I didn't participate in the Corps of Cadets at A&M, but I've heard from several distinguished former students that their time in the Corps prepared them for leadership and service and was more attributable to their success than any other experience in their lives. It always made me wonder why the corps didn't produce more leaders in Austin and Washington, especially since they seem to dominate student government at A&M. Even these days the SBP is usually in the Corps.

Texas A&M existed for 124 years before producing an Aggie Governor (Perry in 2000).
An Aggie has never been elected to the U.S. Senate.
In its first 89 years, Texas A&M only produced one U.S. Representative (Teague in '46).

Granted A&M was a small college and many graduates spent their careers in the military, but it's still surprising.

Simple , because they are not lawyers.

A very politically minded guy who was a Zip when I was a fish said one time when we were talking about this topic, "We would never have an Aggie Governor until A&M had a Law School". He was sort of right. Although we got the Law School while we had the Governor.

I won't identify him because he does post on here occasionally but he was very active on campus and frankly, I expected him to be one of the guys who made it in politics. Things worked out differently after his military service and he hasn't entered the political arena yet but, he's still somebody who I think could do it.

• Reason #1 - I think that having to continuously keep your mouth shut for many years of military service keeps a lot of guys out of politics later in life.

In my case, I was a voter but, I didn't really become interested in politics as a participant until I was about 36 years old and saw some wrong-headed stuff going down in my community that I just couldn't sit idly by and watch. I felt compelled to at least speak up about it at some city council meetings. But, the other factors that come into play are exactly why I didn't do more at that time. I might do more later but...

• Reason #2 - I like my day job and it pays well (which leads to)
  
• Reason #3 - Most companies frown on participation in local politics (yes, I realize the irony because most companies encourage political correctness)
  

So, unless you are self-employed, there is usually a strong enough financial incentive to discourage participation in politics.

Also, in my area where I got involved with city council meetings, I would have been running as a conservative in an area that votes 75%+ Democrat. Now, I was given the idea that I could run as a Democrat and change parties after I got elected. But, that seems facetious to me and I'm not about deceiving people. That's probably another reason that you don't find more Former Students and Former Corps of Cadets members in politics. The amount of deceit that is required to get elected and remain elected. That's exactly what the Corps and A&M are NOT about.

Now, having said all that, one of my BQ buddies is up for "Texan of the Year" by the Dallas Morning News. My buddy has found a way to participate effectively in politics without being elected. It's very interesting but he's been quite successful at it. I cracked up last year when there was a big article in Texas Monthly about him.

Aggies don't lie, cheat or steal, pre-requisites for politicians.

quote:

---

Aggies don't lie, cheat or steal, pre-requisites for politicians.

---

Is it possible the Corps produces people who realize there are far more honorable pursuits than being a politician?

I didn't realize that being a politician equated to leadership. There was a time when the phone company (Ma Bell), the electric companies in most of the major Texas cities and Lone Star Gas Co. were all headed by Aggie Corps graduates. The Corps has produced 8 Medal of Honor winners, more than any college in the nation outside of the academies. I could go on and on about the Aggie Corps graduates who have gone on in the corporate world to leave their mark. So maybe I don't understand the original premise but I think it may be a false premise.

Possibly could have something to do with the Aggie Corps credo of "An Aggie never lies, cheats, or steals, nor tolerates those who do". Sort of contrary to the thinking of politicians.

quote:

---

I didn't realize that being a politician equated to leadership.

---

ding ding ding

I've learned that more often than not, people can do much more to make a positive difference and get things done in public service or other roles than they can as an elected official.

quote:

---

The Corps has produced 8 Medal of Honor winners, more than any college in the nation outside of the academies.

---

7 - Mr. Sasser was never in the Corps, as far as I'm aware. Unless you're referring to another MOH recipient who told everyone he went to A&M, but later research indicated he hadn't.

A&M needs to develop a Talpiot Institute and recruit within the Corps. Future public leaders could come from that concept.

Sq 6 was reactivated in January2013. Since reactivation, it's focus ison training cadets for public service. Whether local, county, state, national,military, NGO, etc, that's part of their mission. See excerpt taken from theoutfit's 2014-2015 recruiting SOP:'InSavage 6, our training intent is to produce young men and women of character
who are interested in Government and Public Service. This includes a wide range
of local, state and federal fields such as the CIA, FBI, DOD, NSA, Secret
Service, State Department to law enforcement, fire fighters, game wardens
within others. Through an emphasis on academic excellence, physical fitness,
military bearing, professionalism, and community service, Squadron 6 will
prepare you for the challenges of the 21st century......Our unit isopen to cadets in Army, Air Force, and Navy/Marine ROTC.'
The Corps does have a pipeline for cadets interested inpublic service. Other outfits do that aswell, but I'm not aware of one that has it in the Mission/Vision Statement. Just like K-1 and Sq 16 for engineers, Sq 12for doctors, E-1 for jocks, etc in the 80s.Huslin One and Pro Sandy have it right being a politiciandoesn't equate to leadership. I've knownplenty of leaders (military and civilian) that would not make good
politicians. One can pick up the paperand find plenty of politicians who aren't leaders, let alone being qualified to
shovel dung. Don't get me wrong, there aresome good politicians (regardless of party), but their actions are often pushed
to the back burner because of the bad apples.I've always felt that our Founding Father's intent was thatthe common man (ranchers, farmers, ironsmith, doctor, ditchdiggers, etc) would
be the politicians that ran our public entities. Not the person that puts 'Politician' downwhen asked what they do.Professional Politician? Naah. Not an occupation if youask me. They need to be something elseprimarily and a politician on the side

By the way, am relatively new to posting on TexAgs...the formatting has me confused.

What's the best way to post a longer response? Have been putting my response in a Word Document, then cut/paste, but the spacing, etc gets all jacked up (see my post above).

Am open to suggestions....

Thanks and build the hell outta the west side of Kyle......

You might try doing it in notepad so it's all plain text.

quote:

---

What's the best way to post a longer response?

---

Uhhhh, type it into the response box and click "post"?

Seriously, unless you're writing a freaking novel, just type it in. If you're frightened that all your work will be lost, then type a paragraph or so at a time. Post that, then click the little pencil to edit, and add more. If the edit crashes, you won't lose the already-posted part.

If you're worried that someone will misinterpret what you've written until you append the post, make the bottom line something like "more coming....""

I'm pretty sure that, even as a rookie, you can edit your posts as many times as you wish. I edit mine all the time. I'm always messing up spelling, or writing some brilliant thought that I later realize sounds like nonsense.

CanyonAg and Ryan the Temp - thanks

One does not need to be an elected official in the executive branch or legislative branch to have a significant effect on national or state policy. I submit that there are many former Corps of Cadet students who played major roles at the highest levels of government in public service careers.

quote:

---

Possibly could have something to do with the Aggie Corps credo of "An Aggie never lies, cheats, or steals, nor tolerates those who do". Sort of contrary to the thinking of politicians.

---

so two of the four Ag Congressmen were in the Corps. The other two were not - but all are Aggies. Does this mean they lie, steal, or cheat?

quote:

---

One does not need to be an elected official in the executive branch or legislative branch to have a significant effect on national or state policy. I submit that there are many former Corps of Cadet students who played major roles at the highest levels of government in public service careers.

---

No, but the OP raises a great question. You can be an effective leader anywhere, but that's not what he asked. He asked why, in 130+ years, A&M has only produced 1 governor and no US senators. It's a fantastic question, and one I've asked myself from time to time.

Does being a US senator mean you're the tits? No, but you would think in 130+ years the Corps would have produced at least one, given our self-titled "best leadership school in Texas".

USMA (our eternal Corps of Cadets rival) has produced
2 Presidents
4 foreign heads of State
39 Governors
18 Astronauts
74 Medal of Honor recipients* (* most of these back when the MoH was the only award and given for things that merit the Achievement Medals today)
70 Rhodes scholars
39 US legislators
46 Chiefs of Staff

*Note, as a Aggie Corps graduate, I deplore USMA. As a USMA "P", however, I am awed by the weight of the long gray line, even though the current cadets are pretentious and entitled due to this lineage.

A&M should have at least that many (proportionally, for Texas) governors, legislators, etc. After all, there are only 5-6 "significant" colleges in Texas.

You are a "P" now as in professor FA?

quote:

---

You are a "P" now as in professor FA?

---

Nosir, was rotating PhD until mid-Dec, now on a volunteer WIAS tasker

I've kind of been wondering about this myself, but also in the context of A&M not producing very many folks that end up on TV as actors or news anchors. My personal hypothesis that I just made up and can't really back it up with any data is that we have a culture that encourages being pragmatic.

When A&M first started, we were a school for farmers and engineers. Farmers don't have time to meddle with politics, they want to learn how increase their yield and make sure the family farm doesn't go under. Engineers are smart, but not politics smart. I also suspect that, at least early on, the rich kids went to Baylor/tu while the more blue collar kids came to A&M. And you need money to get into politics.

Fast forward to more recent times and look at the degrees/courses offered at A&M. We don't offer a real journalism program or theater program (or at least didn't a few years ago). So you don't see A&M grads as much in the media. And while liberal arts programs at A&M are growing, engineering is still our flagship program (in my opinion).

One of the big selling points of A&M is how well are former students are doing, how high the average income is of A&M graduates vs graduates of other schools. And again, this is just my opinion, but I feel that our culture is one of not messing around with politics or philosophy, but getting down to business and getting things done. And if there is one thing that is the opposite of getting things done, it is Congress.

I am immersed in politics in my personal life, and I have run for office before. That being said, I strongly prefer my work as a public employee where I can actually get **** done. However, my experience in politics bridges the gap and allows me to help the engineers I work with deal with politicians and the politics of public policy more effectively.

I think the choice of degrees has a lot to do with it. Most high level politicians are lawyers, and increasingly doctors for some reason (I've yet to figure out that trend). A&M doesn't have programs for either of those fields.

Even MIT, pretty unarguably the best engineering school in the world, has only produced:

2 Governors
3 Representatives
1 Senator

quote:

---

USMA (our eternal Corps of Cadets rival) has produced

---

Tango Mike - I think a closer comparison would not be A&M vs. USMA but maybe A&M vs. Virginia Tech
So how many governors, senators, etc. has Virginia Tech produced?

My only point here being that there appears to be a negative correlation between leadership/military service and success in politics. And I don't think that problem exists only at A&M.

EDIT: Doing a little fact checking on your USMA numbers. I'm not giving them credit for being Governor of the Panama Canal Zone or Puerto Rico during the Spanish American War. So if you take that away, the USMA hasn't produced 39 Governors. And post 1900, they've only produced 3 Governors - according to Wikipedia anyway.

• Charles H. Martin, Class of 1887, Governor of Oregon (1935-39)
• Warren E. Hearnes, Class of 1946. Governor of Missouri (1965-1973)
• Dave Heineman, Class of 1970. Governor of Nebraska (since 2005)

And, the USMA has produced not 2 but 3 Presidents

• Jefferson Davis - Class of 1828 - President of the Confederate States of America (1861-1865)
• Ulysses S. Grant - Class of 1843 - 18th President of the United States (1869-1877)
• Dwight D. Eisenhower - Class of 1915 - 34th President of the United States (1953-1961)

quote:

---

quote:

---

USMA (our eternal Corps of Cadets rival) has produced

---

Tango Mike - I think a closer comparison would not be A&M vs. USMA but maybe A&M vs. Virginia Tech
So how many governors, senators, etc. has Virginia Tech produced?

My only point here being that there appears to be a negative correlation between leadership/military service and success in politics. And I don't think that problem exists only at A&M.

---

1 Governor (2007-2011), so after Perry
1 Congressman


interestingly, also 1 President of Texas A&M University (Elsa Murano 2008-2009)

quote:

---

I didn't participate in the Corps of Cadets at A&M, but I've heard from several distinguished former students that their time in the Corps prepared them for leadership and service and was more attributable to their success than any other experience in their lives. It always made me wonder why the corps didn't produce more leaders in Austin and Washington, especially since they seem to dominate student government at A&M. Even these days the SBP is usually in the Corps.

Texas A&M existed for 124 years before producing an Aggie Governor (Perry in 2000).
An Aggie has never been elected to the U.S. Senate.
In its first 89 years, Texas A&M only produced one U.S. Representative (Teague in '46).

Granted A&M was a small college and many graduates spent their careers in the military, but it's still surprising.

---

in my research on other schools I thought it is worth noting that your original count is not entirely correct

I found

2 Governors (Perry and Frank White - Gov. of Arkansas)
11 Congressmen, 4 currently sitting ( Barton, Flores, Gohmert, and Hensarling)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Texas_A%26M_University_people

I'm more concerned that A&M hasn't produced any astronauts. What's up with that? I think the sips claim 10. TEN!

quote:

---

quote:

---

One does not need to be an elected official in the executive branch or legislative branch to have a significant effect on national or state policy. I submit that there are many former Corps of Cadet students who played major roles at the highest levels of government in public service careers.

---

No, but the OP raises a great question. You can be an effective leader anywhere, but that's not what he asked. He asked why, in 130+ years, A&M has only produced 1 governor and no US senators. It's a fantastic question, and one I've asked myself from time to time.

Does being a US senator mean you're the tits? No, but you would think in 130+ years the Corps would have produced at least one, given our self-titled "best leadership school in Texas".

USMA (our eternal Corps of Cadets rival) has produced
2 Presidents
4 foreign heads of State
39 Governors
18 Astronauts
74 Medal of Honor recipients* (* most of these back when the MoH was the only award and given for things that merit the Achievement Medals today)
70 Rhodes scholars
39 US legislators
46 Chiefs of Staff

*Note, as a Aggie Corps graduate, I deplore USMA. As a USMA "P", however, I am awed by the weight of the long gray line, even though the current cadets are pretentious and entitled due to this lineage.

A&M should have at least that many (proportionally, for Texas) governors, legislators, etc. After all, there are only 5-6 "significant" colleges in Texas.

---

Haven't we graduated several foreign heads of state?

quote:

---

I'm more concerned that A&M hasn't produced any astronauts. What's up with that? I think the sips claim 10. TEN!

---

Mike Fossum '80 says hi. And I believe we claim a few more, as some astronauts got advanced degrees from A&M. On a side note, I seem to recall that some of the early astronauts trained on the computers at A&M.

quote:

---

quote:

---

USMA (our eternal Corps of Cadets rival) has produced

---

Tango Mike - I think a closer comparison would not be A&M vs. USMA but maybe A&M vs. Virginia Tech
So how many governors, senators, etc. has Virginia Tech produced?

My only point here being that there appears to be a negative correlation between leadership/military service and success in politics. And I don't think that problem exists only at A&M.

EDIT: Doing a little fact checking on your USMA numbers. I'm not giving them credit for being Governor of the Panama Canal Zone or Puerto Rico during the Spanish American War. So if you take that away, the USMA hasn't produced 39 Governors. And post 1900, they've only produced 3 Governors - according to Wikipedia anyway.

• Charles H. Martin, Class of 1887, Governor of Oregon (1935-39)
• Warren E. Hearnes, Class of 1946. Governor of Missouri (1965-1973)
• Dave Heineman, Class of 1970. Governor of Nebraska (since 2005)

And, the USMA has produced not 2 but 3 Presidents

• Jefferson Davis - Class of 1828 - President of the Confederate States of America (1861-1865)
• Ulysses S. Grant - Class of 1843 - 18th President of the United States (1869-1877)
• Dwight D. Eisenhower - Class of 1915 - 34th President of the United States (1953-1961)

---

To be honest, I never fact-checked any of the claims that place makes, I just know the stuff they trot out as their history. There might indeed be many inaccuracies in their lists that I don't know about.


I think VaTech is a pretty good comparison, but it has a weird place in the Virginia heirarchy. UVA is the ivory tower of Virginia (their UT) that has produced the intellectuals, etc. VMI is the historically stronger Corps of Cadets and has produced more "power" within Virginia than VaTech has.

quote:

---

I think the choice of degrees has a lot to do with it. Most high level politicians are lawyers, and increasingly doctors for some reason (I've yet to figure out that trend). A&M doesn't have programs for either of those fields.

Even MIT, pretty unarguably the best engineering school in the world, has only produced:

2 Governors
3 Representatives
1 Senator

---

I think JonLobb's post is closest to being the explanation. My crackpot theory is that there is a self selection issue (for lack of a better term) with people that attend A&M. While A&M has changed quite a bit since I attended many moons ago I would bet it is still largely comprised of students that are analytical. Engineers, scientists, etc. My experience at A&M as well as at two different corporations is that people that are in analytical fields such as engineers and scientists do not have the personality traits to be good politicians. Most people in STEM fields are not only analytical (DUH) but introverts to some degree....which is not a good trait to have to be a politician. And I realize that I am painting with a very broad brush and so I am sure one can poke holes in my theory with specific examples demonstrating where that is not correct. Still, I think my theory holds of the most part. JonLobb's example from MIT puts the exclamation point on my theory. MIT graduates are for the most part brilliant.....yet look at how few politicians MIT has produced.

I am sure there are other factors that are involved as well.

And more specifically about why the Corp of Cadets hasn't produced more politicians given its focus on leadership...What if leadership is a trait that is not that important in politicians? I am being a bit contrarian here and excuse me for injecting politics into this board, but our current President does not have very good leadership skills. I don't think Nixon did either. Nor Jimmy Carter. Sad really, but maybe other characteristics are more important than leadership.

TangoMike did lots of research on USMA and very little on A&M !

USMA started 50 YEARS before A&M ! A&M didn't exist during the Civil War - how many MOH were awarded in that war ? How many were rescended later by Congress ?

So since A&M started in 1876, USMA has only produced ONE president in 139 years ! And not one Governor of Texas !

When TangoMike gets over his love of USMA as compared to A&M, he will find one guy from A&M who has changed the world without firing a shot - George Mitchell who has revolutionized the world energy production ! ( And was in the Corps at A&M )