Major Corps Changes - Political BS

89,414 Views | 842 Replies | Last: 8 mo ago by Tex100
aggiez03
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CanyonAg77 • 7:22p, 2/19/24
AG
CanyonAg77 said:
tamc93 said:
I don't face book and he should not hide in private.
I didn't say he was keeping it private.

I was giving my opinion that a family matter ought to be hashed out within the family.
Well that sounds good, but when you find out that he did this without these people knowing:

John Sharp
Board of Regents
President Welsh
Corps Advisory Board
Corps of Cadets Assoc

Doesn't really sound like he consulted anyone but his sounding board of the Bulls in the Trigon.

I wouldn't consider the Bulls in the Trigon 'family', when 1/2 of them didn't even attend A&M.
Reply Quote
14
2 edits
Tom Kazansky 2012
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:30p, 2/19/24
AG
Reading between the lines:

The corps tradition pales in comparison to outfit tradition. (Duh, students run the outfits. The corps is run by unrespected know it all staff members and the bulls, neither of which are respected by the straws that stir the drink amongst the classes)

Bulls don't trust cadets to lead because they (student leaders) have not been motivated to play corps games and keep up the standard in the past. Staff members are but they are mostly laughed at and ignored behind closed doors.

They (upperclassmen) do not have motivation to uphold the standard. The incentives are broken. Wonder who is in charge of that?

Therefore the bulls and this commandant decide they need to brainwash the freshman (by selecting only the most perfect sophomores and juniors, or the staff members reincarnated lol) to be absolute tool bags the first semester so the corps standard improves???

Can't wait to see how bad this turns out. The decisions by commandants (not just this one) continuously make me face palm.

Michaelis either full of it (as these measures don't make sense but they would if it was set up to retain and push diversity and DEI), incompetent (dumb solution based on faulty conclusions), or some mixture of the two.
Reply Quote
10
aggiez03
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JB99 • 7:35p, 2/19/24
AG
JB99 said:
Tom Kazansky 2012 said:
Quote:
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.


This is such a poor understanding of the FOW transition to classes and intro to the outfit.

Typical top leadership making ridiculously stupid conclusions.


My son is a fish this year. He said they did zero PT during FOW. Plus during FOW there's only like like 5 people you have to deal with. Once you join the outfit it's like 50. That can be overwhelming and has nothing to do with lack of leadership.
Sounds like you and/or son wants to have an easy Corps experience. There are outfits that do that.

My son's friend's outfit, the pissheads were chilling with them 3 weeks into the fall semester.

I hated most of my pissheads until maybe October of my pisshead year.

I definitely didn't chill with any of them in the fall semester fish year.

Guess which outfit had all the awards this year...
Hint: It wasn't the Charmin soft outfit.

My son's outfit has a waiting list to get in, the other outfit has to have kids assigned cause they can't recruit and no one wants to go there. I wonder what the difference is?
Reply Quote
12
1 edit
Fuzzy Dunlop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:35p, 2/19/24
AG
Here's my take:

This is all BS. As many of you have already stated, he's solving a problem that doesn't exist. Retention is one thing but trying to retain everyone is not what is needed. This is a feel good inclusion move. fish life is hard and that is what made my time in the Corps worth it. When my buddies and I get together, most of our stories are about fish year. Yeah, there's a few stories of being pissheads or roaming the steam tunnels when we were Butts and Zips but 97% of the stories are the crap outs, hall parties, 3x5 come-bys, current events at chow, our rivalry with L-1, etc.

He's blaming the sophomores for not being ready to lead but in reality, it's the Trigon's fault for not having then ready. Actually, pissheads aren't ready until the 2nd semester anyway. Some of our worst crap outs were as pissheads.

I think part of the outfit culture problem started when they rotating leadership positions and taking 1st Sgts and COs from one outfit and moving then to another. I understand that was not his initiative but I don't think this change will fix the "problem."



Double Talkin' Jive...
Reply Quote
12
oldord
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fuzzy Dunlop • 7:40p, 2/19/24
AG
The shifting leadership take is spot on. The trigon is playing chess with young people lives...
Reply Quote
4
pagerman @ work
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:40p, 2/19/24
AG
Bulls seem to have identified what they consider to be problems and have decided that the only solution is major surgery that may well kill the patient on the assumption that the solution 1. will work and 2. is the only/best solution to the "problems".

That seems to me to be both opportunistic and extremely arrogant.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
6
oldord
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiez03 • 7:52p, 2/19/24
AG
aggiez03 said:
CanyonAg77 said:
tamc93 said:
I don't face book and he should not hide in private.
I didn't say he was keeping it private.

I was giving my opinion that a family matter ought to be hashed out within the family.
Well that sounds good, but when you find out that he did this without these people knowing:

John Sharp
Board of Regents
President Welsh
Corps Advisory Board
Corps of Cadets Assoc

Doesn't really sound like he consulted anyone but his sounding board of the Bulls in the Trigon.

I wouldn't consider the Bulls in the Trigon 'family', when 1/2 of them didn't even attend A&M.
Our bulls in the early 90'5 sat the line in Berlin, or were in country in Vietnam and they did not want to get in the middle of what we were doing because they knew that you had to be strong to survive in those challenging times.

Keep in mind, most of the guys coming out of the Army now were never in a conflict that compared to WW2 or Vietnam where bad commanders and political officers were tossed in favor of hard charging rule breaking achievers (Speaking very Broadly) and therefore, you have an Army that tossed off their warfighters at first chance and many that did advance are teh type that have no concept of the historical way of developing strong men.

Not saying that is our current commandant but much of this seams to be pungent with the smell of inclusion and lowered standards.

In my life, I have been privileged to be in positions to remove people that did not fit the mold that my organizations needed them to fit. I did not change the organization to fit them. I will stand by the fact that the Texas Aggie Corps is purpose built and that purpose should not be modified to suit the worst of us.
Reply Quote
7
BQsong25
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JB99 • 7:53p, 2/19/24
AG
While the Corps has gotten softer over the years, this isn't just another step towards an easier Corps, this is an entire restructure of the leadership development model the Corps has always had. fish have always been the center of the Corps experience. Upperclassmen learn just as much about leadership from training the fish as the fish learn from the upperclassmen. When you remove fish from the equation, we're just another military college. The Corps is unique for its strong focus on leadership and not just military proficiency. It's why we have so many DNC cadets, it's why we produce so many successful businessmen. We make leaders first. You can't practice leadership without followers.
Reply Quote
9
Get Off My Lawn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:03p, 2/19/24
Another thing for the nonregs (and forgetful bulls): camaraderie comes from crucible. "Oh, it's just FOW" or "it's like basic training - no big deal" …there are few shocks greater to a kid who just left high school than standing on a wall next to strangers, hearing "meet your pissheads," and the world exploding around you.

If you coddle and ease kids into hard things - they never develop searing formative memories. Memories which help them to make it through subsequently harder things. And memories that make buddies far more than proximity based temporary friends.
Reply Quote
8
BQsong25
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fuzzy Dunlop • 8:05p, 2/19/24
AG
The crazy part is I see no way this helps retention. A fish dorm sounds miserable and demotivating. Kids come here because of the Corps' reputation and history. They come because of Old Army stories and friends who already joined. A fish dorm lacks any of the structure and community a freshman is seeking. It's just a bunch of smelly and bored 18 year olds who will definitely start up the bad kind of trouble.
Reply Quote
3
Aggie118
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:07p, 2/19/24
AG
This is what happens when someone on corps/major unit staff makes it to the top…

For those who don't know or were not in the Corps of Cadets. If you choose to leave your outfit and join Corps staff or Major Unit Staff, you essentially leave your outfit in a sense for all intents and purposes.

You become part of the "governing body" of good idea fairies. You are left with a bunch of luke warm acquaintanceships with fellow staff members. These are folks that you did not face any sort of adversity with or growth experiences. As a staff member you essentially willingly alienate yourself from your outfit.

It's clear that this guy did not have any real connection with his outfit or fish buddies. Sad.
Reply Quote
24
Tom Kazansky 2012
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Get Off My Lawn • 8:08p, 2/19/24
AG
Get Off My Lawn said:
Another thing for the nonregs (and forgetful bulls): camaraderie comes from crucible. "Oh, it's just FOW" or "it's like basic training - no big deal" …there are few shocks greater to a kid who just left high school than standing on a wall next to strangers, hearing "meet your pissheads," and the world exploding around you.

If you coddle and ease kids into hard things - they never develop searing formative memories. Memories which help them to make it through subsequently harder things. And memories that make buddies far more than proximity based temporary friends.


Meeting pissheads is a night most never forget. That's that oh **** moment.

That's what made the corps cool. Taking those experiences away will have unintended consequences of making the corps more of what sucks about it and less of what makes it unique.

I fully expect our brass to make the wrong decision.
Reply Quote
12
valvemonkey91
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:08p, 2/19/24
AG
The Corps has been in decline for a while (and I'm not talking about numbers). It was taken out from under of the ROTC umbrella years ago and is now considered a "student organization" no different than the math club. It is subject to Title IX bull**** and discipline metered out by studemt life that is as woke as it gets. Co-Ed dorms are an awful idea and should not exist. The corps SHOULD be trying to prepare MEN for military Service and not be this social experiment that it has become. The head of the snake is John Sharp. Ramirez was a woke idiot too.
Reply Quote
16
Sethtevious
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiez03 • 8:19p, 2/19/24

I don't see how this forces EQUITY?

It sounds to me like they've decided they don't trust certain outfits to train their freshmen (too many hazing incidents, maybe?), and instead of rooting those outfits out or closing them, they're going to train the freshmen as a cohort.

Leaving the outfit choice to second semester means outfits will recruit like fraternities, and I have no idea if that is a good or bad thing. Maybe such recruiting with encourage outfit culture to solidify, maybe it will completely destroy outfits.

Worst case scenario for me seems to be that you'll have a Corps in four years that identifies more by the whole organization than by particular outfits. I am curious how this affects the FTAB.
Reply Quote
2
JB99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQsong25 • 8:25p, 2/19/24
AG
BQsong25 said:
While the Corps has gotten softer over the years, this isn't just another step towards an easier Corps, this is an entire restructure of the leadership development model the Corps has always had. fish have always been the center of the Corps experience. Upperclassmen learn just as much about leadership from training the fish as the fish learn from the upperclassmen. When you remove fish from the equation, we're just another military college. The Corps is unique for its strong focus on leadership and not just military proficiency. It's why we have so many DNC cadets, it's why we produce so many successful businessmen. We make leaders first. You can't practice leadership without followers.


They didn't get rid of the outfit/fish relationship. They delayed it and shortened the amount of time. My point is they have been shortening the amount of time the outfit can interact with fish for decades. If you go back 30 years, fish had to interact with their outfit probably 2 to 3 times as much time compared to now. This is yet another step in that direction. And they've been trying to improve retention for like 30 years too. It's not going to kill the corps, I'm not saying I like it.
Reply Quote
3
JodyMcD96
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dawnguard • 8:34p, 2/19/24
AG
Dawnguard said:
Devils advocate:

This isn't anywhere near as terrible as projected. Essentially, instead of being randomly placed by random, the fish will actually have the ability to chose an outfit and earn their logo. This means that recruiting the unit will be significantly less random, and outfit culture and reputation amongst the corps will have a bigger impact.

My immediate reaction was "this is a big change and is probably terrible". My undeveloped and uninformed thoughts are leading me to think that this might actually solve some major problems the corps is facing (drastic change in lifestyle).

I'd need more information on what the outfit selection process will be. If the fish get to choose in the spring after earning their corps brass, then this pushes outfit culture to the forefront. The military academies have low outfit loyalty because they swap out after sophomore year. I see 3.5 years as being way stronger loyalty - as the recruitment is way longer and the outfit selection is more of a mutual agreement than a random selection.


I have seen zero indications that after fall semester the cadets will choose their outfits. I would hazard an uninformed guess that they will be assigned based on a very specific metric determined outside of the Trigon. It will not be Aggie centric or tradition affirming if I guess correctly.
Reply Quote
8
Tachoro
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:42p, 2/19/24
I am a US military officer and A&M grad. I was not in the corps. I'm not trying to mess with tradition but I would like to see everyone in the corps be on a path to actually commission into the armed forces, similar to a service academy. The changes mentioned in this thread may not impact that at all, but I think respect for the corps increases as the commissioning rate increases.
Reply Quote
5
maverick2076
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tachoro • 8:46p, 2/19/24
That's not the Corps of Cadets. That's an ROTC department at any other university.
Reply Quote
30
oldag941
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tachoro • 8:48p, 2/19/24
AG
But that's not feasible nor desirable in a public institution where people pay to be (as opposed to the academies where you are paid to be). Have you seen recruiting updates from the military branches? It sucks. So to tie the corps to the ebb and flow of political and societal support of the military is a death wish. Since Rudder was here, the lifeblood of the corps was the option to NOT commission. Honestly, the D&C cadets may have more motivation to rep the corps than those that are tied by scholarship or guaranteed job upon graduation. Interesting perspective, but I believe if you peel that onion, you'll be hard pressed to see the feasibility or added value with that change.
Reply Quote
15
heavens11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:57p, 2/19/24
AG
I'm not sure these proposed changes are politically motivated, but all these changes that reduce the belonging to your outfit and buddies do imho reduce the overall experience and quality of bonds that are built.


"It's just another corps trip boys, we'll march in behind the band"
Reply Quote
4
npoznanski
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:57p, 2/19/24
AG
I have read the Commandants notes as the notes on here. As a BQ that graduated in the 2006, I find the revised training concerning. The most important thing that is done in the Corps is to bond with you fish buddies. A relatively small group (In my case it was larger because the band outfits at the time were huge) that you bond with from the second you get there. It seems to me that this is going to be seriously delayed. These are the relationships that you carry with you throughout your life. I have been out almost 20 years and we still get together every year. It seems to me that if you you have one large group this will suffer significantly. Also, it looks like they will house fish as one group and then basically tear them apart later. Wouldn't this cause problems when you tear these people apart having been together for 8 weeks during the tough part. Also, the Commandant says we are basically going to restock the dorms during fall break. Maybe I was the only one studying but between drill, the Corps stuff, studying, band trips, and all of the other stuff A&M requires, I didn't have a ton of time to completely reset my life. I understand what he is doing, but I fear this is going to rip the heart out of an institution I love.
Reply Quote
10
aggiez03
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oldag941 • 8:59p, 2/19/24
AG
oldag941 said:
But that's not feasible nor desirable in a public institution where people pay to be (as opposed to the academies where you are paid to be). Have you seen recruiting updates from the military branches? It sucks. So to tie the corps to the ebb and flow of political and societal support of the military is a death wish. Since Rudder was here, the lifeblood of the corps was the option to NOT commission. Honestly, the D&C cadets may have more motivation to rep the corps than those that are tied by scholarship or guaranteed job upon graduation. Interesting perspective, but I believe if you peel that onion, you'll be hard pressed to see the feasibility or added value with that change.


From my experience the D&C cadets are the keepers of the spirit and traditions and the 4 year contract cadets care very little about them.

My roommate was a 4 yr contract scholarship cadet, and went to maybe 3 football games in 4 years, zero other sports. He literally went home after every march-in to see his girlfriend.

I knew several other 4 yr contract who only went to A&M cause the got a contract scholarship and that was 25+ years ago.

Remove the d&c cadets, the Corps would have about 20 outfits total and maybe 1000 cadets.
Reply Quote
7
JodyMcD96
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag CPA • 9:11p, 2/19/24
AG
Ag CPA said:
Rapier108 said:
Eliminating the Corps of Cadets has always been a goal.

It is one of the things the leftists in the administration hate the most because they see it as one of the things which makes A&M different from the rest of the universities in the country.

They want A&M to be Berkeley on the Brazos.

And as much as he is disliked, the person everyone should be contacting is John Sharp. Screwing up A&M history/traditions is the one thing he does not like and so far has managed to keep at bay.
I was a CT and for all of its shortcomings most of A&M's leadership has bent over backwards to help preserve the Corps and support it through some tough times, including Sharp who was in Squadron 6. There were probably 2-3 times when I was a cadet in the 90s alone when A&M probably had a valid excuse to disband the Corps if they wanted, including the FDT mess.

I was D&C and as noted by others one of the great benefits of the Corps to me was the outfit friendships and "good bull", especially fish year, but at the end of the day the Corps primarily exists to commission officers along with the Academies. If the Commandant thinks that changes need to be made to stay competitive then I guess I get it, although like most of you I don't like it.


This kind of response is what allows the inevitable creep towards the mediocrity of the commons.

Let's look at this a couple of ways:

1. This is a great idea - then it should have been socialized with all potential stakeholders, which at A&M means the CCA. You can see the negative reaction this is eliciting right now. Notice how they didn't include the fish in the announcement? Why? If this was awesome and necessary to make better warfighters then I bet you would get full buy in from all of us old Ags since that is the reason for the Corps and most of us have buddies that did or are serving right now.

2. This is an intentional DoD thing to eliminate the individual nature of the Aggie Corps of Cadets - the Big Army/AF/Navy doesn't like Aggies and wants to level the field to their lower common denominator. They need robots that are rule followers not outstanding leaders that don't ring knock with the academy grads. This one does seem a bit far fetched.

3. The DoD is a bureaucracy and it's metastasizing - Bureaucracies always grow and always consume and now it's coming for the Aggies. This feels like a bunch of dorks sitting in the pentagon basement generating Good Idea Fairy plans that will deliver a killer PowerPoint and help them get a promotion.

So, based purely on how this information has come out, it's safe to assume that it is all bad. It will not deliver the results intended and everyone that had a hand in it will get promoted leaving the Corps a wreck.


Reply Quote
15
Get Off My Lawn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tachoro • 9:17p, 2/19/24
I'd disagree there. I chose to commission USMC later on in my corps time. I got to look around and evaluate and make a more informed decision - a different decision - than if I had had to contract on day zero.

Also - got to get some great buddies who wouldn't have been in a contracting program.

The PR may be better if you can say "at least those weirdos are all going to serve our country" … and holding standards on fatbodies could certainly be tighter… but the Corps isn't for outsiders or the military - it's for keepers of the spirit. People with a screw loose.
Reply Quote
5
Matt_ag98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:29p, 2/19/24
Looks like the new commandant has spent A LOT of time around Army Recruiting...not quite sure that is a good thing given the last 10 years
Reply Quote
4
ABATTBQ11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to burgermeister • 9:33p, 2/19/24
AG
Two disheartening takeaways from that are that he's listening to cadets on how to lead and focusing on lowering attrition.

For one, cadets are stupid. I know because I was one. This is the equivalent of professors and universities catering to students and their political and social cause du jours. Look where that had gotten the likes of Oberlin, Harvard, MIT, et al. Cadets are here to learn, not to teach.

For two, there's no reason 10% attrition after FOW is bad. This entire line of reasoning is deeply flawed because it fails to first define what is an acceptable attrition curve and why. Second, it fails to all the question, "Do cadets come out of the Corps ill prepared to lead? In what ways are they lacking?" This is a statistic looking for a problem, not an informative measure of performance in either quantity or quality.

There is no reason to make any kind of consideration on attrition until the needs and expectation for growth have been outlined. The Corps should not be shuffled and experimented on before there is a well defined and measured definition of what constitutes a quality leader and how well the Corps produces such a person.

To put it succinctly and bluntly, there are no defined and reasoned goals for this. This is action for the sake of action. Nothing is perfect, including the Corps, but change for the sake of change is not inherently good, nor is guaranteed to produce positive results.

If change must occur, it would make much more sense to make change on a trial basis and make these changes for a voluntary subset of fish and test outfits. The rest of the Corps can act as a control group for the status quo. Compare results and determine if the changes are even necessary without blowing the whole thing up over an overreaction to a number that has no objective and defined criteria as good or bad.
Reply Quote
13
1 edit
aircav
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:39p, 2/19/24
AG
No outfit fish in the fall, no problem…….haze the Pissheads.

Problem solved.
Reply Quote
3
Tom Kazansky 2012
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JodyMcD96 • 9:42p, 2/19/24
AG
JodyMcD96 said:
Ag CPA said:
Rapier108 said:
Eliminating the Corps of Cadets has always been a goal.

It is one of the things the leftists in the administration hate the most because they see it as one of the things which makes A&M different from the rest of the universities in the country.

They want A&M to be Berkeley on the Brazos.

And as much as he is disliked, the person everyone should be contacting is John Sharp. Screwing up A&M history/traditions is the one thing he does not like and so far has managed to keep at bay.
I was a CT and for all of its shortcomings most of A&M's leadership has bent over backwards to help preserve the Corps and support it through some tough times, including Sharp who was in Squadron 6. There were probably 2-3 times when I was a cadet in the 90s alone when A&M probably had a valid excuse to disband the Corps if they wanted, including the FDT mess.

I was D&C and as noted by others one of the great benefits of the Corps to me was the outfit friendships and "good bull", especially fish year, but at the end of the day the Corps primarily exists to commission officers along with the Academies. If the Commandant thinks that changes need to be made to stay competitive then I guess I get it, although like most of you I don't like it.


This kind of response is what allows the inevitable creep towards the mediocrity of the commons.

Let's look at this a couple of ways:

1. This is a great idea - then it should have been socialized with all potential stakeholders, which at A&M means the CCA. You can see the negative reaction this is eliciting right now. Notice how they didn't include the fish in the announcement? Why? If this was awesome and necessary to make better warfighters then I bet you would get full buy in from all of us old Ags since that is the reason for the Corps and most of us have buddies that did or are serving right now.

2. This is an intentional DoD thing to eliminate the individual nature of the Aggie Corps of Cadets - the Big Army/AF/Navy doesn't like Aggies and wants to level the field to their lower common denominator. They need robots that are rule followers not outstanding leaders that don't ring knock with the academy grads. This one does seem a bit far fetched.

3. The DoD is a bureaucracy and it's metastasizing - Bureaucracies always grow and always consume and now it's coming for the Aggies. This feels like a bunch of dorks sitting in the pentagon basement generating Good Idea Fairy plans that will deliver a killer PowerPoint and help them get a promotion.

So, based purely on how this information has come out, it's safe to assume that it is all bad. It will not deliver the results intended and everyone that had a hand in it will get promoted leaving the Corps a wreck.




This is dead on.
Reply Quote
4
JodyMcD96
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tachoro • 9:52p, 2/19/24
AG
Tachoro said:
I am a US military officer and A&M grad. I was not in the corps. I'm not trying to mess with tradition but I would like to see everyone in the corps be on a path to actually commission into the armed forces, similar to a service academy. The changes mentioned in this thread may not impact that at all, but I think respect for the corps increases as the commissioning rate increases.


So out of the 17 guys that are on my buddy text string, 12 of us shouldn't have been in the Corps? That's a strong position to take.
Reply Quote
14
TexasAggie73
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to valvemonkey91 • 10:02p, 2/19/24
AG
Reply Quote
1 edit
TAMU1990
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:04p, 2/19/24
AG
Sounds like to me they need more all male outfits and the rest are grouped together by majors.
Reply Quote
6
oldag941
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TexasAggie73 • 10:04p, 2/19/24
AG
Let's stay focused on the topic. Don't get taken down, or lead to, a tangential rabbit hole.
Reply Quote
1
TexasAggie73
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oldag941 • 10:06p, 2/19/24
AG
Your correct. It was just hard to let that comment go.
Reply Quote
1
Tom Kazansky 2012
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TexasAggie73 • 10:07p, 2/19/24
AG
TexasAggie73 said:
So women shouldn't serve in the military?


That's not what he said.

There can be women in the corps.

There should be non integrated male and female outfits. And very few integrated ones.
And all of them should have different measurables and metrics.

I GUARANTEE one of the big pushes that made this suggestion come up are these "generals" being perplexed at why homogenous behaved outfits with all males make better grade, have better retention, produce more leaders, and win more awards than their integrated counterpart.

Which is dumb. I probably hang out with my integrated buds from outfits my fish buds got moved to. They're great guys and people.

Bulls trying to treat all outfits the same is more forced military bull*****
Reply Quote
6
ABATTBQ11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tom Kazansky 2012 • 10:18p, 2/19/24
AG
He was very emphatic that the Corps should be training "MEN" specifically for the military. Considering he complained about integrated units and put the emphasis on MEN and left women out completely, I'm pretty sure he meant, "Women should not serve in the military," unless he really meant that the Corps should be training men to be in the military and women to be men in the military.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.