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.

---

That's interesting...because don't the RV's already select members in proportion to how many from each major unit apply? I specifically remember being encouraged to apply even if not really interested in order to give our buddies that did want to get picked a better shot.

coconutED said:

---

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.

---

That's interesting...because don't the RV's already select members in proportion to how many from each major unit apply? I specifically remember being encouraged to apply even if not really interested in order to give our buddies that did want to get picked a better shot.

---

Not sure how it works now, but I know you apply and it has always been picked by RV cadets, not the Trigon.

burgermeister said:

---

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.

---

This actually doesn't sound bad. I think the general theme is Pissheads aren't really ready to be pissheads on day 1. Don't expose the fish to them until they are ready and have received the right level of leadership training. So in those new calendar fish would get 4 - 5 months of the outfit culture building experience vs. the current ~7 months. Pissheads would get roughly 2 to 3 month of leadership training in the fall prior to engaging with Fish.

sharpdressedman said:

---

This should surprise no one.

The Commandant takes orders from the President, and the new President is a fierce supporter of DEI (copiously documented previously on this board using legitimate links/citations), which manifests itself in the separate treatment of many to the detriment of the whole organization. Sharp and all but one Regent, IIRC, were all in supporting him.

Complaining to the Commandant is a waste of your time.

---

I don't think this has anything to do with DEI.

93Spur said:

---

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.

---

1959 Aggieland



FYI: Jocks are the men of Armor outfits

BQRyno said:

---

But the second half of fish year is sophomore training. The first half of sophomore year is leadership training. The second half of sophomore year is whitebelt training. So what even is a pisshead? Being a pisshead was more work than being a fish. You still have to be perfect while training the fish. This new system makes it sound like it's 2 years of how to be a whitebelt and maybe train fish.

---

Yeah. The Commandant clearly thinks the Sophmores on day 1 are not ready. Perhaps this is an over correction. Perhaps it's a step in the right direction. That point he made about the "know" in leadership was pretty spot on. I can at least say I understand what the goal is and the problem trying to be addressed. Perhaps the time durations are a bit to much and need to be right sized. Hopefully there's more discussion on that.

Haven't pisshead already been removed from direct fish training? Thought that happened several years ago?

Yes, organized differently, still in "outfits"

pacecar02 said:

---

Haven't pisshead already been removed from direct fish training? Thought that happened several years ago?

---

No. Still very much involved. My son is a fish. The way he described it FOW was just the cadre a select group of Sophmores junior, and seniors. They were the only ones interacting with the fish. This extended about 1 more month beyond FOW. After that, the rest of the sophomores directly participated in training the fish.

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...

---

My buddy on the RVA board says this rumor is false.

In my outfit, the first sergeant ran fish training starting day one in FOW. The job generally went to the guy who was best pisshead in his class. The sophomores were kept on a tight leash while he ran the show at the start of the year, then gradually turned it over to them as they got their feet under them. After corps brass, he took a backseat role.
The trigon screwed that all up my Junior year and picked CO and 1st sgt themselves. The guy they picked for 1st sgt did not fit the role, so we came up with a new position that did that job while the picked guy served as more of a figurehead. There was a logic to the old system.

This is exactly how it went for our outfit 15 years ago to a T. Except we had a replacement as CO after our 1st sgt got ousted but the bulls for some nonsense.

93Spur said:

---

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.

---

Thanks, for clarifying.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

pilgrimshadow said:

---

In my outfit, the first sergeant ran fish training starting day one in FOW. The job generally went to the guy who was best pisshead in his class. The sophomores were kept on a tight leash while he ran the show at the start of the year, then gradually turned it over to them as they got their feet under them. After corps brass, he took a backseat role.
The trigon screwed that all up my Junior year and picked CO and 1st sgt themselves. The guy they picked for 1st sgt did not fit the role, so we came up with a new position that did that job while the picked guy served as more of a figurehead. There was a logic to the old system.

---

They also love giving preference to contract guys for leadership positions, because then they can imply messing with the CO's contract any time they want to make changes to the outfit that the CO or the rest of the outfit might disagree with. Much harder to do that with a D&C guy. It's very disgusting.

---

This kind of happened with my outfit in 2015. Air Force outfit, but myself and several others were Army contracts. Trigon hand picked an Airforce contract Wag that had no business being in a leadership role and did not fit our culture whatsoever . They told the Army guys that we couldn't be in leadership roles in a Squadron and tried to move us to another outfit.

I'm interested because the commandant has some valid points from his perspective (IN NO WAY AM I SUPPORTING THE DECISIONS BEING MADE). Especially the perspective from old ags, personally, I am incredibly proud of being a part of my outfit, but I am also incredibly proud of being a cadet. Both can be simultaneous. It seems today, cadets do not like the corps. Why is this?

Some things I've thought of
- Resentment for cadet leadership (I think caused by leadership selection not being made by cadets, look at the RVs, they're selected by their peers and the same with their leadership, it goes well)
- Outsider view of the corps - Corps not promoting the things that make the corps cool, PT, Intramurals, unique outfits
- Continually increased restrictions on things like PT and required administrative tasks
- "Punishment" restricted, Marching Tours and RWs seem to be one of the only options now-a-days because of the restrictions on training, no pushing in dorms, etc.

The differences in outfits and uniqueness has always been a thing. Engineer companies, cav companies in old old army etc. Now uniqueness is not as clear as those military based distinctions, or outfits for people of certain majors, but it is still very much present (E-1 - Athletics, E-2 - Rev, I-1 - army/tactics, SQ-17 - Service & Off the quad involvement, SQ-2 - Intramurals, Country club, BQ outfits (obviously), not sure which outfits prioritize academics, and the list goes on and on) Why is this somehow now a threat (but my real question is above, what brings resentment for the corps, within the corps (unwillingness to do corps-hump it etc.))

oldag941 said:

---

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.

---

If we want to be more equitable and be able to accurately compare units across the corps? make every outfit integrated. The military has females, the workplace has females. Why not all units?

Absolutely. The outfit picks the best trainer for the job based on seeing the day to day interactions with the fish. They know who can set a standard and enforce it, who the fish respect, and who they don't. The next class then learns from the best by watching him do the job firsthand. When it's their turn, and they screw up, he's right there to tell them where they went wrong.

The bulls at the trigon pick their candidates based on who they can best control. At best, the only indication they have of leadership ability is a resume or what they are told about the candidate, which is always going to be heavily filtered.

It doesn't surprise me that there's a problem with knowing how to lead. They screwed up the system by trying to replace hands on leadership learning with classrooms and seminars.

Comeby! said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

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.

---

If we want to be more equitable and be able to accurately compare units across the corps? make every outfit integrated. The military has females, the workplace has females. Why not all units?

---

Around 30 to 35 years ago there were alot more male only outfits. There was I would say alot of people that thought integration of women would kill the Corp and the culture, etc...

Quote:

---

If we want to be more equitable and be able to accurately compare units across the corps? make every outfit integrated. The military has females, the workplace has females. Why not all units?

---

Cause there isn't enough of them.

Comeby! said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

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.

---

If we want to be more equitable and be able to accurately compare units across the corps? make every outfit integrated. The military has females, the workplace has females. Why not all units?

---

If I were king, I would still give the option to join an integrated outfit or a segregated outfit, but women would have the same opportunity as well. If you want to join an all female outfit, you should be allowed.

Dumb idea. Give cadets a choice; integrated, all male, all female... what does the current recruiting data reflect between the two? Grades? Retention? Which outfits have waiting lists to join? Which outfits consistently recruit better than others? What do those successful outfits looks like? Why are we not replicating success stories on the quad? This secret plan decimates successful outfit programs. And why? What is the reasoning? There is no logic behind it.

Some are referencing a Whole lot of training and a Whole lot of observing and evaluating etc etc. At the end of the day, dissimilar to the military, this is not the cadet's job. This is an extracurricular that they are balancing with their primary purpose of earning a higher education. You can do lots with a military unit or a business when everyone is there for that primary purpose (to be a soldier or earn a living). But we can't lose sight that these are kids, who the vast majority are there primarily for a degree and secondarily for extra curriculars. Whether that's frats, sports, Corps etc.

What about those seeking a commission?
The point of the Corps to help produce "leaders", primarily should be for the real world, whether it's military service or civilian. I'd rather the focus be on military service, but that's just my opinion.

I'd rather shrink down to a smaller Corps, dedicated for military service. Then recruit hard to steal academy appointees and grow from there to rival the academies in quality and reputation, as it once was.

Dark_Knight said:

---

What about those seeking a commission?
The point of the Corps to help produce "leaders", primarily should be for the real world, whether it's military service or civilian. I'd rather the focus be on military service, but that's just my opinion.

I'd rather shrink down to a smaller Corps, dedicated for military service. Then recruit hard to steal academy appointees and grow from there to rival the academies in quality and reputation, as it once was.

---

That is what SOMS, MilSci and ftx/rudders rangers/seal team etc. are for.

Dark_Knight said:

---

What about those seeking a commission?
The point of the Corps to help produce "leaders", primarily should be for the real world, whether it's military service or civilian. I'd rather the focus be on military service, but that's just my opinion.

I'd rather shrink down to a smaller Corps, dedicated for military service. Then recruit hard to steal academy appointees and grow from there to rival the academies in quality and reputation, as it once was.

---

Curious take….has me wondering what outfit were you in?

TX_COWDOC said:

---

Dark_Knight said:

---

What about those seeking a commission?
The point of the Corps to help produce "leaders", primarily should be for the real world, whether it's military service or civilian. I'd rather the focus be on military service, but that's just my opinion.

I'd rather shrink down to a smaller Corps, dedicated for military service. Then recruit hard to steal academy appointees and grow from there to rival the academies in quality and reputation, as it once was.

---

Curious take….has me wondering what outfit were you in?

---

I was in the Wing, but went Marine PLC

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Dark_Knight said:

---

What about those seeking a commission?
The point of the Corps to help produce "leaders", primarily should be for the real world, whether it's military service or civilian. I'd rather the focus be on military service, but that's just my opinion.

I'd rather shrink down to a smaller Corps, dedicated for military service. Then recruit hard to steal academy appointees and grow from there to rival the academies in quality and reputation, as it once was.

---

That is what SOMS, MilSci and ftx/rudders rangers/seal team etc. are for.

---

Sure, some of those are complimentary.
I'm just reflecting back on how I felt and what I was looking forward to.
There's still a lot of room for improvements.

There's some serious delusion on here that people think the corps is better than any of the academies