Sethtevious said:
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.
I still don't see this happening.
Look at the Army or Marines - none of them identify by their basic training class, they all identify by the outfit to which they ultimately get assigned.
Nobody asks another army guy when they find out they were also army what basic training class they were in, they always ask which unit. Same for marines.
About the only group that I can think of that MAY identify more by their basic training class than any other would be SEALS, but that's because it is extremely specialized and attrition is over 70% in most cases. Even then, the couple I've known generally end up talking about which team they were on and where they deployed to.
I still don't see the "it will kill the corps" in this. Mostly i see it's a change, and change is always fought against at A&M. Is it a good change or a bad change? Hell, who knows, I'm sure the results will be apparent in somewhat short order. The Corps has changed a lot since the days it was founded, not all of them good, not all of them bad. Like it or not though, change is one of the only constants there is and unfortunately change is often required for survival.
