JB99 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

aggiez03 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Ok, I guess as a non-reg, I don't see the problem here. From what I am reading, this "basic training" period will be 8 weeks. After that, they will train with their unit, and beginning in the spring they will live with their unit in a dedicated hallway. So are y'all saying that unit training is so specific and different between units that missing September and most of October in the fall of their first year will irreparably harm the ability of an outfit to instill their own culture? So everything the outfit learns that makes them unique happens in the first 8 weeks of school? And if that is lost, the unit culture will be lost forever with no chance of recovery in the remaining weeks of the first fall or any of the seven semesters after that?

Sorry, I am just not buying it. If the idea is to train future military leaders, presumably the corps should have one training program that seeks to make the most out of every member. If there are "good units" and "mediocre" units, then the goal should be to bring more of the leadership from the good units into the mediocre ones until you can make them all good. What everybody seems to be arguing for is to preserve the system that results in some of the outfits being good at the expense of the rest of the outfits. When members of the corps go into one of the branches of the military, they don't get to pick their outfit and only go if they get the good one they want to be in. They need to be able to get along with and work well with the people they serve with regardless of how they got thrown together.

I am sure I am going to get hammered by a bunch of people telling me that I just can't understand how important the bond of the outfit is, but I want each of you to tell me while you do it whether you think the goal of the corps should be to produce the best college ROTC level outfit or the best future leader. The corps may be made up of outfits filled with individuals, but every one of those individuals is part of the same corps. The goal in my mind should be to give every one of them the best shot to be a leader, not to segregate some from the beginning into units that may not prepare them to be the best because they found their way into the wrong silo before they ever set foot on campus.

---

Not correct.

The fish will not live with their outfit till 2nd semester, so it is August - January 15th, no upperclassmen will have any interaction with their fish.

If they want to have that experience then setup up a few outfits that are exclusively military and you get to move around every year. If people want to sign up for that, then they can.

Why fix outfits that are not 'broken'?

---

That isn't what is said in the OP. In the OP, it says they will train in the major units for the first 8 weeks, but after that they will train with their selected unit for the rest of the fall semester. You are correct that they would not live together in one hallway until the spring semester, but unless I am misunderstanding it, they would be training with the outfit upper classmen beginning in the middle of the 1st semester.

---

As a nonreg, you have no idea what any of this means, so stop trying to correct people.

Training time in "the designated outfit area" is not interacting with the upperclassmen. Not everyone goes to every training time because of class. Usually it's PT time and there's not much "interaction." Hallway time, chow, boot pulls, etc are interaction.

---

When I was in the Corps 95-99 they could **** with you throughout the day except during the study hour at night. In the hall way, in your room. on the quad. Didn't matter. Now they have specific training times like right before chow, and they can't make them PT in the hallway or in their room. This change is just another incremental change. It's not going to kill the Corps anymore than the changes between when I was a fish and right now.

---

JB99 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

aggiez03 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Ok, I guess as a non-reg, I don't see the problem here. From what I am reading, this "basic training" period will be 8 weeks. After that, they will train with their unit, and beginning in the spring they will live with their unit in a dedicated hallway. So are y'all saying that unit training is so specific and different between units that missing September and most of October in the fall of their first year will irreparably harm the ability of an outfit to instill their own culture? So everything the outfit learns that makes them unique happens in the first 8 weeks of school? And if that is lost, the unit culture will be lost forever with no chance of recovery in the remaining weeks of the first fall or any of the seven semesters after that?

Sorry, I am just not buying it. If the idea is to train future military leaders, presumably the corps should have one training program that seeks to make the most out of every member. If there are "good units" and "mediocre" units, then the goal should be to bring more of the leadership from the good units into the mediocre ones until you can make them all good. What everybody seems to be arguing for is to preserve the system that results in some of the outfits being good at the expense of the rest of the outfits. When members of the corps go into one of the branches of the military, they don't get to pick their outfit and only go if they get the good one they want to be in. They need to be able to get along with and work well with the people they serve with regardless of how they got thrown together.

I am sure I am going to get hammered by a bunch of people telling me that I just can't understand how important the bond of the outfit is, but I want each of you to tell me while you do it whether you think the goal of the corps should be to produce the best college ROTC level outfit or the best future leader. The corps may be made up of outfits filled with individuals, but every one of those individuals is part of the same corps. The goal in my mind should be to give every one of them the best shot to be a leader, not to segregate some from the beginning into units that may not prepare them to be the best because they found their way into the wrong silo before they ever set foot on campus.

---

Not correct.

The fish will not live with their outfit till 2nd semester, so it is August - January 15th, no upperclassmen will have any interaction with their fish.

If they want to have that experience then setup up a few outfits that are exclusively military and you get to move around every year. If people want to sign up for that, then they can.

Why fix outfits that are not 'broken'?

---

That isn't what is said in the OP. In the OP, it says they will train in the major units for the first 8 weeks, but after that they will train with their selected unit for the rest of the fall semester. You are correct that they would not live together in one hallway until the spring semester, but unless I am misunderstanding it, they would be training with the outfit upper classmen beginning in the middle of the 1st semester.

---

As a nonreg, you have no idea what any of this means, so stop trying to correct people.

Training time in "the designated outfit area" is not interacting with the upperclassmen. Not everyone goes to every training time because of class. Usually it's PT time and there's not much "interaction." Hallway time, chow, boot pulls, etc are interaction.

---

When I was in the Corps 95-99 they could **** with you throughout the day except during the study hour at night. In the hall way, in your room. on the quad. Didn't matter. Now they have specific training times like right before chow, and they can't make them PT in the hallway or in their room. This change is just another incremental change. It's not going to kill the Corps anymore than the changes between when I was a fish and right now.

---

El Guero said:

---

Class of 98 here. I hate to hear these plans. I have a senior in high school that planned on joining the Corps. This will kill that. The best part of my Corps experience was the fish year and the outfit culture. The comments in this thread that are blue starred clearly show that most people agree that this is a terrible idea.

I wonder when they plan on telling next year's fish about these plans. I wonder how many would not join. They need to communicate what is going to happen ASAP. Those that will not join the this proposed version of the Corps need to have time to make other housing arrangements.

By the way, I don't think contract cadets are any where near 50%. I bet it is closer to 70% non contract to 30% contract. Most kids are not going into the Corps with plans on joining any branch of the military.

And....sometimes it is not a bad thing when a cadet quits. It does not have to be for everyone.

---

Quote:

---

A two part response (because it is long): Part 1
All well, looks like the rumor mill got well ahead of a final decision.
This below is a long post with a lot in it so strap in for a moment: Last week, after a lot of discussion and working groups, I made a call to move out on planning to restructure Cadet 'socialization' and 'leadership education'. Below lays out the logic it is long, but it is because there is a lot to process in the 'why' here.
Since November I've had the staff working through options directly addressing the balance between the communal/fraternal aspects of the Corps experience and the leader training and education program that the Corps (and the Office of the Commandant) mission reflects.
Observations:
- Tradition above leader development. There is a certain truth to a note sent to me by a Cadet earlier this year when we had a discussion about the culture of the Corps. To quote: "Too often we put tradition above leadership development".
- Outfit culture is challenging Corps culture. If you've witnessed the drop in basic Corps standards such as 'whipping out', uniform standards, simple things such as a lack of ability (or enthusiasm) to rally behind a 'Corps Hump it' this is what I'm talking about. Watch underclassmen address upperclassmen on/off the quad: for the most part it is only directed within the outfit we are not meeting expectations this way.
- Corps standards and values don't apply to my unit. I've detected an 'it does not apply to me or my unit' pattern. This is deeply embedded in the previous two points.
- Peer accountability is hard. I remain steadfastly committed to empower student leadership with authority and responsibility, but it also means they are accountable within a set of standards and values. Holding each other accountable is the hardest act of leadership there is growth here, and it continues to grow. Young leaders are grasping (and not grasping) that being 'student led' also means it is within a framework of guidance, standards, values, and accountability.
- We need to expand leadership opportunities. Our breadth of leadership positions within the Corps are lacking. This become very apparent in the limited roles the majority of our White Belts have to expand their leadership experiences. Can we provide 'purpose' here?
- Our leadership development program needs work. We spend a lot of time discussing the 'Be' and 'Do' of leadership, but we are all over the map with 'Know'. A lack of an integrated curriculum map with clear learning objectives the build off each other. ROTC leader development classes and SOMS should be complimentary… but we have drifted in mapping an effective course design. Because we don't have that, SOMS classes have become less effective than they could be. In essence: the lessons of SOMS are 'skipping' off the Corps experience.
- Our retention statistics are telling. From a perspective of statistics I offer the following: We spent an inordinate amount of time working with Cadet Leadership to 'be' the very best example (Know and Do) of a cadre for incoming freshmen for FOW last year. It was the first time in a while that Cadets were in the lead. And they did a OUTSTANDING job leading, coaching, inspiring, teaching being aspirational to every new freshmen. The numbers told the story: we lost just over 1% of freshmen that week. An incredible tribute to leadership in action. But then the rest of the Corps returned the first weekend, and within 3 weeks our attrition bumped to 10%. An incredible statistic that can be interpreted in a myriad of ways. I chose to interpret it this way: our investment in (1) leadership development of 'ALL' cadets is not where it needs to be, and (2) our Freshmen were not given the time/space to be totally prepared for the rigors of cadet life in an academic setting. This is also a realization that students coming to A&M are probably smarter than most of us where when we showed up, but at the same time, they are less mature.
Current Actions that have been in place:
- Connecting 'recruiting to retention' an initiative brought forward by Cadet leadership under the assumption that if you have the right culture, you should be rewarded: outfits can recruit 1.5 times the number of freshmen that remain at the end of the school year. This allows outfits that 'have it right' to flourish, and those that don't, to either recover, or attrit themselves out of existence. Yes, Darwin is at work here, and it should be an incentive that works both ways. If you have a bad year retention-wise you can recover if you've got the right culture.
- Re-mapping 'core curriculum'. We are in the process of looking at every aspect of how we bring the leadership models to each cadet. What should every freshmen know? How does it tie to their next leadership experience? How do we validate 'knowledge' and 'certify' expertise before they lead freshmen? What do rising sophomores, juniors, seniors need to know to be successful? How do we create a curriculum map that builds on itself? I am intimately involved in getting this right. We are starting now with a top-down approach to arm every rising sophomore and rising junior with the 'tools' to be a better leader at echelon. This is manifesting itself in a spring surge in leadership development led personally by the staff on Monday and Friday mornings.
- We are re-writing the 'Standard' and the 'Cadence'. We are writing Commandant's Guidance to the Corps in the form of an 'order' that gives the framework for success… and models the behaviors we seek to impart.
- We are hiring 4 Leader Development Advisors who will be someone cadets want to emulate' to focus on bringing leadership models and reflection to the practical application of every Cadet's leadership journey both on and off the quad.
- We are addressing the maturity of our Cadets by focusing on arming them with the five factors of resilience and how they intersect: physical, mental, sleep, performance nutrition, and spiritual. All in an effort to get left of harmful behaviors by helping each Cadet build resiliency in a way that helps them drive through adversity whether on the battlefield or in life.
Internal Discussions:
So the questions posed by me to the staff at the end of last semester: Why do we do FOW the way we do? Is it ground in history, tradition, or outcomes? Do we continue to do FOW the same way we've always done it? How do we re-imagine leadership development to better prepare rising sophomores and rising juniors for their next (if not first) leadership experience in the Corps, if not life? How do we more rigorously, intentionally, and immersively bring leadership training and education to life? How do we achieve balance between the twin aspects of the Corps experience: leadership development and tradition. How do we make them mutually supportive rather than mutually exclusive? Reinforcing rather than the polarizing.
The working groups looked at multiple ways to addressing the above questions. We looked at models where it is working. We questioned the assumptions behind the way we've always done it. We looked at time requirements. We challenged ourselves to keep in balance the tension between the fraternal aspects of the Corps and the Leader of Character mission we are charged with.

PART 2:
A 'plan to plan' this is what I said to move out on:
Go bold in honoring the past but pushing ourselves into the future to remain relevant. To transform the Corps experience to provide leaders of character to the state and nation at a time we need to most.
First, we are establishing a 'Sophomore Leadership Academy'. This is focused on rising sophomores in the second semester of their fish year, and culminates during the first few weeks of the Sophomore year. This will focus on educating, training, modeling, scenario/case study, demonstrating, and certifying that they (1) understand, and (2) can execute what it means to lead in a demanding and aspirational way. No longer can we tolerate the 'least qualified leading the most vulnerable'.
Second we are extending the orientation period of incoming freshmen to focus on outcomes to be successful: A common understanding of traditions, values, standards; to set conditions for success academically; to incorporate the five factors of resilience into the fabric of the Corps experience; and to drive an articulation of the value proposition of the Corps.
The combining of these two initiatives involves some pretty significant adaptations of the Corps experience up front to ensure we mature the Corps experience in a way that is valuable to all.
The extended Freshmen orientation will last about 5-6 weeks (around Fall Break), culminating in the pinning of Corps Brass. It will be led under a cadre of about 200 Seniors and Juniors who will be exclusively responsible to the training and education of the outcomes listed above. The Freshmen will be consolidated under Major unit 'pods'. Simultaneous to this the Sophomores will be completing their 'certifications' under the Sophomore Leadership Academy. As they graduate, they will be incorporated into the cadre.
After the Freshmen class has successfully been pinned, there is a transition from Cadre to outfit leadership this transition more closely matches the mental model we all have of our experience. The next 7-8 weeks is outfit integration that rides on (1) the commons set of standards, values, and traditions that all Cadets learn, and (2) under the leadership of outfits (Sophomores who have graduated from the Sophomore Leadership Academy), Juniors, and Senior into the unique aspects and culture of their outfit. This will culminate in an outfit form of 'culmination' that each outfit will have to lay out.
As the Corps completes the first semester, the second semester becomes a selection and a preparation phase for the next leadership position in the Corps.
So what are the friction points? What are the risks?
1. The one logistical challenge we are seeking to solve is the transition from 'orientation unit' consolidation, to outfit footprints. This is a math and a physics problem. Right now the challenge is whether it is feasible to reshuffle the entire quad during the semester (right around Fall break) or do we wait till the transition between fall and spring semesters. This is a big driver of 'feasibility'. There are others: march ins, PT, formations, etc… a lot to think through here.
2. It does not look like the way we've always done it. Completely true. Unless you go back to the 50's where all fish resided at RELLIS (FDT came out of this). I would ask that we all take a step back from our own version of the Corps and allow this to improve our beloved institution.
3. What about outfit integrity? I can see how this can be interpreted if we allow ourselves to be prisoners of our experience. I'd challenge all of us to be 'informed' by our experience and see the future benefit of transforming the Corps experience in a way that results in leaders better prepared for the challenges of tomorrow while building a community that will last a lifetime.
4. What about outfits that have it right? Now they get to get it 'righter'. There are layers upon layers of how to address this. We all have a sense of pride here, I am the same with E-1. But we have to confront the brutal facts that we are losing the identity of the Corps at the expense of outfit identity. That our leadership training and education program needs to be improved. Our current leadership model is bouncing off the fraternal aspects of every outfit. Spend a day with 'your unit' and watch how they interact with other units. You'd be surprised. We are actually addressing a larger concern of Corps identity in relation to the university, the state, and the nation.
5. Impact on recruiting? Outfits still recruit for their outfit. The 'Corps Orientation' Phase is about providing a corps wide calibration of standards, values, and tradition. There is still a hugely important quality of outfit identity in the recruiting process.
6. General.. this is all about quantity! I get this a lot. Here's how I'd address it: (1.) "Old" Army and 'Their' Army are vastly different, but equally as challenging. I watch these young men and women wrestle hard everyday and the stressors of yesterday pale in comparison to the stressors of today. (2.) Quantity or Quality: I want both. And I think we can do it. There will always, always be some form of attrition. And I'm calibrating what I think is acceptable.
If you've read this far it is because our version of the Corps experience so incredibly defined our identities, our friends, and our lives. But we have to move forward in a way that balances the important and relevant aspects of the Corps experience we experienced to where it needs to go next. We cannot remain relevant if we put tradition above leadership development. We need balance here.
I look forward to your thoughts as I lay out this plan to keep planning to a group dedicated to 'you know you were in the corps at A&M when…'
Thank you. Commandant.

---

eric76 said:

---

JB99 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

aggiez03 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Ok, I guess as a non-reg, I don't see the problem here. From what I am reading, this "basic training" period will be 8 weeks. After that, they will train with their unit, and beginning in the spring they will live with their unit in a dedicated hallway. So are y'all saying that unit training is so specific and different between units that missing September and most of October in the fall of their first year will irreparably harm the ability of an outfit to instill their own culture? So everything the outfit learns that makes them unique happens in the first 8 weeks of school? And if that is lost, the unit culture will be lost forever with no chance of recovery in the remaining weeks of the first fall or any of the seven semesters after that?

Sorry, I am just not buying it. If the idea is to train future military leaders, presumably the corps should have one training program that seeks to make the most out of every member. If there are "good units" and "mediocre" units, then the goal should be to bring more of the leadership from the good units into the mediocre ones until you can make them all good. What everybody seems to be arguing for is to preserve the system that results in some of the outfits being good at the expense of the rest of the outfits. When members of the corps go into one of the branches of the military, they don't get to pick their outfit and only go if they get the good one they want to be in. They need to be able to get along with and work well with the people they serve with regardless of how they got thrown together.

I am sure I am going to get hammered by a bunch of people telling me that I just can't understand how important the bond of the outfit is, but I want each of you to tell me while you do it whether you think the goal of the corps should be to produce the best college ROTC level outfit or the best future leader. The corps may be made up of outfits filled with individuals, but every one of those individuals is part of the same corps. The goal in my mind should be to give every one of them the best shot to be a leader, not to segregate some from the beginning into units that may not prepare them to be the best because they found their way into the wrong silo before they ever set foot on campus.

---

Not correct.

The fish will not live with their outfit till 2nd semester, so it is August - January 15th, no upperclassmen will have any interaction with their fish.

If they want to have that experience then setup up a few outfits that are exclusively military and you get to move around every year. If people want to sign up for that, then they can.

Why fix outfits that are not 'broken'?

---

That isn't what is said in the OP. In the OP, it says they will train in the major units for the first 8 weeks, but after that they will train with their selected unit for the rest of the fall semester. You are correct that they would not live together in one hallway until the spring semester, but unless I am misunderstanding it, they would be training with the outfit upper classmen beginning in the middle of the 1st semester.

---

As a nonreg, you have no idea what any of this means, so stop trying to correct people.

Training time in "the designated outfit area" is not interacting with the upperclassmen. Not everyone goes to every training time because of class. Usually it's PT time and there's not much "interaction." Hallway time, chow, boot pulls, etc are interaction.

---

When I was in the Corps 95-99 they could **** with you throughout the day except during the study hour at night. In the hall way, in your room. on the quad. Didn't matter. Now they have specific training times like right before chow, and they can't make them PT in the hallway or in their room. This change is just another incremental change. It's not going to kill the Corps anymore than the changes between when I was a fish and right now.

---

It's all downhill since they ended quadding.

---

Ag CPA said:

---

JB99 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

aggiez03 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Ok, I guess as a non-reg, I don't see the problem here. From what I am reading, this "basic training" period will be 8 weeks. After that, they will train with their unit, and beginning in the spring they will live with their unit in a dedicated hallway. So are y'all saying that unit training is so specific and different between units that missing September and most of October in the fall of their first year will irreparably harm the ability of an outfit to instill their own culture? So everything the outfit learns that makes them unique happens in the first 8 weeks of school? And if that is lost, the unit culture will be lost forever with no chance of recovery in the remaining weeks of the first fall or any of the seven semesters after that?

Sorry, I am just not buying it. If the idea is to train future military leaders, presumably the corps should have one training program that seeks to make the most out of every member. If there are "good units" and "mediocre" units, then the goal should be to bring more of the leadership from the good units into the mediocre ones until you can make them all good. What everybody seems to be arguing for is to preserve the system that results in some of the outfits being good at the expense of the rest of the outfits. When members of the corps go into one of the branches of the military, they don't get to pick their outfit and only go if they get the good one they want to be in. They need to be able to get along with and work well with the people they serve with regardless of how they got thrown together.

I am sure I am going to get hammered by a bunch of people telling me that I just can't understand how important the bond of the outfit is, but I want each of you to tell me while you do it whether you think the goal of the corps should be to produce the best college ROTC level outfit or the best future leader. The corps may be made up of outfits filled with individuals, but every one of those individuals is part of the same corps. The goal in my mind should be to give every one of them the best shot to be a leader, not to segregate some from the beginning into units that may not prepare them to be the best because they found their way into the wrong silo before they ever set foot on campus.

---

Not correct.

The fish will not live with their outfit till 2nd semester, so it is August - January 15th, no upperclassmen will have any interaction with their fish.

If they want to have that experience then setup up a few outfits that are exclusively military and you get to move around every year. If people want to sign up for that, then they can.

Why fix outfits that are not 'broken'?

---

That isn't what is said in the OP. In the OP, it says they will train in the major units for the first 8 weeks, but after that they will train with their selected unit for the rest of the fall semester. You are correct that they would not live together in one hallway until the spring semester, but unless I am misunderstanding it, they would be training with the outfit upper classmen beginning in the middle of the 1st semester.

---

As a nonreg, you have no idea what any of this means, so stop trying to correct people.

Training time in "the designated outfit area" is not interacting with the upperclassmen. Not everyone goes to every training time because of class. Usually it's PT time and there's not much "interaction." Hallway time, chow, boot pulls, etc are interaction.

---

When I was in the Corps 95-99 they could **** with you throughout the day except during the study hour at night. In the hall way, in your room. on the quad. Didn't matter. Now they have specific training times like right before chow, and they can't make them PT in the hallway or in their room. This change is just another incremental change. It's not going to kill the Corps anymore than the changes between when I was a fish and right now.

---

I'm '98 and remember "quiet hours" (which I think is what you are describing) between 8 and 5 even back then but I know each outfit probably enforced those differently.

---

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

Another General Officer politician. Not surprised. He knows that unit integrity is crucial, but is walking the party line. He's been in the machine for so long that he now doesn't know any different, but to just say "aye, aye."

This will probably kill the Corps.

---

tamc93 said:

---

I don't face book and he should not hide in private.

---

oldag941 said:

---

I guess I would ask why 10% is the trigger to identify a "problem" in attrition. 10% seems reasonable considering FOW focuses exclusively on corps tasks / life when the next few weeks introduces academic rigor and responsibilities (which is the focus of why students are there anyway). If 10% attrition is too much, what is the goal? 0%? 4%? Some students decide they aren't good cadets. No problem. I'm just perplexed on how the answer to the concern was arrived at. Empirical, anecdotal?

---

BT1395 said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

Another General Officer politician. Not surprised. He knows that unit integrity is crucial, but is walking the party line. He's been in the machine for so long that he now doesn't know any different, but to just say "aye, aye."

This will probably kill the Corps.

---

This. I didn't read his response as honest as there are so many horse **** suggestions for why they are doing this.

Whipping out on the quad is down and no one will do the Crops Hump it! We have to DO something!

We are getting fleeced at the hands of another politician.

---

If fish aren't whipping out or humping it or whatever they are expected to do, then you hold them accountable in a way that conforms their behavior to the standard. You don't lower the standard. We're taking about whipping out and humping it….not exactly "stressors" (as he put it) unique to these fish. Those examples are quite literally the easiest things I had to do as a fish. If that's too hard, then just fold up shop and let it die.

---

BT1395 said:

---

Well then hold them accountable too - this isn't hard. If we can't solve that "problem" then, again, there's not much left to talk about.

One of the worst crap outs I ever had the pleasure of receiving was when I was a pisshead and an upperclassmen of mine thought I blew off his buddy and didn't whip out to him. I still remember it like it was yesterday. Sophomores and Juniors can still be held to standards.

---