Boozer92 said:

---

aggiez03 said:

---

Boozer92 said:

---

Math says this is doomed

41 Corps outfits. 200 whitebelts handle fish training. 100 pissheads join the leadership training.

The rest of corps has no job. Zero chance they fall in line behind the guys chosen by the Trigon to handle training. That leaves 1200 or more non fish corp members to create their own Corps experience completely outside and opposed to Trigon efforts. You can't tell that many people that they don't matter and expect them to follow those you claim do matter. Anyone who was in the Corps knows how this ends. Complete disaster

---

Not sure it matters. The training will be done by the contract cadets as the D&C cadets will quit or be treated as 2nd class citizens (as many are now), who need to 'get with the program'.

It will be a bigger time boof wasting study or potential class time for mandatory training time that cadets will have to schedule around.

My thoughts if this goes through, is that this year, the fish will still get to choose their outfit. In the next 2-3 years, that will be taken away, and fish will be 'randomly' assigned by the Trigon.

They absolutely cannot stand that some outfits excel, while others lag behind. They want everything to be equal.

---

When the disenfranchised outnumber the chosen 4 or 5 to one. The disenfranchised are the actual Corps

I know we are 11 years apart so things may have been different somewhat. In my time we shunned any guys who went battalion or brigade staff. They got fed the sane bs we fed the bulls. Corps Staff was ignored pretty much universally across the Corps. The respect went to the people chosen among their peers. This plan is that on steroids. Cadre exists outside the outfit. Inside the outfit the majority of the corps will operate on their own with no oversight and clear message those in charge of oversight are to avoided at all costs. It is a terrible idea.

---

Don't be fooled, we are closer than we appear based on username. I prefer anonymity on here.

We had a buddy pushed to staff last 2 years cause we were all tired of his sh*t. Once he was on staff, he was no longer our problem and had very little outfit contact. 100% know what you are saying.

Where are all his proposed changes posted, not on TA?

You were directly replied to with his comments.

ETA: https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3445138/replies/66999556


The OP has decent summary or the expected outcome

Dark_Knight said:

---

Where are all his proposed changes posted, not on TA?

---

You realize that actually none of his plans have OFFICIALLY been posted anywhere, correct?

The only reason it got out is because the cadets told their parents.

AFTER this fish academy got out, and SHTF, the Commandant has posted a rebuttal on his safe space in the 'you know you were in the Corps' CLOSED Facebook group with a long winded reply stating the outfit culture is the Elephant in the Room.

He had no intention of letting anyone know this was happening, until it was implemented.

I have heard rumblings for months from my pisshead as he knows a bunch of upper class CTs and stays informed about hair brained ideas this guy had. I have been texting other CT dads I know for their thoughts, but everyone else thought it was just brain-storming. Not me. I haven't trusted this guy since the fall.

This...

See my earlier post.

We didn't have the widespread resentment towards cadet leadership b/c the trigon had little to nothing to do w/ choosing leadership. Now every position has to get a blessing form the trigon. In our time, we respected our buddies and accepted their decisions.

Cause, we could put ourselves in our buddies/classmates low quarters/senior boots over the trigon.

Once the cadet leadership was taken over by the bulls, old army died.

Trigon was the corps wide uniter if there ever was one...

Below is a link to a PDF version of the FB response provide in the private FB group. I do not FB, so sharing for others. Source verified.

Message posted on social media by BG Michaelis on 19 Feb 2024

Document summary from Adobe AI Assistant when asked to identify the top five points...

• The need to prioritize leadership development over tradition: The Commandant acknowledges that the Corps has often prioritized tradition over leadership development, which has resulted in a lack of accountability, outfit culture challenging Corps culture, and a lack of leadership opportunities for cadets. This recognition highlights the importance of shifting the focus towards leadership education and creating a framework of guidance, standards, values, and accountability.

• The need for an expanded leadership development program: The Commandant acknowledges that the current leadership development program needs improvement, particularly in the area of "Know" - the knowledge component of leadership. There is a lack of an integrated curriculum map with clear learning objectives, which hampers the effectiveness of the program. The Commandant emphasizes the need to provide a comprehensive leadership curriculum that builds on each other and complements ROTC leader development classes and SOMS (Senior Officer Military School) classes.

• The importance of addressing retention statistics: The Commandant highlights the need to improve the leadership development of all cadets and better prepare freshmen for the rigors of cadet life. The attrition rate among freshmen increased significantly after the first weekend, indicating a lack of investment in leadership development and inadequate preparation for the challenges of cadet life. This recognition underscores the importance of investing in leadership development for all cadets and providing freshmen with the necessary support and guidance.

• The establishment of a Sophomore Leadership Academy: The Commandant proposes the creation of a Sophomore Leadership Academy focused on rising sophomores in the second semester of their fish year. This academy aims to educate, train, and certify rising sophomores in leadership skills, ensuring that they understand and can execute effective leadership. This initiative addresses the issue of having the "least qualified leading the most vulnerable" and aims to improve the overall quality of leadership within the Corps.

• The extended Freshmen orientation and outfit integration: The Commandant suggests extending the orientation period for incoming freshmen to focus on outcomes for success, including a common understanding of traditions, values, standards, and the incorporation of resilience factors. This extended orientation will be led by a cadre of seniors and juniors, and freshmen will be consolidated under major unit "pods." Simultaneously, sophomores will complete their certifications under the Sophomore Leadership Academy. After the freshmen class is successfully pinned, there will be a transition from cadre to outfit leadership, allowing for outfit integration and the unique aspects and culture of each outfit. This approach aims to provide a more structured and comprehensive leadership development experience for cadets.

I'm not a fan of AI but that is a pretty good summary

I went to Officer School in the Air Force so don't understand why simply getting rid of the attachment to individual squadrons would harm the overall force.

It's supposed to be the military of the United States of America, not one company, or one platoon, or one squadron, or one regiment.

I can't understand the logic claiming that upperclassmen don't care about being in the military if they have no relationship to Fish.

What's the point of the Corps at A&M?

to train officers for the US Military?

or to look good at football games and have strong athletic intramural teams?

that seems to be the battle here, between those who relish a unique Aggie Tradition

versus those who look at what the actual mission should be. As a former Captain, I would hope that what's best for the entire US military would be the priority in every ROTC unit. and every decision being made would support that mission of training well qualified military officers.

Apologies if already mentioned, but didn't they move all the fish to the North side for a while in the late fifties or early sixties for the same reason?

The outfit concept was implemented in 1959 I believe. Before that, you just joined the cavalry, artillery, etc.

There was a point where fish were living in tents off campus and the reasoning I had heard was that beatings from pissheads had gotten too bad, but I'm not sure when or how correct that is. I also don't know if that's something indicative of a failure in corps leadership then or just how the world operated back then for male organizations. The junction boys would have shut the football program down if it had happened today, for example.

aggie93 said:

---

NICU Dad said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

2nd here

Streetfighter '02

---

So do you also agree that while you are more loyal to your outfit than the Band that it really isn't a big deal for your fish to be a part of your outfit from the beginning? Of course that also won't work in the Band since you guys are marching at Kyle so quickly unless you want Band fish not to march.

See where this is going?

---

Wrong again. It was and is crucial for the fish to be part of the outfit from day 1. Especially since Hell Week died.

---

I couldn't agree more. The original response was a BQ talking about how the Corps could do a separate fish thing and then come get a tshirt after they join the outfit. Then of course for the Band that's unthinkable.

My point is that both suffer equally. Technically BQ fish could just not march at Kyle and just be part of the Corps. It would just be a terrible ldea just as this plan to separate fish from their Corps outfit is.

---

Based upon several of your posts on this thread, I think we are aligned on our feelings on this topic.

I suspect the previous BQ re: shirt topic was a poor attempt to make it seem like some BQ outfits would be more insulated and be able to deliver a fish experience via earning outfit shirts.

Hollywood is right in his story. We are several years apart, but that was my experience too. When other outfits started ramping down, B-Co put the pedal to the metal.

Our culture during my time there was largely driven out of our CO. He was a hard mf'er but we all loved him for it.

My fish year was the last Trigon sanctioned Hell Week. Our zips effectively made us invincible because nothing the pissheads threw at us after could come close to comparing the suck our zips delivered.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

The outfit concept was implemented in 1959 I believe. Before that, you just joined the cavalry, artillery, etc.

There was a point where fish were living in tents off campus and the reasoning I had heard was that beatings from pissheads had gotten too bad, but I'm not sure when or how correct that is. I also don't know if that's something indicative of a failure in corps leadership then or just how the world operated back then for male organizations. The junction boys would have shut the football program down if it had happened today, for example.

---

It is not correct. My Dad was Class of '58 and was proud to be in the "Filthy 5th" until the day he died.

There was a brief period post WWII where they removed fish to what is now Rellis because of the chaos of all of the returning students from the war that lasted until things settled back down.

They also did used to specialize more but that was part of the point of the outfits. Engineers had outfits in each branch. E-1 was the "Jocks" and originally for student athletes. E-2 of course was for Reveille. Then you had some outfits that focused on Cavalry or Artillery for military training going further back. The most popular outfits now are the all male outfits because guys would prefer that experience where you don't have to make all the natural changes that must be made with an integrated outfit from separate bathrooms to entering rooms to what you can say or do. The idea of specialization of outfits is a good thing because it allows students to choose what they want in terms of an experience.

That's part of what makes the Corps unique. You get a lot more than a generic experience. It's why it is so asinine. If you want to get people to join the Corps and stay in the Corps the more things you can offer the better. It's still one Corps but the experience someone has in a Gung Ho outfit that wants to focus on intense physical training for guys that want to be Marines or SEALs is going to be different than someone who wants to be in an Air Force outfit focused on producing Engineers. Or an outfit that focuses on Intramurals vs an outfit that focuses on Community Service or A&M Traditions. They are all still in the Corps and they all produce officers and leaders in the non military world but this allows for a more tailored experience for students to choose from and it is a unique opportunity because of the size of the Corps and the resources at A&M.

For me I joined my outfit because it was going to be a new outfit that had split off from another strong outfit. I liked the idea of being in "The First Class" of a new outfit and that was a great experience. Eventually our outfit had to merge with another due to size but it still exists today decades later.

LMCane said:

---

I went to Officer School in the Air Force so don't understand why simply getting rid of the attachment to individual squadrons would harm the overall force.

It's supposed to be the military of the United States of America, not one company, or one platoon, or one squadron, or one regiment.

I can't understand the logic claiming that upperclassmen don't care about being in the military if they have no relationship to Fish.

What's the point of the Corps at A&M?

to train officers for the US Military?

or to look good at football games and have strong athletic intramural teams?

that seems to be the battle here, between those who relish a unique Aggie Tradition

versus those who look at what the actual mission should be. As a former Captain, I would hope that what's best for the entire US military would be the priority in every ROTC unit. and every decision being made would support that mission of training well qualified military officers.

---

It's because the Corps isn't just about being an ROTC attachment. You can do ROTC at a hundred other places. You can also go to an Academy. The Corps is a unique institution where you can get the experiences of military training mixed with traditions mixed with attending an incredibly diverse University with 75k students. There really isn't anything like it and the entire point is why would you take something that is special and make it like everything else?

Of course there are layers and layers upon this and most can't be explained to someone who hasn't experienced it. This is a 150 year old institution that has been continuing to evolve and change as well so there has always been disagreement about which ways the next evolution should be.

There have always been outfits. Back in the day they were grouped by Army branch: Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery, etc. A CO Infantry, B CO Infantry, etc.

The outfits of today were instituted when Air Force, then later, Navy/Marine ROTC was added to Army

Quote:

---

It's because the Corps isn't just about being an ROTC attachment. You can do ROTC at a hundred other places. You can also go to an Academy. The Corps is a unique institution where you can get the experiences of military training mixed with traditions mixed with attending an incredibly diverse University with 75k students. There really isn't anything like it and the entire point is why would you take something that is special and make it like everything else?

---

I have no real dog in this hunt, but it's very interesting.

The above paragraph sums it up. So the question is, what approach maximizes numbers. The balance between the ROTC part and the "biggest fraternity on campus" part is what would seem to be determined. The powers that be seem to think that lessening the fraternity aspect and increasing the ROTC aspect will increase participation. I wonder if that's true. It would be interesting to know the reasons that people join the Corps.

Quote:

---

The powers that be seem to think that lessening the fraternity aspect and increasing the ROTC aspect will increase participation.

---

In our day, ROTC ran the Corps. Commandant was usually the head of the Army ROTC detachment. Sometime in the last decades, that was changed, and Commandant became an A&M employee, under Department of Student Services. After that, it appeared to me that the ROTC detachment was often at odds with the Corps.

This ought to be good. Gonna speak to The Rudder Association March 23rd.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

The outfit concept was implemented in 1959 I believe. Before that, you just joined the cavalry, artillery, etc.

There was a point where fish were living in tents off campus and the reasoning I had heard was that beatings from pissheads had gotten too bad, but I'm not sure when or how correct that is. I also don't know if that's something indicative of a failure in corps leadership then or just how the world operated back then for male organizations. The junction boys would have shut the football program down if it had happened today, for example.

---

False.

Outfits have existed since the dawn of the Corps. At inception, it was the Regiment with companies of infantry - A Inf, B, Inf. Over time other outfits were added - A Troop, B, Troop, A Batt, A Signal, A Chemical, etc. Everyone was an outfit. The outfit lived together (A Troop was top floor of Leggett at inception in 1922). They played intramurals as a unit. Etc.

Seeing the challenges our armed services have with meeting recruiting goals I'd think there is also pressure on commissioning through ROTC programs. It always ebbs and flows due to politics, world events, etc. I'm not sure a structural change of this magnitude (or any magnitude), combined with the cost of your first-year (fish) experience will drive so many more students to commission. I'd have to see some data.

Quote:

---

The extended Freshmen orientation and outfit integration: The Commandant suggests extending the orientation period for incoming freshmen to focus on outcomes for success, including a common understanding of traditions, values, standards, and the incorporation of resilience factors. This extended orientation will be led by a cadre of seniors and juniors, and freshmen will be consolidated under major unit "pods." Simultaneously, sophomores will complete their certifications under the Sophomore Leadership Academy After the freshmen class is successfully pinned, there will be a transition from cadre to outfit leadership, allowing for outfit integration and the unique aspects and culture of each outfit. This approach aims to provide a more structured and comprehensive leadership development experience for cadets.

---

Timeline: fish are involved with an extended orientation in the fall semester, and then in the spring semester fish are beginning the sophomore leadership academy.

Other than that sophomore leadership academy there is no job description for pissheads in this organizational layout

Same with FDT and Cav. I understand that those are chosen now vs. just going out for the organization and hoping not to quit. Point being that the representation across outfits has never been equitable. Nor among classes. I was in PMC and we had 4 of us in my class in my outfit in PMC. No drill dicks. The class above us had 1 PMC. No drill dicks. I can only remember a couple of RV's total in my outfit over my 4 years. I don't see what's wrong with this. Interests vary and are not distributed equally across classes and outfits. If you force this one year, you'll have to do so every year because each class is different. Strange.

NICU Dad said:

---

RV's have always been more of a popularity contest than a representation of soldier, statesman, and knightly gentleman.

---

In my day, RV was almost automatically the 1st Sargent of an outfit and staff rats. SO the Band would have 4-5 RVs a year, while smaller outfits would have the same.

That was one of the reasons the Band went to 4 outfits, instead of two. More leadership positions and more honors for BQs.

aggiez03 said:

---

Just found out new information, guess you could call it a rumor, but it is from someone who would know...

The RVs are too concentrated in certain outfits while very few in other outfits.
The fearless leader is contemplating hand-picking the RVs in order to even it out across outfits.

And no, this is obviously not about EQUITY in any way. It is about a better way to train fish.

Right?

I wish I was making this up...

---

Looking at his picture earlier in the thread he doesn't have the Yellow and White Cord. He was a Frog so that's not surprising. My guess is he probably has resentment for being a Staff guy that didn't get selected as an RV and didn't like how a lot of RV's aren't guys in significant leadership roles.

To me I always thought that was part of what made RV's even more interesting. I always looked at guys that were not in Leadership but were in an outfit that were RV's with respect. BTW, I was on Staff as a Junior and hated it and went back to my outfit as a Senior and wasn't an RV.

This sounds like the main theme is having the Commandant's office micromanaging everything. It seems like there is no trust in the decision making of the students and it will make ass kissing of the Bulls and Commandant as more and more important.

my son is a fish and this is all some scary stuff if you ask me