Talk:Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets

Misuse of the word "only"

In the section on Rank, the illustration that shows the Cadet Rank of five diamonds for the title of Cadet General. This has a footnote which states, "Honorary title only held by Reveille." This placement of the word "only" indicates that the word "only" modifies the word "held," which means that she "only holds" the title, but does not do anything else with the title. I think the proper placement of the word "only" is after the word "held," so that the footnote would read: "Honorary title held only by Reveille." This placement of the word conveys the meaning that no one else holds that title, which is probably the meaning that was originally intended. 74.196.127.243 (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Two questions

1. Perhaps I missed it in my first read through, but when did the Corps first offer Naval ROTC? It seems that its history is heavily focused on Army and later Air Force training, but nothing is mentioned about the introduction of Naval officer training.

2. Is there a simple explanation as to why the "Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas" was so named if Corps membership was required for nearly the first 100 years? Why wasn't a name like "The Military College of Texas" used (like the Citadel uses)? These are just two questions that come to mind after reading through. I know absolutely nothing about the Corps history, so pardon my ignorance.  Ahodges7   ^talk 01:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent questions.

1. Naval ROTC was added in 1972. As to why there is so little about it, I guess it's mostly because I or someone else hasn't added it yet. In addition, most of the cadets are Army and, historically, we have produced more Army officers than anything else, so there is a tilt in that direction. That said, AFROTC has been on the rise lately and that may explain some of the WP:RECENTISM of the article's focus in that area. Good point to add and I think I'll add to it when I get a chance to do so.
2. I suppose there isn't a "simple" explanation, but I'll give it my best shot. The Corps is, and always has been, students. The school itself encompassed more than just military/corps training: faculty, staff, administration, goals other than military training, etc. The name is more of a reflection on the goals of the school, established under the Morrill Act of 1862: an institution to teach agricultural and mechanical sciences. The Citadel was established as a military school. In short, military training at A&M was a means to an end. At The Citadel, military training was the end goal.
3. If you are interested in the history of A&M and the Corps in particular, I would recommend Keepers of the Spirit by John A. Adams. The link provided is to google books which has the book online. If you're ever in the Barksdale area, you are also welcome to borrow my hardcopy. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Ok, I've archived discussions for the past 4 years as most of it doesn't pertain to the current page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

brought one comment back. — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

FDT 1997

The section on the Fish Drill Team says that it was suspended in 1997 due to leadership issues. Should we be using euphemisms here? It was for hazing[1][2][3]. I think we should change this. Rex Manning (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hazing was one of many issues due to poor leadership. Others included poor discipline, uniform issues, etc. We certainly could go into it more and I would have no issue with following-up that sentence with something like "The most notable reason was hazing..." Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be ideal to fall somewhere between vague and overly-detailed. So, I support adding in the most prominent issues. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How fish answer questions

A couple of years ago, I posted to the talk page a question about numerical answers by fish. See Talk:Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets/Archive01#Numerical answers by fish. Another editor said he planned to do a revamp on the article if time permitted.

However, the content hasn't been changed, and it still doesn't make much sense:

Questions from upperclassmen are to be answered with one of the five fish answers, "Yes, Sir/Ma'am!" "No, Sir/Ma'am!" "No Excuse, Sir/Ma'am!" "(Class Year), Sir/Ma'am!" or (said very quickly): "Sir/Ma'am, not being informed to the highest degree of accuracy I hesitate to articulate for fear that I might deviate from the true course of rectitude. In short Sir/Ma'am, I am a very dumb fish, and do not know, Sir/Ma'am!"

Every fish is also required to know the answers to a wide number of questions including, "What's for chow?", "How many days until Final Review?", and a long list of Texas A&M University history, or "Campusology," questions. For any question requiring a number answer, a fish is expected to respond with his/her class year. In addition to semi-daily uniform inspections, all Cadets, of any rank, should be able to answer all Campusology questions without hesitation.

These statements are inconsistent with each other. If an upperclassman asks a fish "What's for chow?", the fish apparently can't answer "Spaghetti with meatballs, Sir/Ma'am!" because that's not one of the "five fish answers" in the first paragraph above. Instead, the fish would have to answer "Sir/Ma'am, not being informed to the highest degree ...", etc. (because none of the other fish answers would make sense in context) -- even if the fish knows what is on the menu. Similarly, if the fish is asked, "How many days until Final Review?", they would apparently have to answer "2013, Sir/Ma'am!" (for the current Class of 2013) rather than giving a correct answer, because the question calls for a numerical answer.

Thus, it can't simultaneously be the case that (a) the fish are required to answer all questions from upperclassmen with one of the five fish answers, and (b) the fish are required to provide the answers to a wide variety of questions about the university.

Consequently, I am going to delete these paragraphs. I have no problem with someone bringing back similar content, as long as it is comprehensible to non-Aggies, but the current version does not meet that standard. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that this is not clearly explained and that I said I'd get to it (thanks for not calling me out personally; quite classy of you). However, edits or tagging it is preferable to outright removal. I've restored the basic phrasing with some changes. Hopefully these address your concerns. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I thought that removing the paragraphs was the best course of action because (a) they were internally contradictory, (b) they were unsourced, (c) I didn't know how to resolve the contradictions, and (d) a prior attempt to discuss the problem on the talk page had not resolved the contradiction. At any rate, though, I'm glad you noticed the removal quickly. But I still see the original contradiction in the revised paragraph:

Questions from upperclassmen are generally answered with one of the four fish answers, "Yes, Sir/Ma'am!" "No, Sir/Ma'am!" "No Excuse, Sir/Ma'am!" "(Class Year), Sir/Ma'am!" or (said very quickly): "Sir/Ma'am, not being informed to the highest degree of accuracy I hesitate to articulate for fear that I might deviate from the true course of rectitude. In short Sir/Ma'am, I am a very dumb fish, and do not know, Sir/Ma'am!" For any question requiring a number answer, a fish is expected to respond with his/her class year. Additionally, every fish is also required to know the answers to a wide number of questions including, "What's for chow?", "How many days until Final Review?", and a long list of Texas A&M University history, or "Campusology," questions.

"How many days until Final Review?" is a question that requires a number answer. Thus, it can't be the case both that a fish is required to provide the correct answer to that question and to answer all numerical questions with their class year. (Also, the first sentence of the paragraph should say "one of the five fish answers", but I assume that's just an error.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This is why I added the term "generally". These answers are the basis for "the four fish answers". Every sentence thereafter states "Additionally..." and "Also". These "fish answers are not the only things they can say. I'll reword it a bit, but there are FOUR fish answers or FIVE fish answers (depending on which outfit you're in). [4] [5]. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just for the record, my plan is to get away from this article for some time, and hopefully when I next get involved with it, it will be a few months from now, and all of these issues will have been clarified. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, they weren't. I have removed the sentence that said For any question requiring a number answer, a fish is expected to respond with his/her class year. The reason for this is because (a) it contradicted another statement in the same paragraph (such as the fish being required to know the number of days until final review), (b) it was unsourced, and (c) this has been a known issue with the article for years. I recommend that anyone wishing to reinstate the claim that fish are required to answer their class year to all numerical questions, or for that matter any numerical questions for which that is not the literal answer, should provide a reliable source for that. The entire section about the fish is unsourced anyway, so it would be helpful if someone would look into sourcing it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

QUESTION ???

This is a serious question and no I'm not trying to raise a red herring, but I have a serious interest to know the outcome or what happened with the individuals involved. From 1997-1999 there was an early webcam before the days of streaming called the "AGGIE BAND CAM" It was in the room of a Cadet by the name of Kenny who was a Junior in the 1997-1998 School Year. There were participants, all I believe in the Band, that would congregate there and be on the Cam which would transmit an image every 30 seconds, and exchange privately with persons by ICQ. I find nothing of it on a Google search or a search of Wikipedia. My question is has it been whitewashed, buried, or why there is no historic record of it even having existed. Certainly anyone that participated would never forget it and it certainly for it's time broke barriers of accepted norms. The CAM was the most active during the Spring of 1998 where at least a dozen cadets appeared on the Cam. I remember seeing them polishing their Senior Boots on the Cam and I know that it did start up in the Fall, but it was never as active as the previous Spring. Did the School shut it down? Were there never any published reports? I find it amazing that there would be such a dearth of information. Thanks for any input that others might have on this. Doc ♬ talk 22:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)