That would be interesting. Let's be honest, while the Corps is an excercise in leadership, some people just aren't cut out to be a leader. But every is exposed to leadership on some level whether an ASL, SL or chain officer. But then questions like who would serve the outfit better as the IT chain officer. The senior RPTS major or the butt Computer Science major? (No offense to RPTS majors). Of course you make a butt a Cadet LT or a head a Cadet SGT I'm sure anarchy will reign and people will feel slighted. Then again good crash course in real life both military and civilian world where the best and most qualified person for the job gets it.

Arrow75 said:

---

snowmnag970 said:

---

I came from an integrated outfit, saw the last of GVA and the beginnings of Ramirez in charge. I know I am not the only one who has watched their outfit and corps get screwed over time and time again. But my Corps experience was what I made it, dealing with the changes and the ensuing BS was just part of my "education".

At the end of the day, I can express my opinion about the changes going on within the Corps. Or choose to not donate, to my outfit and the corps overall until the general is no longer in charge. I'll start to donate when we have some better leadership.

I believe that the foundation of strength of any organization lies within its roots and former members. (Hell, that's what being an Aggie is all about!) But that man has managed to piss off quite a few former cadets and has made a mockery of former cadets, their outfits, their academic mentors, and their traditions (the good ones and the bad ones).

I will rejoice the day that he is no longer commandant, it should have always been General Betty. But until that day comes, the corps is not receiving a penny from myself nor my buddies.

---

I am in the same camp with snowman both in view and financial support and have been for a couple of years. Hopefully there will also be a change within the CTO ranks as well. GatorAg03 also has a really good and currently accurate take on the state of things.

---

Hear hear.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
I'm not sure if you're aware but more than half the people on the selection committee are cadet commanders. Additionally I'm not sure that, GPA, PT scores, discipline record, an essay on leadership philosophy, goals for the outfit, and peer leadership, and an in-person interview are "made up" standards.

---

Cannon Crew Ag said:
I'm sorry, I agree that this stuff sounds good, but the reality of this is that they currently just don't care. Just an example of this is that the current Inspector General of the corps, the person that is supposed to uphold all standards among the cadets, has not passed a PT test since the spring of her fish year. They don't even do a good job of hiding it, and GatorAg is right, current cadets at all levels are losing faith if they haven't lost it already.

---

CTOs selectively enforce the height and weight standards and there isn't a consistent system i.e. Army weigh in and PT program when cadets are over weight. If a CTO decides they want you gone.......

---

The Corps has a designed H/W and PT standard of their own outside of the Army/Navy/Airforce/Marine standards. Military and Corps should be separated so you're forced to pass both. (On that same note, OOC should have zero ability to dangle contracts given to them by the Trigon in order to blackmail cadets. Thats bull**** and don't tell me it's not happening cause I for sure know it is).

Quote:

---

Hahaha

Found the emasculated **** that is stuck in a relationship with a butch.

Whats the matter? Did your integrated outfit brainwash you into believing brotherhood is queer or something?

Nah but seriously, the situation with the CTOs is ****ed. It's across the entire board. Some MUs have outstanding CTOs while others (like mine) leave much to be desired.

In the case of my current major unit, our CTO rarely approves any of our training plans, he is rarely in his office, we're pretty sure he's drunk 90% of the time, and he isn't exactly an approachable individual. The consensus amongst my outfit, along with pretty much everyone else in our major unit thinks he's a piece of **** and needs to be replaced.

---

I know exactly the CTO you're referring to and my C/O and I brought the alcohol to the attention of Starnes in '12 and they brushed that under the rug. We dealt with an incident late one night and he was called up since he was CTO on Guard for that night and he was clearly inebriated (not to mention it could be easily smelled).

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Ol Jock 99 said:
If you want an interesting discussion on discrimination, let's look at how many D&C folks of all stripes have worn 3 or 4 diamonds over the past 20 years or so. 10% maybe?

---

I always had a small feeling the OOC liked contract cadets in leadership because it's something they can use to ensure compliance on controversial issues. Basically no one is willing to jeopardize a military commission to get in a pissing match with a bull.

---

Again, Trigon and OOC should be separated on this and the OOC should have zero say on contracts. The only people that should be able to remove those are the heads of the departments in the Trigon. Don't tell me this isn't happening. It is.

Also my MUC CO was a D/C. Top grades though.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
The reason the RVs typically have a great compilation of most of the top cadets is because the cadets pick who makes it and even picks who leads them. (Unless that too has been changed recently). That's why these guys are almost universally considered leaders within the Corps vice some trigon selected compilation of staff rats with high GPAs that can't lead themselves, much less a group, out of a wet paper bag (these staff types are selected every year it seems).

---

Yeah, I'm calling BS on this.

RV's was nothing more than a popularity contest that had nothing to do with leadership or statesmanship.

In my day, they were not so affectionately known as b/tch platoon because you had to be somebody's hey boy to get on it.

---

I've known tons of RV's and a lot of them were good guys, however I knew a far share of bad apples too. Popularity contest, for sure, but for the most part, the good in the Corps get in. Not always, but most part.

Quote:

---

The Corps has a designed H/W and PT standard of their own outside of the Army/Navy/Airforce/Marine standards. Military and Corps should be separated so you're forced to pass both. (On that same note, OOC should have zero ability to dangle contracts given to them by the Trigon in order to blackmail cadets. Thats bull**** and don't tell me it's not happening cause I for sure know it is).

---

How exactly does the OOC "dangle contracts" when they have no role in contracts? The OOC role is exactly zero.

Sure, CTOs can and do have conversations with the departments about Cadets -- both positive and negative.
And no doubt derogatory information would be taken into account if substantiated (e.g., legal issues or University discipline.)

But the PMS/PNS/PAS are the sole authorities on contracts -- period. Contracts are not even staffed through the Commandant's Office. The departments and the OOCs work in partnership, but also have clearly divided lanes.

If a Cadet loses a contract because of indiscipline, it is due to the Cadet's actions -- not a CTO grudge.

Grades, PT, and major of study are the essential factors in contracting. Not the influence of the OOC.

If a Cadet thinks he/she is being denied a contract because of OOC involvement, that Cadet should go see the relevant PMS/PNS/PAS to discuss it. Because it sounds like BOGINT and quad rumors being spread by people who don't actually understand the process.

As a Corps mom this is an interesting thread. Yes, current cadets think it was wrong to move the qualified E2 cadet and place the female in his spot. Just intergrate the fish class and bring in a few sophomores.

There should be all three options for the kids - all male, all female, and intergrated. I don't see anything wrong with all male or all female outfits. Many cadets are DNC and are in the Corps for tradition, the experience, and the comraderie among his/her buddies. This is how you grow numbers by offering many options to join.

If true, to have someone on Corps staff who enforces standards and can't make the standard herself is outrageous.

Finally, if I was Ramirez I would do everything possible to preserve outfit cultures. Every outfit has it own signature - some are more athletic, others more military focus or major focus. Again, options are better than an uniformed standard across the outfits to where it doesn't matter which outfit you are in. My husband was in the Corps and the lifelong friendships are always present among his buddies. It's different vs others who just went through college. Yes, as a non reg I have friends I am still in contact with but, the closeness is just not comparable to my husband and his buddies. That is what should be maintained above everything else. That is also what will keep donations flowing into the Corps.

Wendy 1990 said:

---

There should be all three options for the kids - all male, all female, and intergrated. I don't see anything wrong with all male or all female outfits.

---

To your point, at work, in the Civilian world we have:

• All Male (except for India where the women actually do a lot of the work) - Engineering/Tech Support
• All Female - Marketing/HR
• Mixed/Integrated - Sales

But the reality in a Corps of Cadets situation is that you're just not going to have a high enough female participation rate to really make that strategy feasible.

I don't have the exact numbers but, based on observation, it would appear to me that:
If there are 2700 cadets in the Corps, there are probably 12% females +/- 3%
So that means there are about 325 or so Females in the Corps.
I'll bet 50% of those are in the FTAB.
So that leaves about 160 females for the rest of the Corps (I rounded a little).
So, take some y/y attrition rate between classes due to academics/loss of scholarship or lack of interest and you probably wind up with a distribution of 160 females that looks like this:
30 Seniors/35 Juniors/40 Sophomores/45 fish

If you need a good 60 females to form a single all-female cadet company, then you're leaving about 100 females to distribute to the integrated outfits. And if you did that, you'd wind up with a situation where you either populate 20 outfits with a token female or you'd wind up with somewhere between 2-5 outfits that you could populate with enough females to make it feel integrated rather than just paying lip service to integration.

The other problem that you'd run into with an All Female outfit is keeping enough cadets interested in staying in it after they're subjected to the cattiness and lesbianism that would no doubt arise (I've coached enough women's softball to know how this game works).
Note: in the era of W-1 and Sq. 14 there was no other choice for females. They couldn't jump ship if they didn't like their outfit.

HollywoodBQ said:

---

Wendy 1990 said:

---

There should be all three options for the kids - all male, all female, and intergrated. I don't see anything wrong with all male or all female outfits.

---

To your point, at work, in the Civilian world we have:

• All Male (except for India where the women actually do a lot of the work) - Engineering/Tech Support -
• All Female - Marketing/HR
• Mixed/Integrated - Sales

But the reality in a Corps of Cadets situation is that you're just not going to have a high enough female participation rate to really make that strategy feasible.

I don't have the exact numbers but, based on observation, it would appear to me that:
If there are 2700 cadets in the Corps, there are probably 12% females +/- 3%
So that means there are about 325 or so Females in the Corps.
I'll bet 50% of those are in the FTAB.
So that leaves about 160 females for the rest of the Corps (I rounded a little).
So, take some y/y attrition rate between classes due to academics/loss of scholarship or lack of interest and you probably wind up with a distribution of 160 females that looks like this:
30 Seniors/35 Juniors/40 Sophomores/45 fish

If you need a good 60 females to form a single all-female cadet company, then you're leaving about 100 females to distribute to the integrated outfits. And if you did that, you'd wind up with a situation where you either populate 20 outfits with a token female or you'd wind up with somewhere between 2-5 outfits that you could populate with enough females to make it feel integrated rather than just paying lip service to integration.

The other problem that you'd run into with an All Female outfit is keeping enough cadets interested in staying in it after they're subjected to the cattiness and lesbianism that would no doubt arise (I've coached enough women's softball to know how this game works).
Note: in the era of W-1 and Sq. 14 there was no other choice for females. They couldn't jump ship if they didn't like their outfit.

---

WOW.. please rethink what you just wrote. Not trying to be rude, but a whole lotta bull in that.

There are lots of females in Engineering

There are lots of men in Marketing/HR

"after they're subjected to the cattiness and lesbianism that would no doubt arise" Don't know what to say

Not really. When at least 80% of a field is men or vice versa, I would say that is male dominated. Maybe not all male, but you get my point. The problem with his post is that hopefully people don't choose careers based on how many women or men are already there.

And wasn't W-1 disbanded because of the crazy **** they were doing to each other?

Champ Bailey said:

---

Not really. When at least 80% of a field is men or vice versa, I would say that is male dominated. Maybe not all male, but you get my point. The problem with his post is that hopefully people don't choose careers based on how many women or men are already there.

And wasn't W-1 disbanded because of the crazy **** they were doing to each other?

---

Maybe so, but when you say "All Male" and "All Female", that simply isn't true.

W-1 was disbanded in 1990. That was 27 years ago.

Again, making bold predictions that they are gonna turn each other lesbian and stuff is just not smart.

I'm not for integration, but good grief, let's at least be rational in our thinking and words.

I agree he was being hyperbolic. But I also recognize the intent behind what he was saying.

No black marbles or black balling or anything like that. That was the rumor I always heard too before I participated in it but it's not true. It's a series of elections, very similar to how Corps Block voting goes.