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.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.
Why are some outfits all-male and how were they chosen?
28,651 Views |
148 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by Talon 07
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.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.
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.......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.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.
I think your views on some of the Bulls from when we were in the Corps are somewhat accurate when talking about specific individuals, and keep in mind there were only a handful of them. As I mentioned it was a different time, and yes in fact the people who are working in the OOC these days have years of outstanding training/combat/leadership experience. They really do work long hours, for pretty modest pay, and do their best by the cadets. Something you probably want to remember is that from the cadet perspective you don't ever actually learn but a fraction of the story.
Having had first hand experience, watching cadets and bulls working together it is anything but micro-managment. From the outside looking in, I can see how it can look like that, additionally there are a lot of cadets (upperclassmen in particular) who get upset when they get called out for not meeting standards.
If you are familiar with military PT scores are gender-normed so why wouldn't they be in Corps? As in any endeavor you can never please everyone, and of course there are cadets who are malcontents, who think things are unfair, and standards are selective, etc, etc...I can tell you from experience that college students are keenly aware of anything they perceive to be "unfair" to them, but are less concerned about times when they skate past the standards. We don't let the privates in an infantry company select their commander why would we do that in the Corps?
I know that I'm not going to be changing anyone's mind here. I'll be the unpopular guy and say that I'm confident that the system in place is a good one that is benefiting the cadets, whether they understand it or not. The Corps will not end if there is a female mascot CPL. The U.S. Army Ranger Regiment is now gender integrated (or at least in the process of being integrate), so I'm not sure why E-2 shouldn't be.
Having had first hand experience, watching cadets and bulls working together it is anything but micro-managment. From the outside looking in, I can see how it can look like that, additionally there are a lot of cadets (upperclassmen in particular) who get upset when they get called out for not meeting standards.
If you are familiar with military PT scores are gender-normed so why wouldn't they be in Corps? As in any endeavor you can never please everyone, and of course there are cadets who are malcontents, who think things are unfair, and standards are selective, etc, etc...I can tell you from experience that college students are keenly aware of anything they perceive to be "unfair" to them, but are less concerned about times when they skate past the standards. We don't let the privates in an infantry company select their commander why would we do that in the Corps?
I know that I'm not going to be changing anyone's mind here. I'll be the unpopular guy and say that I'm confident that the system in place is a good one that is benefiting the cadets, whether they understand it or not. The Corps will not end if there is a female mascot CPL. The U.S. Army Ranger Regiment is now gender integrated (or at least in the process of being integrate), so I'm not sure why E-2 shouldn't be.
I agree that some CTOs may not be the highest quality guys but I was fortunate to have an extremely experienced CTO that provided mentorship throughout my time in leadership and allowed me to screw up which is ultimately what helped me learn and grow. Not all had that experience, in fact I would say most didn't. The CTO position can be really beneficial with the right person in place.
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.
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.
AGhistorian said:
I think your views on some of the Bulls from when we were in the Corps are somewhat accurate when talking about specific individuals, and keep in mind there were only a handful of them. As I mentioned it was a different time, and yes in fact the people who are working in the OOC these days have years of outstanding training/combat/leadership experience. They really do work long hours, for pretty modest pay, and do their best by the cadets. Something you probably want to remember is that from the cadet perspective you don't ever actually learn but a fraction of the story.
Having had first hand experience, watching cadets and bulls working together it is anything but micro-managment. From the outside looking in, I can see how it can look like that, additionally there are a lot of cadets (upperclassmen in particular) who get upset when they get called out for not meeting standards.
If you are familiar with military PT scores are gender-normed so why wouldn't they be in Corps? As in any endeavor you can never please everyone, and of course there are cadets who are malcontents, who think things are unfair, and standards are selective, etc, etc...I can tell you from experience that college students are keenly aware of anything they perceive to be "unfair" to them, but are less concerned about times when they skate past the standards. We don't let the privates in an infantry company select their commander why would we do that in the Corps?
I know that I'm not going to be changing anyone's mind here. I'll be the unpopular guy and say that I'm confident that the system in place is a good one that is benefiting the cadets, whether they understand it or not. The Corps will not end if there is a female mascot CPL. The U.S. Army Ranger Regiment is now gender integrated (or at least in the process of being integrate), so I'm not sure why E-2 shouldn't be.
The goal of the military isn't the same as the goal of the corps. The goal of the military is to win wars. The goal of the corps is to have every person in it develop their leadership skills, not just the ones the bulls think look good on paper. They should be able to have some input on the direction and leadership of their own outfit.
And saying that the rangers are integrated so every outfit should be is a dumb comparison. People don't join the corps for the same reasons they join the Rangers. A lot of them joined because they saw the great male camaraderie their dads or brothers experienced. Now, is there anything inherently wrong with a female being in an outfit? No. But if I wanted female camaraderie, I would have joined a different outfit or organization. It looks like the corps leadership is content with people like me and many others finding other organizations for that instead.
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?
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.
I appreciate you pointing out my "dumb" comparison. How could I have made such a ridiculous mistake.
It got me thinking, when in my civilian or military career have I had a say in who my leader/manager is? The answer is never. So I guess my point should have been the Corps is not a democracy and isn't set up to be.
There may be something that you can help me out with, I'm trying to find where in the mission statement it says the Corps is about "all-male camaraderie"?
I was under the impression the purpose was to develop leaders of character.
If someone is looking for "all-male camaraderie" there are plenty of fraternities around campus that would be happy to have them.
I made it clear that I know I'm not changing anyones mind. However I do find it fascinating that people who have not participated in the decision-making process that leads to all of these outcomes are so confident that they know why a decision was made.
I for one still want to Corps to be around 10, 20, 100 years from now. I also think the program is particularly valuable these days, so I'm going to keep contributing regardless of which outfit is integrated. That just makes sense to me. If you disagree, I'm OK with that, it's your right. However disagree based on facts, not what you suspect may be happening behind the scenes.
It got me thinking, when in my civilian or military career have I had a say in who my leader/manager is? The answer is never. So I guess my point should have been the Corps is not a democracy and isn't set up to be.
There may be something that you can help me out with, I'm trying to find where in the mission statement it says the Corps is about "all-male camaraderie"?
I was under the impression the purpose was to develop leaders of character.
If someone is looking for "all-male camaraderie" there are plenty of fraternities around campus that would be happy to have them.
I made it clear that I know I'm not changing anyones mind. However I do find it fascinating that people who have not participated in the decision-making process that leads to all of these outcomes are so confident that they know why a decision was made.
I for one still want to Corps to be around 10, 20, 100 years from now. I also think the program is particularly valuable these days, so I'm going to keep contributing regardless of which outfit is integrated. That just makes sense to me. If you disagree, I'm OK with that, it's your right. However disagree based on facts, not what you suspect may be happening behind the scenes.
Hey glad you agree you are wrong. I absolutely know what goes behind the scenes, as I was a part of the leadership 3 years ago. You are wrong. Thanks for being condescending though.
Good ole Haussman.
I have some room to talk more about this considering my position. My fish year was spent in an all male outfit up until spring break. After that I moved into the wings and eventually rushed a fraternity.
Here's the thing, you're right in part. All male camaraderie is a pretty unique thing in that nothing else is able to replicate it. The camaraderie I have with my fish buddies from my original unit is still there and exists even after so much time has passed since I left. We still get together, we still smoke cigars, we still interact with each other. And with my fraternity it's very similar, I would actually say it's a bit better, but it's not the same. Because of how regulated fraternity activities are these days. A lot of that shared pain and the bond that forms because of it doesn't really exist. It's a different kind of bond. And I personally believe that the Corps should have non-integrated outfits specifically for this purpose, especially considering that I know of many CTs that still have the whole "**** the frats/greeks" mentality.
I don't see the harm in giving incoming fish the choice about the corps experience that they wish to have.
Here's the thing, you're right in part. All male camaraderie is a pretty unique thing in that nothing else is able to replicate it. The camaraderie I have with my fish buddies from my original unit is still there and exists even after so much time has passed since I left. We still get together, we still smoke cigars, we still interact with each other. And with my fraternity it's very similar, I would actually say it's a bit better, but it's not the same. Because of how regulated fraternity activities are these days. A lot of that shared pain and the bond that forms because of it doesn't really exist. It's a different kind of bond. And I personally believe that the Corps should have non-integrated outfits specifically for this purpose, especially considering that I know of many CTs that still have the whole "**** the frats/greeks" mentality.
I don't see the harm in giving incoming fish the choice about the corps experience that they wish to have.
You are very welcome, anytime.
I've done just fine for damn near 10 years now in the big boy military with my "brainwashed 20th century mindset" Go back to playing pokeaman and let the grown ups talk.champagnepapi said:CT20unkown said:
They gutted E-1 this semester. They're trying to integrate it again for Fall of '17
H-1 is apparently getting a wag CO for Fall '17
There's also been some rumors around the quad that D-2 is getting integrated next year as well
Talking to my buddies in E-2 they've been saying that they're getting close to integrating but the whole Rev thing is delaying it for now.
Good. After you graduate and join the big boy military, you will see how brainwashed you were in the corps with a 20th Century mindset.
HTH
Seriously, hard to take papi seriously when 80% of his posts on other boards are pure trolling or just plain ******ed.
Just a couple random thoughts after reading through a lot
Not that I'm definding this decision to put a non-Rebel as 1st butt, but this happens all the time outside of the Corps. A good leader will delegate that responsibility to someone else who has more experience. Just like if a GB got chosen for 1st butt, he probably doesn't know as much about rev as the MC or someone who went out for MC. (back in my day you used to have to do one or the other).
I think focusing on Rev is low yield in this debate. Bigger point is why someone qualified to be 1st butt of another outfit was pulled from E-2 and another 1st butt brought in.
HAHA. Want to talk about queer? I can tell you some of the stories I've heard from some of my buddies in all male outfits. I won't repeat it online, because that's the kind of stuff that only we'd understand, but I think y'all get brainwashed into thinking some pretty gay stuff is just bonding.
The Corps is full of cronyism. I knew people who were selected for jobs by MUCs because the MUC knew they'd be a yes-man. I knew folks who didn't get any job in their outfit, but got a staff job because they were RV buddies with someone. Being quite removed from the Corps by many years, I don't think there is some vast conspiracy, but I do think there continues to be some heavy handed moves.
I'm totally for there beign all male outfits, just like I'm totally for there being integrated outfits. I also think females should have the option of an all female outfit. I don't like d-bags in all male outfits picking on wags. I remember a pisshead when I was in that got caught intentionally running into wag fish in Duncan to knock over their drinks. That's BS that that needs to change in outfti culture.
On another note, I don't think they had to force a wag 1st butt just to make E-2 integrated. I can't remember what outfit it was when I was in, but there was an outfit that was technically integrated that didn't have any wags in it for like 2 years or something. Just put an asterisk by it on the organization chart just like all the other integrated outfits.
Quote:
Not sure how a 1stSgt that has not gone through that training or that education, can aid the sophomores under their command to deal with such a high task.
Not that I'm definding this decision to put a non-Rebel as 1st butt, but this happens all the time outside of the Corps. A good leader will delegate that responsibility to someone else who has more experience. Just like if a GB got chosen for 1st butt, he probably doesn't know as much about rev as the MC or someone who went out for MC. (back in my day you used to have to do one or the other).
I think focusing on Rev is low yield in this debate. Bigger point is why someone qualified to be 1st butt of another outfit was pulled from E-2 and another 1st butt brought in.
Now this is a big deal from what I remember. I think I only knew of 2 folks 'frog' into E-2 in my time (both as fish), and one transfer as a butt. I'm too far removed from the Corps to know if this is the truth though. Back when I was there you had to get approval from the outfit as a whole, and all your new buddies. Can't imagine it being forced on anyone.Quote:
E2 will be receiving new members on all levels in the outfit. These members will be transferring from their original outfits onto E2.
I don't think it is. A couple females got their ranger tabs, but I don't think they're army rangers.Quote:
The U.S. Army Ranger Regiment is now gender integrated (or at least in the process of being integrate), so I'm not sure why E-2 shouldn't be.
Quote:
Whats the matter? Did your integrated outfit brainwash you into believing brotherhood is queer or something?
HAHA. Want to talk about queer? I can tell you some of the stories I've heard from some of my buddies in all male outfits. I won't repeat it online, because that's the kind of stuff that only we'd understand, but I think y'all get brainwashed into thinking some pretty gay stuff is just bonding.
The Corps is full of cronyism. I knew people who were selected for jobs by MUCs because the MUC knew they'd be a yes-man. I knew folks who didn't get any job in their outfit, but got a staff job because they were RV buddies with someone. Being quite removed from the Corps by many years, I don't think there is some vast conspiracy, but I do think there continues to be some heavy handed moves.
I'm totally for there beign all male outfits, just like I'm totally for there being integrated outfits. I also think females should have the option of an all female outfit. I don't like d-bags in all male outfits picking on wags. I remember a pisshead when I was in that got caught intentionally running into wag fish in Duncan to knock over their drinks. That's BS that that needs to change in outfti culture.
On another note, I don't think they had to force a wag 1st butt just to make E-2 integrated. I can't remember what outfit it was when I was in, but there was an outfit that was technically integrated that didn't have any wags in it for like 2 years or something. Just put an asterisk by it on the organization chart just like all the other integrated outfits.
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.
Still is a popularity contest. One of the most squared cadets I've known didn't make because he didn't know enough people and wasn't religious enough.
Sounds like nothing has changed.
So attending breakaway sounds like one of the requirements still then. You didn't actually have to be religious...just pretend really good.
So attending breakaway sounds like one of the requirements still then. You didn't actually have to be religious...just pretend really good.
So y'all don't like when the cadets select their leaders like the RVs do because it's too much of a popularity contest and you don't like when the bulls pick the leaders because it's too PC and not merit-based? What exactly are y'all proposing as the right way to select leaders then?
In my experience the RVs get it a whole hell of alot closer to right with their cadet-run selection process than when the bulls get involved, which was my point. And I will readily admit that some great cadets fall through the cracks and some duds get selected but no process is perfect and the RV's process was consistently better on picking cadet leaders or at least it was during my time.
In my experience the RVs get it a whole hell of alot closer to right with their cadet-run selection process than when the bulls get involved, which was my point. And I will readily admit that some great cadets fall through the cracks and some duds get selected but no process is perfect and the RV's process was consistently better on picking cadet leaders or at least it was during my time.
Yeah, but for the RV's, all it took was one person giving a black marble saying no to anyone who applied and the guy wasn't joining.
Then you get some outfits were 5 guys who joined the RV's and one outfit had one or none. Definitely has it's flaws like the Bull's process. Only benefit was that you didn't have to worry about your military contract being held over your head for compliance when it came to the RV's.
Then you get some outfits were 5 guys who joined the RV's and one outfit had one or none. Definitely has it's flaws like the Bull's process. Only benefit was that you didn't have to worry about your military contract being held over your head for compliance when it came to the RV's.
It's about staking your personal reputation on someone, so you have skin in the game. If you speak positively or negatively against someone and a bunch of other folks say otherwise then you will be over ruled and lose your reputation and the person can still be selected. It's not like one no vote is final by any stretch. I saw maybe one person be spoken about negatively. It's far from common and usually the rare grievance is well supported.
Now if you are the lone RV in an outfit, you definitely have more say on your underclassmen than others, as you probably should. I agree small outfits or those with zero RV upperclassmen are probably underrepresented, but that same barrier likely exists for other corps positions too by virtue of nobody knowing how good a cadet you are if you never interact with others outside your small outfit. At least the selection process is cadet ran with the way the RVs do it. Again, I fail to see a better solution than letting cadets select their leaders. They obviously have the most skin in the game in seeing their organization succeed.
Now if you are the lone RV in an outfit, you definitely have more say on your underclassmen than others, as you probably should. I agree small outfits or those with zero RV upperclassmen are probably underrepresented, but that same barrier likely exists for other corps positions too by virtue of nobody knowing how good a cadet you are if you never interact with others outside your small outfit. At least the selection process is cadet ran with the way the RVs do it. Again, I fail to see a better solution than letting cadets select their leaders. They obviously have the most skin in the game in seeing their organization succeed.
Is there still beef between PMC and RVs?
Gator
Unless something drastically changed in the 5 years that spanned our time (I'm c/o '98), the bulls were involved in every decision that was made regarding Corps leadership - in the major/minor/outfit level as well as the specialty groups.
The level of influence may have changed depending on the position, but they were involved for sure.
I hear what you're saying but it doesn't reflect reality. There are always other factors that go into what is really a promotion here, and seldom do your peers get to make that choice.
My Corps time started with Gen Darling and ended with Gen Hopgood. I stayed at A&M for grad school, so I got to see some of what Van Alystyne was doing as well. From my experience Gen Darling was way too hands off - which was great when I was a cadet but likely not the greatest thing in retrospect - to Gen VA, who was way too hands on. I would contend that GVA is running away the worst of the commandants in that area to include Gen Ramirez.
Times change, and those changes will always affect the things that we love. The Corps today is in some ways the same and others very different from when I was in. But I know that Gen Ramirez isn't out there to destroy our Corps - and yes it is his as well.
The Rebels are angry now. I get it. But would you rather the entire outfit be scuttled because you didn't want to come into Title IX compliance? You can argue the implementation the Commandant's Office did, but at this point, you're just wasting energy.
I would recommend embracing the change - it won't go back to "your way" - and try to make it the best you possibly can. Otherwise, E2 will be on the fast track to the scrap heap like so many other outfits.
*edit for poor grammar
Unless something drastically changed in the 5 years that spanned our time (I'm c/o '98), the bulls were involved in every decision that was made regarding Corps leadership - in the major/minor/outfit level as well as the specialty groups.
The level of influence may have changed depending on the position, but they were involved for sure.
I hear what you're saying but it doesn't reflect reality. There are always other factors that go into what is really a promotion here, and seldom do your peers get to make that choice.
My Corps time started with Gen Darling and ended with Gen Hopgood. I stayed at A&M for grad school, so I got to see some of what Van Alystyne was doing as well. From my experience Gen Darling was way too hands off - which was great when I was a cadet but likely not the greatest thing in retrospect - to Gen VA, who was way too hands on. I would contend that GVA is running away the worst of the commandants in that area to include Gen Ramirez.
Times change, and those changes will always affect the things that we love. The Corps today is in some ways the same and others very different from when I was in. But I know that Gen Ramirez isn't out there to destroy our Corps - and yes it is his as well.
The Rebels are angry now. I get it. But would you rather the entire outfit be scuttled because you didn't want to come into Title IX compliance? You can argue the implementation the Commandant's Office did, but at this point, you're just wasting energy.
I would recommend embracing the change - it won't go back to "your way" - and try to make it the best you possibly can. Otherwise, E2 will be on the fast track to the scrap heap like so many other outfits.
*edit for poor grammar
Ol Ags don't like change.
Maybe it was just my perception but the things the bulls weren't heavily involved in: guidon bearers, RVs, pmc, etc and to a lesser extent outfit leadership (1st Sgt and CO), were almost always better represented than things like Corps staff, major and minor unit staffs etc, where the bulls had a heavier influence. That was my whole point in using the RVs as an example. I'm certainly not saying their system was perfect, and I admit that the bulls are inevitably going to be in the selection process to some degree to at least provide oversight. I just think the more you maximize the cadets choosing their leaders without undue influence, the better results you will typically get and the more it supports the Corps being a cadet ran, cadet led organization. I think there are enough examples out there to support that opinion.
The only thing the bulls weren't involved in re: picking leadership was within the company level.
C.O. and 1st Sgt had heavy involvement. For my outfit, the incoming C.O. offered up a list of a couple names, and the bulls blessed the choice. The platoon level officers / sgts were the only ones that were selected by cadet leadership; however those of us at the platoon level had to be approved by the bulls.
The only areas where I don't recall much, if any outside influence, were the very small speciality units.
R.V. selection had plenty of bull influence, but I'll grant you the cadets were one of the driving forces. The scenario described regarding a current RV black listing a candidate is true.
C.O. and 1st Sgt had heavy involvement. For my outfit, the incoming C.O. offered up a list of a couple names, and the bulls blessed the choice. The platoon level officers / sgts were the only ones that were selected by cadet leadership; however those of us at the platoon level had to be approved by the bulls.
The only areas where I don't recall much, if any outside influence, were the very small speciality units.
R.V. selection had plenty of bull influence, but I'll grant you the cadets were one of the driving forces. The scenario described regarding a current RV black listing a candidate is true.
And I'll add, I think an "outsider" voice on those selections is a GOOD thing to help avoid or at least damper the popularity contest aspect of things.
Some of the best cadets I knew were the ones that refused to play the kiss ass political games, and those guys had no chance of leadership / RV / etc consideration.
Some of the best cadets I knew were the ones that refused to play the kiss ass political games, and those guys had no chance of leadership / RV / etc consideration.
You obviously had a much different experience than I did and it appears you came away with a much different view on leadership.
If nobody respects you and you aren't considered a good leader by even your own class and outfit, what exactly makes these "overlooked" types so qualified for leadership that a bull/outsider will magically see what nobody else does? Is his where the gpa and military contract comes in to play?
To me, this sounds like some dream scenario that certain cadets tell themselves to convince themselves after the fact that they were awesome and the rest of the Corps was stupid when they were repeatedly passed over for any and all leadership opportunities that they wanted. Again, I think the cadets are going to get it right in selecting leaders the vast majority of the time and should be given that opportunity. In my opinion, the bulls should just be there to rubber stamp things and ensure basic oversight and that a deliberate process was followed. We can agree to disagree, I suppose.
If nobody respects you and you aren't considered a good leader by even your own class and outfit, what exactly makes these "overlooked" types so qualified for leadership that a bull/outsider will magically see what nobody else does? Is his where the gpa and military contract comes in to play?
To me, this sounds like some dream scenario that certain cadets tell themselves to convince themselves after the fact that they were awesome and the rest of the Corps was stupid when they were repeatedly passed over for any and all leadership opportunities that they wanted. Again, I think the cadets are going to get it right in selecting leaders the vast majority of the time and should be given that opportunity. In my opinion, the bulls should just be there to rubber stamp things and ensure basic oversight and that a deliberate process was followed. We can agree to disagree, I suppose.
Don't get me wrong, the obvious knuckleheads were obvious. And it wasn't hard to tell which ones those were.
My point was more addressing when you have more than one qualified candidate, having a somewhat independent reviewer to see past the hey boy aspect is a good thing.
I'm in now way advocating for a total turd to be put into a leadership position, nor am I advocating an outsider be placed in leadership when there are qualified internal candidates. Nothing cripples morale more than a qualified insider being passed over for an equally qualified outsider.
Just my 2 cents.
My point was more addressing when you have more than one qualified candidate, having a somewhat independent reviewer to see past the hey boy aspect is a good thing.
I'm in now way advocating for a total turd to be put into a leadership position, nor am I advocating an outsider be placed in leadership when there are qualified internal candidates. Nothing cripples morale more than a qualified insider being passed over for an equally qualified outsider.
Just my 2 cents.
I agree with all that.
You mean those guys that joined a running club and carry fake rifles around campus? Then yeah, it still exists.champagnepapi said:
Is there still beef between PMC and RVs?
I'm just going to throw this out there, but I might be a little biased. Many of you are looking at the way the different leadership roles are chosen throughout the major units, RV's, etc... I don't believe there is a leadership lab the corps has that is better than PMC by a country mile. Our leaders are cadet chosen every year based on actual skill and ability. The amount of events and moving parts that we train for, plan, adapt to, and execute are something you won't find anywhere else. You also have to factor in for us that poor leadership and planning/not knowing what you are doing, can quite easily get us or the public severely injured or even killed, so we quite literally cannot afford to have the wrong people in the leadership positions. Cadets choosing who leads them can and has worked.
Just my $.02
Do it the real army way. Everyone eligible rotates through command of a company size element for a certain amount time to "check the block" for career progression. Then when you get comfortable you get someone new and start all over. Make sure to have CoC ceremonies in the hottest parts of the day and have speeches that no one cares about. Have a receptionwth food and beverages but outside of fellow officers no one else attends! That way everyone gets to be a commander (of who is eligible) then they can rotate up to Battalion and Brigade commands.
Or put everyone eligible in a room with one baseball bat, stick, or other club like weapon and then the issue resolve itself. You'll find out who wants it the most then!!!
(Sarcasm)
Or put everyone eligible in a room with one baseball bat, stick, or other club like weapon and then the issue resolve itself. You'll find out who wants it the most then!!!
(Sarcasm)
Let's just back to Ol Army, before rank became synonymous with class, when we had Seniors who were 4th Year Privates, back when there was an annual promotion list.
Let's not make rank a participation trophy. Rank would again be solely earned (Hell, even the Boy Scouts require rank advancement to be earned).
Eliminating "All Heads are Corporals" would 1) make clear better start working fish year for rank, 2) identify early those on the leadership track, 3) facilitate elimination of green tabs.
Let's not make rank a participation trophy. Rank would again be solely earned (Hell, even the Boy Scouts require rank advancement to be earned).
Eliminating "All Heads are Corporals" would 1) make clear better start working fish year for rank, 2) identify early those on the leadership track, 3) facilitate elimination of green tabs.
Featured Stories
See All
'Thank yOU?' A&M's outlook unaffected by disappointment at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
27:51
6h ago
4.1k
12:07
5h ago
4.8k
Post Game Review: Auburn 43, No. 15 Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Kay Naegeli
1:54
20h ago
999
Chace Sims locked in on playoff run while getting ready for Aggieland
by Ryan Brauninger
Colonel Ingus
"We are not a team built to play from behind" - Elko
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
31