that might have a military scholarship going in (assuming that's still a thing), they are the exact same people for the first couple of years, until they decide whether to take a contract.

---

In fact, it's sort of a recruiting tool to encourage more people to go into the military. I know plenty of people who thought they were going to go D&C who eventually took a contract.

If you want to make sure fewer people take the military option, then make them pick D&C or contract on day one. That would be a great way to achieve that.

---

Exactly right. There are many that decide after two years that the military is for them after all. Some even still decide later on when they are Juniors or Seniors, but go a different commissioning route (OCS) and some even enlist.

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bryan98 said:

---

Sir, you've created a total false dichotomy by comparing contract cadets to the general population, instead of contract cadets to D&C cadets. Virtually the same selection process occurs with D&C cadets that occurs with contract cadets. In fact, except for the 1% or so that might have a military scholarship going in (assuming that's still a thing), they are the exact same people for the first couple of years, until they decide whether to take a contract.

---

In fact, it's sort of a recruiting tool to encourage more people to go into the military. I know plenty of people who thought they were going to go D&C who eventually took a contract.

If you want to make sure fewer people take the military option, then make them pick D&C or contract on day one. That would be a great way to achieve that.

---

Exactly right. There are many that decide after two years that the military is for them after all. Some even still decide later on when they are Juniors or Seniors, but go a different commissioning route (OCS) and some even enlist.

---

Also, some cadets who want to go contract wind up getting injured or some other issue that prevents them from serving. D&C is a good safety net for those cadets. They stay in the same unit with their buddies, they don't instantly become a Dorm God because they broke their leg at Jump School.

japantiger said:

---

HollywoodBQ said:

---

japantiger said:

---

Hazing culture and unqualified Sophomores and upper classmen responsible for training Freshmen.

---

I agree with you in principle however...

This is real life when you get out in the civilian world. Especially in this modern era of DEIB and diversity hires.

Not the first time I've been in this type of situation but I'm currently reporting to an immigrant who has no clue about American business or how to develop a technical team to perform work in the USA. It's far worse than just complaining about us not putting the new cover sheet on the TPS reports.

His manager is overseas and she has even less of a clue. But yay, women in technology.

I remember two particular sophomores that were just dumber than a box of rocks that I had to deal with as a fish. That type of environment prepared me well for being able to tolerate insane criticism and incorrect guidance from morons who are above me that I have no way to escape from.

To tie it back to the military aspect, when I got to my first National Guard unit, my Company Commander was an absentee leader who I couldn't go around and who was not capable of helping me achieve the goals that my tank platoon needed to achieve (thank God for a great NCO as my Platoon Sergeant, a great Mexican-American 1st Cav Vietnam Veteran who was one of my Tank Commanders and a 1st Cav Desert Storm Veteran who was my other Tank Commander).

My Company Commander was rated very highly though because... we were at 100% strength for our unit which was all that mattered in that era. Numbers outweighed quality in the eyes of the higher ups in the Guard. Similar to the Corps of Cadets where what is rated and valued at the higher level might not be in alignment with what you are working towards in your unit.

Anyway, I found it to be beneficial in the long run to be majoring in Engineering while getting dogged out by an untrained Drill & Ceremonies - Construction Science Major who espoused the virtues of not having to take complex Math courses. Tragically, not long after college, he took his own life.

But that's real life too. When I was in Denver, I worked for a crazy woman who had her own hazing ritual that she put me through. Shortly after I left that company and moved to California, I heard that she had a nervous breakdown. I like to think that her not being able to break me was a contributing factor.

In summary, yeah, we'd like to all have the best leaders with the best training but unfortunately, when you get out in the real world, you won't.

---

So, because you might have to work for a "dick" or a "Karen", we shouldn't focus on ensuring the people training the new Cadets have a level of competency in both what to train and how to train aspiring Cadets? I struggle to get the logic in that. Yes, it is possible to overcome bad training. Why would you set up an institution that operates on that as an organizing principle?

---

The Texas A&M Corps of Cadets is a leadership laboratory.
A safe space where it's OK to make mistakes and learn from them.

In the same way that the Armor School isn't at Fort Hood (now Cavazos). You get to learn about tanking in a learning environment. But you're not also trying to major in Engineering, Business, etc. while you're doing it, the Army is your full time job in those scenarios.

Should the cadets have good training on how to be a leader, of course they should.
But, we could also take other aspects of the Corps experience and improve those, physical fitness comes to mind.

I didn't learn how to properly exercise until I was 48 years old and started going to my local F45 gym regularly which of course was killed off by Governor Newsom. Our Corps exercise was basically, we're going for a group run, "Fall-In", and don't fall out, or else. And upper body was - your buddy screwed up, do push ups.

The current Texas A&M Corps of Cadets system is pretty good but certainly could use some improvements. One thing I really liked when my daughter went to VMI was the way that they have every Rat assigned to a First Class Cadet. In the A&M system, by the time the cadets reach their fourth year, most of them have checked out and have little interaction with those new cadets.

Anyway, no perfect answer here but, this whole episode was sparked by a stealth mode solution proposal that was created with no apparent business case need. The kind of proposal that is going to get you laughed out of VC meetings on Sand Hill Road.

ValleyRatAg said:

---

I was in the Corps. My son will be a freshman in the fall. My buddies and I had him on the tipping point to join. Once these plans came out he decided he wouldn't join. There are others like him.

---

I've been pretty happy my son decided not to do the cadet corps. This latest silliness didn't impact his decision though; he gets his ring next month.

This guy hates the Corps. His opinion is worthless. I think his girlfriend dumped him for a CT.

my son is a fish in an all-male outfit and he says that it's too easy. He joined the Corps to be challenged mentally and physically. The commandant wants to retain EVERYONE. You can't get to 3000 by retaining a bunch of sissies!! Make it a challenge or the D&C guys will have NO reason to join the Corps, and they make up 50% of the Corps population.

Commandant needs to stand down!!!

fc2112 said:

---

I love how so many hear think they know better than the United States Military Academy, et al, on how to run a Corps of Cadets.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they Corps at the service academies are superior to ours in preparing officers to serve our country.

---

Training officers for the military is just one of many objectives for the Corps at A&M, it is the only objective at the Academies. Thus you can't compare them. The Academies aren't surrounded by a campus that is 95% non Corps. They don't have 4 Branches of the Service. They don't have half their cadets not taking contracts. They also have everyone on full scholarship while contract cadets at A&M vary widely in terms of the type of contractual obligations they have.

Thus the Corps at A&M HAS to have a very different mission. Certainly training great officers is part of that. Developing Leaders for the State and Nation though is the goal of the Corps and that doesn't require a contract. The unusual aspect of being 2000 out of 70,000 students is also a great challenge and opportunity, you simply can't act as if the other 68,000 students don't exist when as soon as a cadet steps off the Quad to go to class they enter a completely different world. The ability to have that diverse experience is what makes the Corps such a great opportunity but it takes the right leader who understands that. If you just want it to be "Academy Lite" it's going to fail miserably. If you want it to be a glorified ROTC it will fail miserably. It has to embrace that unique culture to be successful and not try to be like other schools because there is no other school like it, Virginia Tech is the only one even remotely similar and it is still vastly different.

japantiger said:

---

mccjames said:

---

Totally disagree with your last part. But that is just me.

That is what makes A&M unique and different. If you just want to go military then don't join the Corps at A&M and go ROTC somewhere. You can dress up once a week and go to OCS and join your branch.

You join the Corps at A&M to be as diverse as possible leader in the military and in life. My experience is from several decades ago, but I have friends whose kids have just graduated and I think it still stands.

---

I felt that way initially too. What I saw and heard in practice was ROTC cadets having their efforts dumbed down to the point of uselessness to accommodate the least common denominator civilian Corp culture.

---

Sidenote, please put an "s" on Corps. Tsips and others have used "corp" as a dumb insult for a long time but I think it is just an oversight by you and not intentionally meant to offend.

As you stated, you weren't in the Corps and you don't really understand it. Your vision of the Corps is based solely on the contract cadet mindset and preparation for the military and an assumption that anyone not doing that must be lesser or that most of them are lesser. That simply isn't reality. The biggest ****** by far in my outfit was contract for instance who had a 4 year scholarship. He almost got kicked out of the Corps multiple times but ended up graduating and going in the military and was kicked out within a couple of years to no one's surprise. We can all find examples of bad on both sides.

Had 6 of us that were D&C and all of us have been successful in life. All of us look back to our time in the Corps as being very impactful towards that purpose. It was very hard and we lost more than half of what we started with but those of us to made it through (other than the ****** mentioned who we don't associate with) are tight to this day and involved in each other's lives.

If your goal is purely to be in a military environment then A&M is not the best choice. There are the Academies or even The Citadel or VMI that are much more singularly focused than A&M if that is what you want.

My grandfather was there as a freshman during that time. No he did not quite either. It was a horrible experience he would tell you. What you must realize is a "Cadet" getting back from WW2 was not the same a freshman out of highschool. These guys were serious killers who just survived the war. Needless to say Corps games were not all that fun for them.

But Carry on about how it was a great idea back then.

The notion that D&C cadets are the "lowest common denominator" is hilarious. Most of the engineering cadets are D&C, for example. Hell, during my time, all 4 of the COs of my outfit were D&C. As was the one we selected for the following year.

The fact that A&M has educators that are all civilian is what makes it vastly academically superior to the academies. We don't limit ourselves to professors and deans that are (or were) in the military. So we can get the best of the best.

CorpsTerd04 said:

---

My grandfather was there as a freshman during that time. No he did not quite either. It was a horrible experience he would tell you. What you must realize is a "Cadet" getting back from WW2 was not the same a freshman out of highschool. These guys were serious killers who just survived the war. Needless to say Corps games were not all that fun for them.

But Carry on about how it was a great idea back then.

---

Couldn't agree more. I would almost make it akin to saying that we survived doing online school for Covid so we should just emulate that going forward.

My Dad was '58 and was right after they brought them back to the dorms and had a great (though very tough) experience. None of the guys I met from earlier classes he knew talked about the Riverside experiment as anything other than a necessary evil at best, certainly not something they wanted to come back again. This Commandant seems to be missing that entire part of the story.

I bumped into a couple of cadets at the airport on their way home for spring break. I asked about things on the quad. Both said the feel has totally changed this spring. I pushed on that a bit and was told the feeling is that the new corps arrangement is still going to happen. They heard it from corps staff.

Where is BG Michalis during all of this? Something doesn't pass the smell test with the secrecy surrounding this.

Leadership just announced. First gay corps commander?

Barnyard96 said:

---

Leadership just announced. First gay corps commander?

---

Is this for real?

Its what I was told

Barnyard96 said:

---

Leadership just announced. First gay corps commander?

---

Not the first but yeah. He's gay

n1mr0d said:

---

I bumped into a couple of cadets at the airport on their way home for spring break. I asked about things on the quad. Both said the feel has totally changed this spring. I pushed on that a bit and was told the feeling is that the new corps arrangement is still going to happen. They heard it from corps staff.

Where is BG Michalis during all of this? Something doesn't pass the smell test with the secrecy surrounding this.

---

It's not gonna happen. If he doesn't change his mind he will be fired

O/U on the first trans corps commander? I give it 5 years.

If you wanna do something about it- write in!! I wrote so many time BG called me last week and we spoke for 40 mins.

kb2001 said:

---

Probably an unpopular take on this...

It's not the worst idea ever. They did this in the 50s also, putting the fish out at Riverside campus in the old barracks, and only some upperclassmen were allowed out there.

His point is that every outfit does things their own way, and it's no longer one corps. The focus is on the outfit specific "traditions" and less about the unified corps way of doing things. His goal is to flush out the old culture of "we've always done it this way", and this is one idea to do it. Realistically, the way it's "always been done" is likely something new in the last 10 years.

This isn't new, the corps pushed the fish out to Riverside campus to flush out the culture of hazing that was getting out of hand. They shut down Fish Drill Team for several years to flush out the culture and get it back to precise D&C. Outfits get disbanded to get rid of a bad culture more often than you realize. This is a reset to get all outfits operating on the same page and in the same way, and to flush out that "sacred outfit tradition" that started 10 years ago.

I don't necessarily agree with this extreme of a change, but I understand why he wants to do it, and he's not wrong about the way things in the corps have forked and split over the years.

---

why should there be vicious hazing when most of them don't become actual Army officers?

just to give them the experience of being in a fraternity with cool boots?

aggie93 said:

---

japantiger said:

---

mccjames said:

---

Totally disagree with your last part. But that is just me.

That is what makes A&M unique and different. If you just want to go military then don't join the Corps at A&M and go ROTC somewhere. You can dress up once a week and go to OCS and join your branch.

You join the Corps at A&M to be as diverse as possible leader in the military and in life. My experience is from several decades ago, but I have friends whose kids have just graduated and I think it still stands.

---

I felt that way initially too. What I saw and heard in practice was ROTC cadets having their efforts dumbed down to the point of uselessness to accommodate the least common denominator civilian Corp culture.

---

Sidenote, please put an "s" on Corps. Tsips and others have used "corp" as a dumb insult for a long time but I think it is just an oversight by you and not intentionally meant to offend.

As you stated, you weren't in the Corps and you don't really understand it. Your vision of the Corps is based solely on the contract cadet mindset and preparation for the military and an assumption that anyone not doing that must be lesser or that most of them are lesser. That simply isn't reality. The biggest ****** by far in my outfit was contract for instance who had a 4 year scholarship. He almost got kicked out of the Corps multiple times but ended up graduating and going in the military and was kicked out within a couple of years to no one's surprise. We can all find examples of bad on both sides.

Had 6 of us that were D&C and all of us have been successful in life. All of us look back to our time in the Corps as being very impactful towards that purpose. It was very hard and we lost more than half of what we started with but those of us to made it through (other than the ****** mentioned who we don't associate with) are tight to this day and involved in each other's lives.

If your goal is purely to be in a military environment then A&M is not the best choice. There are the Academies or even The Citadel or VMI that are much more singularly focused than A&M if that is what you want.

---

As for the "official" strata of Cadets, I lack significant knowledge. There is a hard-charger class; and a very large group who cares little for the discipline, fitness, etc., that goes along with the Corps myth. Things are being dumbed down to that larger population.

If there are naturally two big groups; then the training and curriculum should reflect that reality. I'm address the broad averages; not the one exception on either side of this that we can all cite. The people enforcing whatever the standard is should be trained to effectively carry it out...or they shouldn't be doing it.

When you take 700 or so Sophomores (rough size of any class) and don't train them on how to effectively train and nurture Cadets, the likelihood of getting anything approaching uniform quality; or frankly any quality, training approaches zero.

aTmAg said:

---

O/U on the first trans corps commander? I give it 5 years.

---

2

japantiger said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

japantiger said:

---

mccjames said:

---

Totally disagree with your last part. But that is just me.

That is what makes A&M unique and different. If you just want to go military then don't join the Corps at A&M and go ROTC somewhere. You can dress up once a week and go to OCS and join your branch.

You join the Corps at A&M to be as diverse as possible leader in the military and in life. My experience is from several decades ago, but I have friends whose kids have just graduated and I think it still stands.

---

I felt that way initially too. What I saw and heard in practice was ROTC cadets having their efforts dumbed down to the point of uselessness to accommodate the least common denominator civilian Corp culture.

---

Sidenote, please put an "s" on Corps. Tsips and others have used "corp" as a dumb insult for a long time but I think it is just an oversight by you and not intentionally meant to offend.

As you stated, you weren't in the Corps and you don't really understand it. Your vision of the Corps is based solely on the contract cadet mindset and preparation for the military and an assumption that anyone not doing that must be lesser or that most of them are lesser. That simply isn't reality. The biggest ****** by far in my outfit was contract for instance who had a 4 year scholarship. He almost got kicked out of the Corps multiple times but ended up graduating and going in the military and was kicked out within a couple of years to no one's surprise. We can all find examples of bad on both sides.

Had 6 of us that were D&C and all of us have been successful in life. All of us look back to our time in the Corps as being very impactful towards that purpose. It was very hard and we lost more than half of what we started with but those of us to made it through (other than the ****** mentioned who we don't associate with) are tight to this day and involved in each other's lives.

If your goal is purely to be in a military environment then A&M is not the best choice. There are the Academies or even The Citadel or VMI that are much more singularly focused than A&M if that is what you want.

---

As for the "official" strata of Cadets, I lack significant knowledge. There is a hard-charger class; and a very large group who cares little for the discipline, fitness, etc., that goes along with the Corps myth. Things are being dumbed down to that larger population.

If there are naturally two big groups; then the training and curriculum should reflect that reality. I'm address the broad averages; not the one exception on either side of this that we can all cite. The people enforcing whatever the standard is should be trained to effectively carry it out...or they shouldn't be doing it.

When you take 700 or so Sophomores (rough size of any class) and don't train them on how to effectively train and nurture Cadets, the likelihood of getting anything approaching uniform quality; or frankly any quality, training approaches zero.

---

Of course there is training and there are Corps standards that should be met. That's not in question. This is about changing the method to something that is doomed to fail because the Corps is not uniform. You have 4 very different branches to begin with. The Army, Air Force, Navy/Marine, and Band. All have different needs and objectives. That doesn't even account for the D&C component or the individual unit specialty components.

Once again if you want a uniform experience there are other places you can go, it just doesn't work at A&M. You can have uniform standards but there will always be significant differences between units and that's a good thing we should embrace and use as a strength not a weakness. When an outfit doesn't meet basic standards then take action of course but try to emulate the stronger outfits.

It's simply very hard to explain or understand from the outside.

Chips2003 said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

I love how so many hear think they know better than the United States Military Academy, et al, on how to run a Corps of Cadets.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they Corps at the service academies are superior to ours in preparing officers to serve our country.

---

God I wish I still had the laugh/cry emoji.

---

Here you can borrow mine.

Fall of 52 Fish were all together

EagleCamden said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

Leadership just announced. First gay corps commander?

---

Not the first but yeah. He's gay

---

Yes, can confirm from multiple sources...

LMCane said:

---

kb2001 said:

---

Probably an unpopular take on this...

It's not the worst idea ever. They did this in the 50s also, putting the fish out at Riverside campus in the old barracks, and only some upperclassmen were allowed out there.

His point is that every outfit does things their own way, and it's no longer one corps. The focus is on the outfit specific "traditions" and less about the unified corps way of doing things. His goal is to flush out the old culture of "we've always done it this way", and this is one idea to do it. Realistically, the way it's "always been done" is likely something new in the last 10 years.

This isn't new, the corps pushed the fish out to Riverside campus to flush out the culture of hazing that was getting out of hand. They shut down Fish Drill Team for several years to flush out the culture and get it back to precise D&C. Outfits get disbanded to get rid of a bad culture more often than you realize. This is a reset to get all outfits operating on the same page and in the same way, and to flush out that "sacred outfit tradition" that started 10 years ago.

I don't necessarily agree with this extreme of a change, but I understand why he wants to do it, and he's not wrong about the way things in the corps have forked and split over the years.

---

why should there be vicious hazing when most of them don't become actual Army officers?

just to give them the experience of being in a fraternity with cool boots?

---

Have you ever even been on the A&M campus?

The problem today isn't hazing. It's pussification.

You are right. This whole country is being pussified.
Here is a link to a petition.

Save the Corps

I noticed one of the "Decision Makers" listed on that petition is President of TAMU Michael Young... who hasn't been our president for 3.5 years...