They're renaming it Devil D, they've moved almost everyone, people have had their contracts suspended pending outcome of the investigation and subsequent (tremendously broken and criminally unfair) university judicial hearing. Shady D is no more.

Rangee Rangee

Last of the Redass, Old Army Never Dies

Carl Hungus said:

---

Better dead than coed I guess.

---

That is an attitude that is hard to break after it has been hammered into Cadets for 4 years.

Which makes it tough for those new officers to adjust to the modern Army.

Maybe it was stated in earlier posts but I missed it but honest question, what is the unit actually being investigated for? What do they say happened and what does the unit say happened?

See my post on first page. Outfit seems to be settling down with new leadership per discussions over last weekend.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Trinity Ag said:

---

The University isn't going to give the Corps more slack than it gives fraternities.

---

According to the ladies who always gave us the hazing speech at the beginning of every semester,
the Corps does get "more slack". How much, I don't know, but they would always talk about how frats and other organizations would say, "but the Corps does it," but that the Corps has a legitimate purpose for PT and frats do not. So supposedly, there is some extra slack for the Corps, but I doubt it is a whole lot and certainly less than I believe is reasonable.

---

That is probably true -- What I meant was that individual students/Cadets are subject to the same rules, and same punishments for similar offenses.

As organizations, individual fraternities are certainly more likely to be disbanded/lose their charter for broad violations of the Student Conduct Policy.

If Cadets DO receive less punishment, it is because the University trusts the Corps to enforce State Law and Conduct Policy -- and to police its membership -- more than it trusts national Fraternity/Sorority organizations. Trust can be a fragile thing.

DevilD77 said:

---

Maybe it was stated in earlier posts but I missed it but honest question, what is the unit actually being investigated for? What do they say happened and what does the unit say happened?

---

Having the fish do PT during academic hours and off campus.

Spider69 said:

---

INOX said:

---

Then why not share those motivational and inspirational stories vs bragging about potentially throwing fellow cadets out of windows or water boarding? Those are examples of how not to be a leader---except the guy who stepped in. I certainly don't know the whole story there but I'm sure there were lessons to be learned.

And really not knowing the whole story is one reason we are always criticizing here. We need to get the facts first and then provide solutions otherwise we sound like the whinny millennial we all despise. There is a ton experience on this board. Why not use that knowledge to enlighten the younger generation?

And for what its worth I'll take past and present cadets over any student at any other school.

---

I never bragged about water boarding that I have zero knowledge about or anything that hapened in 2018. In 1965-666, our PT was harsh but just physical not dangerous. I've asked Gen. Ramirez about current issues. But he obviously per University policies can't discuss things with me. I'm sure no one would have been tossed out a window in 1966, but it was Lee Lanning '68 (the author of the Vietnam books) that disbanded the 1966 crap out session (by one fogged in Spider p***head & another one that flunked out after that semester) that were drowned out by the '69 Spider fish. I'm sure that isn't allowed in current Corps activities. But 1965-66 was a different Corps era. We expected to be crapped out for the drown out, but then some things happened by one p***head that went beyond even our '69 fish tolerance (includes 2 DVMs & 2 PhDs & 14 other highly suggesful graduates with 5 Vietnam Vets out of the 18). I'm sure if current Spider Cadets we're doing things incorrectly that discipline was warranted. I'm just not sure disbanding an outfit unless under extreme circumstances is needed.

---

Agree 100%

WestTexAg12 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Setting aside opinions on what constitutes hazing or whatever the offense was, surely we can agree that gross disobedience cannot be tolerated in a military organization. If company upperclassmen corporately flouted Corps regulations, then drastic measures were necessary. Obey or go away.

---

Then we should kick out fat asses and the disabled who can't PT, if it's a "military organization".

---

Never understood and still don't understand why height/weight standards are not enforced.

Hell, PT standards aren't enforced anymore.

Carl Hungus said:

---

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

WestTexAg12 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Setting aside opinions on what constitutes hazing or whatever the offense was, surely we can agree that gross disobedience cannot be tolerated in a military organization. If company upperclassmen corporately flouted Corps regulations, then drastic measures were necessary. Obey or go away.

---

Then we should kick out fat asses and the disabled who can't PT, if it's a "military organization".

---

Never understood and still don't understand why height/weight standards are not enforced.

---

Because all they are measuring now is enrollment numbers, diversity numbers and grades. The new commandant is a complete chode.

---

Please elaborate on what metrics should be used to measure Corps success?

Grades are important but not at the expense of everything else as is the case now. Off Quad leadership positions are also a significant measure of the success of the Corps but they are hard to quantify. PT scores should be far now important than they are now. Number of contracts vs number seeking contracts. Just a few of of the top of my head that are far more important than diversity and retention.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Grades are important but not at the expense of everything else as is the case now. Off Quad leadership positions are also a significant measure of the success of the Corps but they are hard to quantify. PT scores should be far now important than they are now. Number of contracts vs number seeking contracts. Just a few of of the top of my head that are far more important than diversity and retention.

---

That battle has already been fought. Scroll down here to read what the Corps now values most. I had a brief back and forth with the Commandant about it earlier on this page. I said that while academics was of course the top priority of the University, creating leaders should be the Corps' top priority with academics a close second. My reasoning being that if the entire resources of A&M were already behind fostering academic excellence, what does the Corps offer that is different from the University at large anymore? Are cadets now just scholars in uniform? Obviously we want cadets to excel in both spheres, but when did building leaders cease being the Corps' official raison d'etre? Anyway, I was rebuffed. Times change and so must the Corps. <shrug>

The Corps is on pace to commission the most officers since 1980. Army alone will produce 105+.

For Cadet Command, GPA is the single most important factor in branch accessions. Across Cadet Command, 3.25 is considered the "median" in terms of accession points. PT is also very important, along with Camp performance.

A focus on academics is important for those Cadets seeking to commission in the most competitive branches.

To be guaranteed a spot in the Infantry -- the most selective branch -- a Cadet needs (approximately):

3.5 GPA (3.1 if you are a STEM major)
290-300 PT Score
Outstanding or Excellent rating at Camp
Finish Top 20% in the campus Order of Merit list.

Much lower than that and you need to commit to an additional 4-year active duty service obligation (8 total active duty) to have a chance. And even then it is "needs of the Army".

Medical Service Corps, Aviation, Armor, Engineers, and MI are slightly less competitive, in that order. But not much less.

I can't speak to what standards for PT, HT/WT looked like in the 90s, but the idea that standards are "low" now is false. At least among contracted/seeking Cadets. And I believe there are 2-3x more contracted cadets now than there were in the early 90s.

No one here is arguing that grades aren't important and anyone that would argue that is an idiot. And as far as standards among contracted students, they owe more to the respective ROTCs than the Corps. In fact, when I was a sophomore, Army ROTC started doing Army PT twice a week. If the Corps was doing its job, that wouldn't have been necessary.

IIRC, Army ROTC was more intense than outfit PT. The biggest reason was getting at least a full hour of PT in by being at Spence Park at 0530 ready to start. Outfit PT was really only 30 mins max in the mornings due to 0600 wake up and 0645 formation. Afternoons as fish and heads were spent being on the wall or running the all parties and as white belts was monitoring training and as well as some platoon PT sessions, but due to lead labs, marathon CQ on Wednesday's afternoons things weren't conducive to PT in the afternoons. Contract PT was by far the most focused and more beneficial for me at least. Hell, the best thing to happen to me was being put on remedial with MSG Crowe for a month. My overall score improved to around 290 I think and dropped a minute and half on my run to a 13:10.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

No one here is arguing that grades aren't important and anyone that would argue that is an idiot. And as far as standards among contracted students, they owe more to the respective ROTCs than the Corps. In fact, when I was a sophomore, Army ROTC started doing Army PT twice a week. If the Corps was doing its job, that wouldn't have been necessary.

---

No one is yet, but I'm willing too. And who are you calling an idiot?

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Grades are important but not at the expense of everything else as is the case now. Off Quad leadership positions are also a significant measure of the success of the Corps but they are hard to quantify. PT scores should be far now important than they are now. Number of contracts vs number seeking contracts. Just a few of of the top of my head that are far more important than diversity and retention.

---

Definitely good content after my post. I think you mention a couple of good ones as well. A&M is a much more diverse university than it was 35 years ago and beyond. The Corps is thriving in a era when most universities fear differing opinions.

Whether on scholarship or paying your own way, academic performance is a must. It's one of the key measures that employers and military leaders use.
Ask any Aggie who has interviewed at the Naval Yard in order to get accepted into the Navy Nuclear program. There are at least 2 1-hour academic interview/ problem solving sessions plus an interview with the Admiral in charge. Point being you had better have your academic house in order as well as excelled in your Navy ROTC program.

Carl Hungus said:

---

Better dead than coed I guess.

---

Keep telling yourself that when you're crying your eyes out when you attend the Case Color ceremony for the Corps of Cadets.

Men of goodwill can disagree without being disagreeable. So, let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Academics are no doubt a priority. The Corps should absolutely seek to help cadets in their classes and things they do such as hiring tutors for common classes are awesome. At the same time, grades are not the only priority. I have seen cadets with good PT scores get kicked out due to failing grades but those with failing PT scores and good grades get to stay. I know that being a part of Student Activities means that the Corps has to abide by their GPA minimums so the Corps hands are tied on the grades issue. I'm not advocating to keep more cadets with bad grades. If you can't meet the minimum GPA requirement (I think it's a 2.0, I can't remember), then you do need to be removed from the Corps, because the minimum really isn't difficult to achieve. The same holds true for the minimum PT scores, but in my experience, if you are diverse enough or a good enough student or a mixture of both, then PT doesn't matter.

The Corps should have a minimum GPA standard well above the University's. "2.0 and go" doesn't work anymore. I remember recruiters weren't impressed with my 3.2 as an engineer. But leadership is also important, those recruiters actually talked to me because of my Corps leadership experience. However this was at a career fair. In real life a 3.0 GPA for most entry level positions just gets thrown in the trash, whatever other qualifications you have. Even for those going into the military, it is hard to overcome a poor GPA when trying to get the job you want. No matter how many times you maxed out the PFT or shot expert on rifle, you are unlikely to get infantry or intel when there are others that managed all those high speed things and still got good grades.

What if you convince a whole group of people to not follow the rules?

There seems to be a major difference in worldview between the posters talking about following the rules and making good grades, and what I'm talking about. The lense we see the world through is different, yours is about "getting a job" and mine is about "building organizations". The type of people required for each is very different. Guess which one takes leaders?

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Founded in 1995, Ol' AGS has become the premiere social, service, and leadership men's organization on Texas A&M University's campus.

---

My youngest son '18 (a non-reg who graduated last Dec.) was a member. They are definitely not a Frat. Not by a long shot. If anything , more like a Corps outfit from what I observed over three years. They had a CT yell leader and a SQ 17 commander/RV as members if I remember correctly.

Yeah, think there's a big disconnect between what real Ol' Army was and what cadets think it was. I remember talking to one of my professors (class of '67 or so) before final exams as a pisshead. A couple buddies were in the class with me, and we asked him about what kinds of old army fun we could do during dead week. He looked at us confused and basically said "nothing, y'all should be studying."



Also, raising academic standards doesn't mean an all or none scenario where everyone makes grades but sucks at everything else. I think it's great to think that we can turn everyone in the Corps into the next Jim Mattis, Elon Musk, or Bill Gates, but the reality is that most will need to make good grades to get a good job, and where the Corps really comes in handy will be setting them apart from their peers at their job. They will hopefully have learned how to take the lead and seek out responsibility that'll set them apart.

There were plenty of my engineering classmates that were involved in leadership positions in non-reg organizations, they worked out and stayed in shape, and they made grades. I had one classmate that was even on the basketball team. Ryan Tannehill could've gone to med school despite all his football practice and being a starter.

Point is, yes, you are correct, we need to cultivate leadership and personal development to produce the future innovators and leaders in the public/private world. But these people go to college to get an education. I have no reason to believe that those that are natural innovators/leaders would be turned off by an organization that puts additional value on grades than the rest of the university. If they don't care about their education, then let them be an agricultural leadership & development major. The people the want to be engineers, doctors, scientists, etc should be able to look at the Corps GPR and be encouraged that they won't fail out or have to switch majors if they join.