chickencoupe16 said:
"Defy?" No. Meet with and discuss differences in opinion? Yes.
Theres none of that in a dictatorship.
Policy Update for the 2017- 2018 Corps Year
58,651 Views |
350 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by HollywoodBQ
Theres none of that in a dictatorship.
Look, I dislike Ramirez just as much as anyone else but that's a petty excuse for not trying.
Reading this thread makes me glad to be my age, and that my 4 years in the Corps - 50 years ago - were pretty much uninterrupted by bulls.
Besides, I missed the part where only those with contracts dislike these changes. I understand a contracted cadet having reservations (even if I think these reservations shouldn't stop an attempt at a respectful discussion) about going public, but there's no reason D&Free cadets shouldn't be willing to face any blowback.
Usually contract cadets are put in leadership positions over D&C. Not always but I think that's the norm. I do know cadets across the spectrum are having heartburn with this.
I understand that GRam might be more willing to listen to those in leadership, but my point is that if you really care, you should make every attempt to fix this. Especially something as easy as meeting with the Commandant. No matter how likely you think it is to work.
You are talking about a hypothetical best case scenario and don't know what's already been attempted internally.
Not sure if this exists today, but I don't understand why the Corps doesn't have "advisory boards" like so many other departments at A&M.
We have MANY former students that are high ranking officers in all branches of the military. We also have MANY highly successful former students that were in the Corps that were D&C.
Does the current leadership actively enlist the advise of these people in regards to how to improve the Corps?
Not that I don't believe that the current Commandant and his staff aren't successful, but I think policy changes would be much more palatable if they are based on what helps students succeed both in the military and/or civilian life coming from a group of people that represent the best of both.
I realize that some of us may not like some of the answers, but it would be hard to argue policy that comes from a group of people that are successful today and really know what value the program should deliver.
My $.02 worth
We have MANY former students that are high ranking officers in all branches of the military. We also have MANY highly successful former students that were in the Corps that were D&C.
Does the current leadership actively enlist the advise of these people in regards to how to improve the Corps?
Not that I don't believe that the current Commandant and his staff aren't successful, but I think policy changes would be much more palatable if they are based on what helps students succeed both in the military and/or civilian life coming from a group of people that represent the best of both.
I realize that some of us may not like some of the answers, but it would be hard to argue policy that comes from a group of people that are successful today and really know what value the program should deliver.
My $.02 worth
I asked the same exact thing and think it's a fantastic idea.
I apologize if you did, hard to keep up with everything. ThanksComeby! said:
I asked the same exact thing and think it's a fantastic idea.
If someone has legitimately already tried, then what I'm saying doesn't apply to them.
In the 90s there was a Blue Ribbon Panel that did discuss such things. They used to meet in the Corps Center. Not sure if it is still around anymore though.
I posted this on the other thread but I'll post here it as well.
There are cadets going through the chain, but just going through the chain alone doesn't provide any kind of public pressure on the OOC or get olds involved.
There are cadets going through the chain, but just going through the chain alone doesn't provide any kind of public pressure on the OOC or get olds involved.
I remember the "Outfit Representatives". IMO it was a "feel good" kind of thing.munch96 said:
In the 90s there was a Blue Ribbon Panel that did discuss such things. They used to meet in the Corps Center. Not sure if it is still around anymore though.
mrad85 said:I apologize if you did, hard to keep up with everything. ThanksComeby! said:
I asked the same exact thing and think it's a fantastic idea.
No apologies needed. My discussions were with former and current cadets. I was trying to understand what's currently in place. It seems the handful of major donors are the de facto board and ultimately are the catalyst for personnel changes.
What am I wrong about? You don't think removing a tradition for 2-3 years essentially kills it?Comeby! said:bigtruckguy3500 said:
My point is, if these changes are implemented, within 2-3 years no one will even have a recollection of how things were except for former cadets and commandant's staff. That'll be it, and this will become the new normal.
And this is where you are wrong. It is our responsibility as former cadets and alumni to help preserve the continuity and quality of the experience that is The Corps of Cadets. The Corps was here before us and will be there after us and not a single Commandant will be able to disrupt it. We are the keepers of the spirit...even after we've hung up the boots. That continuity is what binds us. The ability for a class of '60 Ag to share Corps stories with a class of '98 dead zip, 'speak the same language' and realize how similar our experiences in the Corps were.
This isn't the US army or any other branch. It's these unique experiences (yes stupid Corps games included) that throw a mental wrench in an otherwise monotonous ROTC lifestyle that is the norm at other academies. These "WTF! How do I handle and deal with this?" moments is what set our graduates apart. It forces us to think on the fly, react and respond, catch another gear. These life skills will certainly come in handy out in the real world. We all know life isn't fair and loves that curve ball. At least you can always look back to your complete fish year and say "No sweat, I've had it worse" and go on with your bad self. Institutionalize the Corps and we are just another ROTC group. Pick your poison: one nut away from a frat or that goofy headed high school organization we all laughed at, JROTC.
I'm all for advising current cadets and have tried in the past (and continue to try whenever given the opportunity), but often times the cadets are more interested in pursuing what they think "Ol' Army" was like, rather than what things were actually like. I do not want us to turn in to a Westpoint lite. Or turn into a participation ribbon factory. But, my point still stands, when you remove something for more than 2-3 years, it is gone unless a very large concerted effort is made to reintroduce it. Take, for example, square meals. I think cadets do it during FOW (although I've seen pics of them eating pretty relaxed during FOW this past year), but that's it. When upperclassmen never experienced something, how do they teach it to underclassmen?
Howdy, all!
We passed from discussing the policy update to whether the Commandants is good or bad? or is he really ruining the Corps? I heard once to General Ramirez talking about an experience where the Australian officer of an Australian military school asking him: How do you give so much power to your cadets? Apparently, in Australia, the leadership in the units is composed of what we knew here as the CTO's, basically, outfits are run by the CTO's. His response to them was:
1) He does not have the staff nor the budget to have CTO's running everything but MOST IMPORTANT he gives all the trust to cadets who are leaders. Basically, He trusts the cadets to be the leaders of the training.
I consider the Commandant is NOT ruining the Corps. I think has made an outstanding job creating a better and bigger Corps. Of the things that I consider have been successful:
-Quad renovation (I appreciate not only the commandant but also all the donors that made this possible).
-Academics. (The Corps has made a remarkable progress in Academics). I have met several former cadets who did not want their sons to become parts of the Corps because they thought their sons were going to have bad grades. Nowadays, it's the complete opposite. Being in the Corps actually help you to get better grades.
-Career Readiness: If I am not mistaken, I heard job placement was about 80% for cadets compared to 30% nationally. There also several initiatives such as Leadership conferences: Nichols' and Intentional Leadership. I was not selected for Nichols (I heard is great for Sophomores into their Junior year). I did attend Intentional Leadership: we had an amazing group of speakers that came to teach us about leadership including CEO's of companies, former Generals, former Cadets who are now in the Corporate world and in Academia.
-International experience: I heard this is a great program for cadets to travel and learn about other countries' culture as well as US diplomacy. We also have exchange programs with Cadets from Australia, Germany, and Sout Korea.
Disclaimer: I have not been part of any international excursion, this is based on what I have heard from buddies/friends that have attended.
-Other initiatives, room for improvement: I think they are several other activities that I may be missing, and also room for improvement and many others. The Corps has incorporated ways to hear feedback from Cadet such as the Cadets Idea Challenge, which can be found below.
Cadets Idea Challenge: Extracts from an email that I received: "Howdy! Beginning last semester, the Hollingsworth Leadership Excellence Program supporting our career readiness efforts conducted the first-ever Corps of Cadets Creative Ideas Challenge. The purpose of the challenge was twofold: 1) To engage cadets in creative thinking and innovative problem solving (two of the career readiness core competencies) and 2) To gather ideas which could benefit the Corps. We received approximately 40 submissions ranging from FOW to recruiting and from charity runs to barber shops. The final judging panel included members from Commandant's Staff and cadets....During our out-brief to the Commandant, he stated this is a great initiative that we will continue next year! It allows cadets to develop innovative ways to improve the Corps and leave the Corps better than they found it. So, do you have an idea? Do you want to help the Corps? If so, then begin developing your plan for the Creative Ideas Challenge again next year!
Again, congratulations to the winners. We appreciate your dedication and commitment to helping the Corps."
If anybody who considers that Corps is getting softer, or has any idea on how to improve the overall PT performance of the Corps, I think it should have taken advantage from this initiative. In summary, I consider the Commandant has made an outstanding job by creating a better experience in the Corps for all cadets.
Second: regarding the new policies:
I do disagree with some of the policies. I also see some constraints at having CTO's lead/supervising the workout or standardizing all the training in the Major units but I don't think this is will change everything at the Corps level. I will like to hear from General Ramirez on what is the purpose of these changes. We are all assuming he is looking for these changes only to reduce attrition... but what if this is not the real reason? Is there any other reason?
I do think that having an advisory board from former Cadets can be extremely beneficial for the development of the Corps of Cadets program. I consider valuable to learn from former cadets on what skills they learned in the Corps that helped them during their journey later in life: military, business, academia, among others. Having this type of advisory board (maybe including current cadets too) can help design a better design/implementation of the new policies.
I am also impressed by the number of responses on this post, it shows how much people is engaged with the Corps of Cadets program and is looking forward to having a better Corps in the future, which is my goal too. I personally appreciate all your opinions, interest and support to the Corps of Cadets.
I will be a senior next year, and even though I am not going to be in leadership. I am more than happy to receive any advice from former cadets on any ideas that can make the corps better. My work next year will be with Scholastics and Career readiness chain within my outfit.
Contact information: rodolfojmv@tamu.edu
Please let me know if you have any comment or question,
Very respectfully,
We passed from discussing the policy update to whether the Commandants is good or bad? or is he really ruining the Corps? I heard once to General Ramirez talking about an experience where the Australian officer of an Australian military school asking him: How do you give so much power to your cadets? Apparently, in Australia, the leadership in the units is composed of what we knew here as the CTO's, basically, outfits are run by the CTO's. His response to them was:
1) He does not have the staff nor the budget to have CTO's running everything but MOST IMPORTANT he gives all the trust to cadets who are leaders. Basically, He trusts the cadets to be the leaders of the training.
I consider the Commandant is NOT ruining the Corps. I think has made an outstanding job creating a better and bigger Corps. Of the things that I consider have been successful:
-Quad renovation (I appreciate not only the commandant but also all the donors that made this possible).
-Academics. (The Corps has made a remarkable progress in Academics). I have met several former cadets who did not want their sons to become parts of the Corps because they thought their sons were going to have bad grades. Nowadays, it's the complete opposite. Being in the Corps actually help you to get better grades.
-Career Readiness: If I am not mistaken, I heard job placement was about 80% for cadets compared to 30% nationally. There also several initiatives such as Leadership conferences: Nichols' and Intentional Leadership. I was not selected for Nichols (I heard is great for Sophomores into their Junior year). I did attend Intentional Leadership: we had an amazing group of speakers that came to teach us about leadership including CEO's of companies, former Generals, former Cadets who are now in the Corporate world and in Academia.
-International experience: I heard this is a great program for cadets to travel and learn about other countries' culture as well as US diplomacy. We also have exchange programs with Cadets from Australia, Germany, and Sout Korea.
Disclaimer: I have not been part of any international excursion, this is based on what I have heard from buddies/friends that have attended.
-Other initiatives, room for improvement: I think they are several other activities that I may be missing, and also room for improvement and many others. The Corps has incorporated ways to hear feedback from Cadet such as the Cadets Idea Challenge, which can be found below.
Cadets Idea Challenge: Extracts from an email that I received: "Howdy! Beginning last semester, the Hollingsworth Leadership Excellence Program supporting our career readiness efforts conducted the first-ever Corps of Cadets Creative Ideas Challenge. The purpose of the challenge was twofold: 1) To engage cadets in creative thinking and innovative problem solving (two of the career readiness core competencies) and 2) To gather ideas which could benefit the Corps. We received approximately 40 submissions ranging from FOW to recruiting and from charity runs to barber shops. The final judging panel included members from Commandant's Staff and cadets....During our out-brief to the Commandant, he stated this is a great initiative that we will continue next year! It allows cadets to develop innovative ways to improve the Corps and leave the Corps better than they found it. So, do you have an idea? Do you want to help the Corps? If so, then begin developing your plan for the Creative Ideas Challenge again next year!
Again, congratulations to the winners. We appreciate your dedication and commitment to helping the Corps."
If anybody who considers that Corps is getting softer, or has any idea on how to improve the overall PT performance of the Corps, I think it should have taken advantage from this initiative. In summary, I consider the Commandant has made an outstanding job by creating a better experience in the Corps for all cadets.
Second: regarding the new policies:
I do disagree with some of the policies. I also see some constraints at having CTO's lead/supervising the workout or standardizing all the training in the Major units but I don't think this is will change everything at the Corps level. I will like to hear from General Ramirez on what is the purpose of these changes. We are all assuming he is looking for these changes only to reduce attrition... but what if this is not the real reason? Is there any other reason?
I do think that having an advisory board from former Cadets can be extremely beneficial for the development of the Corps of Cadets program. I consider valuable to learn from former cadets on what skills they learned in the Corps that helped them during their journey later in life: military, business, academia, among others. Having this type of advisory board (maybe including current cadets too) can help design a better design/implementation of the new policies.
I am also impressed by the number of responses on this post, it shows how much people is engaged with the Corps of Cadets program and is looking forward to having a better Corps in the future, which is my goal too. I personally appreciate all your opinions, interest and support to the Corps of Cadets.
I will be a senior next year, and even though I am not going to be in leadership. I am more than happy to receive any advice from former cadets on any ideas that can make the corps better. My work next year will be with Scholastics and Career readiness chain within my outfit.
Contact information: rodolfojmv@tamu.edu
Please let me know if you have any comment or question,
Very respectfully,
Square meals are eaten until fish get their Corps Brass, after that it's a policy from higher up that fish don't eat square meals.
But feel free to try again.
But feel free to try again.
I had a nice reply about policy changes typed out regarding following the current military standards etc etc. , THEN I decided look at the Corps web page to see what is said.
Here is the rub folks IMO, ROTC isn't even mentioned. The Corps of Cadets is being packaged as a "Leadership Program", oh and by the way "An average of 40-45% of our cadets pursue a military commission in the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."
When a lot of us signed up, we KNEW it was an ROTC program, and that is exactly why we signed up. I could have gone military, but chose otherwise and stayed in because I enjoyed it and knew that I the ROTC experience would benefit me later in life.
Here is the rub folks IMO, ROTC isn't even mentioned. The Corps of Cadets is being packaged as a "Leadership Program", oh and by the way "An average of 40-45% of our cadets pursue a military commission in the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."
When a lot of us signed up, we KNEW it was an ROTC program, and that is exactly why we signed up. I could have gone military, but chose otherwise and stayed in because I enjoyed it and knew that I the ROTC experience would benefit me later in life.
Great post. You can't argue with the strides made over the last several years. The results speak for themselves.
The major issues with the policies are what you just mentioned:
These questions wouldn't be asked by you if the cadet leadership team was involved in the policy making and approval process. They are top down directives.
The major issues with the policies are what you just mentioned:
Quote:
I will like to hear from General Ramirez on what is the purpose of these changes. We are all assuming he is looking for these changes only to reduce attrition... but what if this is not the real reason? Is there any other reason?
These questions wouldn't be asked by you if the cadet leadership team was involved in the policy making and approval process. They are top down directives.
The only place I saw a bull 1967-1971 was in bulltext classes.Quote:
Reading this thread makes me glad to be my age, and that my 4 years in the Corps - 50 years ago - were pretty much uninterrupted by bulls.
Mine bailed me out of jail and frequented our trashcan punch parties in the hallOldArmy71 said:The only place I saw a bull 1967-1971 was in bulltext classes.Quote:
Reading this thread makes me glad to be my age, and that my 4 years in the Corps - 50 years ago - were pretty much uninterrupted by bulls.
Bingo! There were a few other occasions like a once a year dorm inspection on Military Weekend and standing on the reviewing stand at parades and march-ins at Kyle Field. But for the most part, the Corps was run by Corps leadership and unit were run by unit COs and 1st Sgts. The Corps and ROTC were for all intents and purposes, separate entities.OldArmy71 said:The only place I saw a bull 1967-1971 was in bulltext classes.Quote:
Reading this thread makes me glad to be my age, and that my 4 years in the Corps - 50 years ago - were pretty much uninterrupted by bulls.
Oh ok, I guess I misunderstood. Are you disagreeing just with my example, or the idea that you don't do something for a few years and that knowledge/traditoin is gone?CharlieBrown17 said:
Square meals are eaten until fish get their Corps Brass, after that it's a policy from higher up that fish don't eat square meals.
But feel free to try again.
I do know that one year, when I was in the Corps, all fish got staybrite brass. You didn't need to brasso it, and if you did, it would mess it up. They switched back to regular brass the following year. The quality of brass polishing the following year went down substantially among both pissheads and those they were supposed to train (the fish). They sucked at removing grode, it seemed none of them understood what the pipcleaners were for.
I've heard about how this used to be and I wondered about what it would be like if it was like that now, or when I was in the Corps. My understanding is that Corps Staff at the time was also half the size it currently is, but for a larger Corps.JR69 said:Bingo! There were a few other occasions like a once a year dorm inspection on Military Weekend and standing on the reviewing stand at parades and march-ins at Kyle Field. But for the most part, the Corps was run by Corps leadership and unit were run by unit COs and 1st Sgts. The Corps and ROTC were for all intents and purposes, separate entities.OldArmy71 said:The only place I saw a bull 1967-1971 was in bulltext classes.Quote:
Reading this thread makes me glad to be my age, and that my 4 years in the Corps - 50 years ago - were pretty much uninterrupted by bulls.
In my opinion cadets are currently spread very thin. Again, just my opinion, but I think a lot of responsibility that would've been handled by cadets, is now handled by bulls in order for cadets to do things like be on a marksmanship team or a Corps soccer/baseball/basketball team. Additionally, 2.0 and go doesn't fly anymore. Just to get into upper level engineering you need a 3.0 or even 3.25 for some. If you want to get into law/med school, you better be looking at a 3.5 or better. And there's all kinds of off the quad organizations to join, and off the quad participation is encouraged by the Corps. So basically I think the bulls are there to help administer all this, along with things like cadet court/honor board/discipline/making sure we aren't hazing and we're punished if we are caught doing it, etc.
It wasn't until the late 80's that the commandant became an employee of the university, right? Before that the commandant was the PMS.
You're probably correct on logic somewhat, but here is where I disagree:bigtruckguy3500 said:I've heard about how this used to be and I wondered about what it would be like if it was like that now, or when I was in the Corps. My understanding is that Corps Staff at the time was also half the size it currently is, but for a larger Corps.JR69 said:Bingo! There were a few other occasions like a once a year dorm inspection on Military Weekend and standing on the reviewing stand at parades and march-ins at Kyle Field. But for the most part, the Corps was run by Corps leadership and unit were run by unit COs and 1st Sgts. The Corps and ROTC were for all intents and purposes, separate entities.OldArmy71 said:The only place I saw a bull 1967-1971 was in bulltext classes.Quote:
Reading this thread makes me glad to be my age, and that my 4 years in the Corps - 50 years ago - were pretty much uninterrupted by bulls.
In my opinion cadets are currently spread very thin. Again, just my opinion, but I think a lot of responsibility that would've been handled by cadets, is now handled by bulls in order for cadets to do things like be on a marksmanship team or a Corps soccer/baseball/basketball team. Additionally, 2.0 and go doesn't fly anymore. Just to get into upper level engineering you need a 3.0 or even 3.25 for some. If you want to get into law/med school, you better be looking at a 3.5 or better. And there's all kinds of off the quad organizations to join, and off the quad participation is encouraged by the Corps. So basically I think the bulls are there to help administer all this, along with things like cadet court/honor board/discipline/making sure we aren't hazing and we're punished if we are caught doing it, etc.
It wasn't until the late 80's that the commandant became an employee of the university, right? Before that the commandant was the PMS.
1. Time Management - Heaven forbid if they get spread thin in the real world, like having kids and real world stuff. Too few soldiers on the battlefield. Is their boss gonna pick up the slack for them?
If they want to be part of the leadership, learn to handle the responsibility.
2. Grades: Not everyone will succeed. We had LOTS of Doctors etc. that graduated while I was here. Sq 12 I think. We had some that failed out. Some that were below average but still seemed to get out alive like me. This isn't a babysitting organization. In real world, you succeed or you don't. It's mostly up to you.
I don't recall exactly how big Corps Staff was - I'd have to dig out one of my yearbooks and count. It was the biggest staff in the Quad. There were 16 Army units divided into two brigades of two battalions each and 14 Air Force units divided into two wings of two groups each.
I don't know where "2.0 and go" came from or when it became a thing, but I never heard it. Sure there were some who struggled with grades, but for the most part, academics were an important emphasis, even in the outfits that had a culture of GAS. I'm sure there are more off-the-quad activities available today, but we also had a variety of other things to be involved with if we so chose.
I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm just telling it like it was. The Corps was an excellent leadership laboratory that worked fine without the frequent intervention of bulls. Even the Boy Scouts emphasize youth leadership. Adults are there to catch them before their heads impact the concrete.
Yes, in my day the Commandant was also the PMS or PAS. I believe they alternated between AF and Army. I don't know when that changed.
I don't know where "2.0 and go" came from or when it became a thing, but I never heard it. Sure there were some who struggled with grades, but for the most part, academics were an important emphasis, even in the outfits that had a culture of GAS. I'm sure there are more off-the-quad activities available today, but we also had a variety of other things to be involved with if we so chose.
I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm just telling it like it was. The Corps was an excellent leadership laboratory that worked fine without the frequent intervention of bulls. Even the Boy Scouts emphasize youth leadership. Adults are there to catch them before their heads impact the concrete.
Yes, in my day the Commandant was also the PMS or PAS. I believe they alternated between AF and Army. I don't know when that changed.
No, Ramirez would take it as defiance. Trust me.
I agree. I think the cadets are being coddled by the CCA and the OOC. When I was a cadet, if we wanted to buy something as unit/special unit, we had to find ways to raise the money, sell things, write up proposals to outside organizations etc. A couple years ago one of the units I was a part of wanted to buy something and said "hey, we need money, please give us money." So I asked how much they've raised, and what all fundraising ideas they've tried, and they not only hadn't tried anything, but they basically told me they're too busy and just need us (ol' ags) to give them money. I was shocked, because I remember working pretty dang hard to organize fundraisers and raise thousands of dollars when I was in their position. Forget the money, they're missing out on that self development.
It's almost like the CCA and the bulls are soccer moms that just drive the cadets to the game, and then pick them up with orange slices and capri sun at the end. All the kids do is have fun.
Anyways, I don't want to seem like an old fart that's ranting.
I do think that some involvement with the bulls is necessary. Aside from the things I mentioned above, they can meet with university officials to handle housing issues, involvment of the Corps during football games, etc., when cadets would otherwise be in class. But I will agree that they should be more of the advisor and occassional cattle prod for most day to day Corps activities.
It's almost like the CCA and the bulls are soccer moms that just drive the cadets to the game, and then pick them up with orange slices and capri sun at the end. All the kids do is have fun.
Anyways, I don't want to seem like an old fart that's ranting.
I do think that some involvement with the bulls is necessary. Aside from the things I mentioned above, they can meet with university officials to handle housing issues, involvment of the Corps during football games, etc., when cadets would otherwise be in class. But I will agree that they should be more of the advisor and occassional cattle prod for most day to day Corps activities.
I know a few former cadets from the late 80's/early 90's that mentioned 2.0 and go.
What was your fish year attrition rate? I think a member of the class of '68, that was a bull for a while, told me that fish year probably 40% of his classmates failed out of school. 10 years ago the 4-year attrition rate from all causes (academics, loss of contract, honor violation, etc) was probably close to 40-50%.
I know y'all had successful people from y'all's classes. And I don't really have a dog in this fight either. But I think academics today and competitiveness in general are on a different level.
What was your fish year attrition rate? I think a member of the class of '68, that was a bull for a while, told me that fish year probably 40% of his classmates failed out of school. 10 years ago the 4-year attrition rate from all causes (academics, loss of contract, honor violation, etc) was probably close to 40-50%.
I know y'all had successful people from y'all's classes. And I don't really have a dog in this fight either. But I think academics today and competitiveness in general are on a different level.
bigtruckguy3500 said:
I know a few former cadets from the late 80's/early 90's that mentioned 2.0 and go.
What was your fish year attrition rate? I think a member of the class of '68, that was a bull for a while, told me that fish year probably 40% of his classmates failed out of school. 10 years ago the 4-year attrition rate from all causes (academics, loss of contract, honor violation, etc) was probably close to 40-50%.
I know y'all had successful people from y'all's classes. And I don't really have a dog in this fight either. But I think academics today and competitiveness in general are on a different level.
Yeah. My class wasn't 10 years ago...yet. C.o. 2011. My fish class started FOW day 1 with 34 people. Only 17 of us made it all the way through senior year.
bigtruckguy3500 said:
I know a few former cadets from the late 80's/early 90's that mentioned 2.0 and go. .
Most definitely 2.0 and go from 1983-87
Also emphasis on Band activities in the fall so encouraged to take 12-13 hours, and no late afternoon classes; spring and summer were used to catch up with grades and hours
Most of my interactions with leadership in 12-13 were that if you had an opinion or feeling that went against what was planned, decided, or in place and spoke up about it, you were immediately met with a hammer because Corps Staff and OOC saw you as a nail needing to be put back into place.BQ17 said:
No, Ramirez would take it as defiance. Trust me.
Old Ags can tell these cadets to voice their opinions to Ramirez personally and the only end result will be that he will personally see to their removal from the Corps. Any kind of spark of insubordination or rebellion is snuffed out cold by the OOC.
Sorry, but I'm not sorry, it is the truth. I truly appreciate all of the renovations and assisting in helping regain numbers, but there is a lot of aspects and changes to the Corps I have never and will never be on board with. I feel bad for these Cadets, because what will happen now is that there will be no conversations regarding this website, OOC will find those that made it, see it as insubordination, and have them removed. Thats how this **** works and has worked for years now.
Yet we survived those years. We had a big fish class (maybe 21) and only lost maybe 4, but as I recall, they were good guys, but not very bright overall.ABATTBQ87 said:bigtruckguy3500 said:
I know a few former cadets from the late 80's/early 90's that mentioned 2.0 and go. .
Most definitely 2.0 and go from 1983-87
Also emphasis on Band activities in the fall so encouraged to take 12-13 hours, and no late afternoon classes; spring and summer were used to catch up with grades and hours
Exactly the mentality, catch phrase and strategy we started with in 1988.ABATTBQ87 said:Most definitely 2.0 and go from 1983-87bigtruckguy3500 said:
I know a few former cadets from the late 80's/early 90's that mentioned 2.0 and go. .
Also emphasis on Band activities in the fall so encouraged to take 12-13 hours, and no late afternoon classes; spring and summer were used to catch up with grades and hours
Giving credit where credit is due, it was Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev who changed this strategy for participating in the A&M Corps of Cadets. At the request of Ronald Reagan of course.
When I started at A&M, I had an Army Scholarship and had every intention of spending the next 20 years after graduation as a Combat Engineer in West Germany.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, by the time I graduated in 1993, they were only taking 3,000 Army 2LTs on Active Duty instead of 4,000 per year group they had been taking in the 1980s. As a cadet, we watched several of our Captains with 10 years in service take the money and run or face getting RIF'd out of the Army.
I remember when we were putting our accessions packets together for Army ROTC Cadet Command, you have to list your top choices and then as your follow up choices, you have to list different branches until you got up to like 12 choices or something like that. You could pick Combat Arms first but, you had to have some service and support choices somewhere on your list and then pray that you don't get Chemical Corps or Ordnance or something like that. You wouldn't have wanted to spend all those years participating in Rudder's Rangers and then wind up as Transportation or Quartermaster or some branch that was never going to send you to Airborne or Ranger School.
The rumored hot tip at A&M was to pick Field Artillery if you really wanted Active Duty because apparently we had a long history of producing Field Artillery officers. Anyway, reviewing our selections, one of my buddies says he's putting Chemical Corps first. I say, dude, you're funny. No Really. What's your first choice? He says Chemical Corps. Then he follows up with the fact that he was close to a 2.0 GPR and his major was Ag. Eco. and he knows there's no way he's going to get a civilian job (the job market was terrible from 1992-1994) with a 2.0 in Agricultural Economics so, Active Duty was his only option and he figured Chemical Corps was his best bet. After all, who's going to pick Chemical Corps as their first choice?
Years go by and shortly after 9/11, I'm reading a Texas Aggie Magazine article about Aggie first responders and such at the Pentagon plane crash site and they profile my buddy and what he had to do as a Chemical Corps Officer in the Army. I was laughing my butt off because I knew why he went Chemical Corps and it wasn't because he liked Chemistry.
Aggball2010
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
70
Angry Beaver
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
66
AeroAg2012
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
60
AggieBucksJB
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
52
Andrew13
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
44
Another Doug
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
39
Harry Stone
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
39
therealnick05
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
38
missinAggieland
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
35
AggieBucksJB
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
34
sealyag
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
31
RafterAg223
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
30