Mike Hancho said:

---

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

---

Just the simple truth my friend

Mike Hancho said:

---

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

---

I never said they were, we definitely aren't now. I think we could certainly rival them, be a really good alternative.

Edit: Quality of officers produced, we're just as good if not better.

Mike Hancho said:

---

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

---

Also for the record ID love to hear you definition of "better". I'm not sure that was ever described here.

What was opined here is that pound for pound it can be argued that there is a more dynamic changes in the caliber of leader from what starts in the corps va what outputs as compared to the academies.

Dark_Knight said:

---

Mike Hancho said:

---

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

---

I never said they were, we definitely aren't now. I think we could certainly rival them, be a really good alternative.

---

I think there is a misunderstanding about the quality of young people in the Corps today. I encourage you or anyone else to go walk around the Quad and talk to them. They are more squared away than we were in the 1990s, I assure you. I loved what the Corps did for me, it may be different today but it still does a great job producing leaders today.

Please go see for yourself, I promise you will be impressed.

ELREY said:

---

Dark_Knight said:

---

Mike Hancho said:

---

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

---

I never said they were, we definitely aren't now. I think we could certainly rival them, be a really good alternative.

---

I think there is a misunderstanding about the quality of young people in the Corps today. I encourage you or anyone else to go walk around the Quad and talk to them. They are more squared away than we were in the 1990s, I assure you. I loved what the Corps did for me, it may be different today but it still does a great job producing leaders today.

Please go see for yourself, I promise you will be impressed.

---

I have no doubt. I edited my comment, I didn't mean that our quality is less.

Dark_Knight said:

---

ELREY said:

---

Dark_Knight said:

---

Mike Hancho said:

---

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

---

I never said they were, we definitely aren't now. I think we could certainly rival them, be a really good alternative.

---

I think there is a misunderstanding about the quality of young people in the Corps today. I encourage you or anyone else to go walk around the Quad and talk to them. They are more squared away than we were in the 1990s, I assure you. I loved what the Corps did for me, it may be different today but it still does a great job producing leaders today.

Please go see for yourself, I promise you will be impressed.

---

I have no doubt. I edited my comment, I didn't mean that our quality is less.

---

I saw that after I hit post. You are a thoughtful and reasonable person (at least from what I can tell). I appreciate the dialog!!!

Mike Hancho said:

---

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

---

Weren't you in the Corps and punched?

2/21 Update:

Rebuttal to the Commandants Facebook Post with new info...

(This is not mine, just forwarded to me by anonymous former CT)

https://jumpshare.com/s/p9SBdGbqoV75nsv8xmEw

First page (it is long):

Does anyone have access to this referenced Board of Visitors blueprint? I'd like to see its components.

aggiez03 said:

---

2/21 Update:

Rebuttal to the Commandants Facebook Post with new info...

(This is not mine, just forwarded to me by anonymous former CT)

https://jumpshare.com/s/p9SBdGbqoV75nsv8xmEw

First page (it is long):

---

All the red text is unnecessary and a distraction from what is being said. What's the actual link to what was said, not edited text?

I'm sure more information could be found through an Open Records Request.

https://orec.tamu.edu/open-records/

The black is what the Commandant wrote, the red is the response. If you click on the link you get a pdf file that is easier to read. Hope this helps.

Served with both. Aggies are better across the board.

Not a link unless you are a member of the FB group where it was posted.

Pg 4 copied and pasted from FB group according to OP.

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

aggiez03 said:

---

2/21 Update:

Rebuttal to the Commandants Facebook Post with new info...

(This is not mine, just forwarded to me by anonymous former CT)

https://jumpshare.com/s/p9SBdGbqoV75nsv8xmEw

First page (it is long):

---

I'm disagree entirely with the proposed direction for the Corps, but that is poorly written and comes off as overly emotional and unorganized. I don't doubt the writer's passion, but that presentation is atrocious.

freedomfighter11 said:

---

Served with both. Aggies are better across the board.

---

Just to add my .02 I was a Field Artillery NCO and my favorite battery commander was West Point, best PL was North Georgia and the dewshiest officer I was around was an Aggie. You get good and bad everywhere.

Never was in the corps

He wasn't in the corps and has no frame of reference..

Changing the freshman experience will change the heart of A&M. There won't be anymore bonding. Without going through hell there will be no more mountain tops. Kind of like DEI. Everybody is equal? Merit, toughness and perseverance will not be learned but will be lost. Another move toward the national trend of making our military soft.

My Aggie ring and diploma say otherwise

Bryanisbest said:

---

Changing the freshman experience will change the heart of A&M. There won't be anymore bonding. Without going through hell there will be no more mountain tops. Kind of like DEI. Everybody is equal? Merit, toughness and perseverance will not be learned but will be lost. Another move toward the national trend of making our military soft.

---

They've been changing the fish experience for a long time. It's alot different now than it was 30 years ago. Some of the changes I agree with and for the better. For example, cadets make far better grades today than compared to when I was there. That's because of some smart changes they made along the way. On the other hand I'm pretty sure the fish 30 years ago could do more pushups compared to this class. I'm pretty sure the tradeoff of grades vs. Push ups was a good one. The response to this is over the top and emotional.

freedomfighter11 said:

---

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.

---

How about this, give them all a choice of any outfit? No more designated all male units. If they haze a female out of the unit, then maybe they should get some special attention. There is enough females to go around. I've actually counted them, primarily because I felt that my old unit had a disproportionate amount versus other integrated, and definitely versus all male units.
You don't have to like it, but I prefer this over the currently proposed changes. I recognize that it's not an either or decision.

How many did you count?

I gotta pull up my spreadsheet

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.

---

It has always been this way.

But there is no logical reason to do that.. it makes no sense.. it is as illogical as allowing men to join sororities and women to join fraternities when co-ed options already exist, just as they already exist in the corps. Curious, how many all male units are struggling with recruiting? Which integrated units are crushing it? We need to replicate the successful units, whether integrated or all male… and we need to add an all female option too if we are actually serious about growing the corps..

So what was the logical reason to create integrated units and how does that not apply now? If we are preparing leaders for this state and nation, don't you think that our training should include experience dealing with superiors and subordinates who are female? The corps isn't a front line combat unit.

I cant say for certain the exact percent, but if you look at the corps right now there is an incredible amount of females in leadership positions. Most likely a higher percent of top leadership positions are females than the percent of females in the corps
Corps commander, Chief of Staff, Wing Commanders, Multiple group/battalion level commanders, many Outfit commanders. There is no argument to be made that females don't have a chance in the corps (I know that's not what you're saying but just to add .02)
Having females doesn't have much to do with the ongoing debate and changes.
They have started putting more females together. Last year, in a group with 5 outfits, 3 got wags and 2 didn't so they put more together and they could be together and have a better chance.

Comeby! said:

---

I gotta pull up my spreadsheet

---

If I missed the sarcasm in your post, I apologize.

Point is if all were integrated, both male and female numbers will drop...

I wish I could wrap my head around how our beloved University in its 3rd major PR crisis in the than 12 months because a small group sits in an echo chamber and comes up with a decision that someone should have suspected would get significant pushback.

First we had journalism debacle. Then the attempt to hire Mark Stoops. Now this.

When will they learn to have some diversity of opinions and actually be challenged to make a good decision.

These major decisions get way too far down the road before anyone says "hey this will likely lead to a terrible outcome"

This now seems endemic in a bad University structure that allows small groups of like minded people to get together to make major decisions with no thought they won't be universally praised.

This is bigger than a rouge commandant completely restructuring with no outside consideration. The entire University seems to be run at the whim of small circles colluding in secret. This should be examined at a much higher level. It is a repeated problem now. As former students who are asked for money at every turn we deserve better from the top down.

Co-ed dorms that have males who identify as females is even worse. Happened in at least one outfit two years ago.