Cadet Membership Upper Age Change?

[Pingree1492]

Age statistics for the cadet program have recently been posted on the National HQ Cadet Blog.  Go there for the complete listing.

9% of cadets are 18 years old or older.

Average cadet age is 15.2.

[RiverAux]

Really not an issue -- ROTC/Academy "cadets" are over 18, are part of an educational program, and basically have 0 real responsibility for the oversight of the program they are in.  However, if they wanted they could "go senior" and join the services.   Pretty close to the same thing as in CAP. 

That being said, if we were starting over I would probably end the cadet program at within 1 year of completion of high school or age 19, whichever comes last.  But, its not worth worrying over at this point. 

[Short Field]

ROTC/Academy "cadets" are over 18, are part of an educational program, and basically have 0 real responsibility for the oversight of the program they are in.  However, if they wanted they could "go senior" and join the services.   Pretty close to the same thing as in CAP.

So being enrolled in a program that leads to a commission in the armed forces is pretty close to the same thing in CAP?  Last time I looked, topping out in the CAP cadet program allows advanced promotion, if you join the RM, to E-3.  Finishing the ROTC/Academy program makes you a 0-1. 

I really don't think you can compare a ROTC/Academy cadet dropping out of the commissioning program in order to serve enlisted with a CAP cadet transferring to the adult side of CAP.

In the Academy/AFROTC cadet corps, most cadet activities are planned and ran by the cadets.  The Commissioned Officers provided academic instruction and oversight of the cadet activities.   

[Ned]

So being enrolled in a program that leads to a commission in the armed forces is pretty close to the same thing in CAP?

Absolutely.

By definition a "cadet" is simply a military student, normally being trained as an officer.

Our cadets study leadership, aerospace, character development, engage in a vigorous physical fitness program, and attend activities planned and run by cadets designed to support the program.

When I went through ROTC in preparation for my Army commission I studied leadership (often exactly the same materials I studied as a CAP cadet), character development, engaged in a vigorous physical fitness program and attended various activities planned and run by cadets designed to support the program.

Seemed kind of similar to me, then and now.

When I was a CAP cadet we had weekly leadership lab and trained in drill and ceremonies.  As an Army cadet we had weekly leadership labs and trained in (wait for it . . . ) drill and ceremonies. (Well, and some weapon training too.  But not too much given our academic setting.)

I had to go to a summer encampment to get my Mitchell.  I had to go to a summer camp to get my Army commission.  Both involved living a WWII-era barracks and a fair amount of time scrubbing the latrine.  At the time, I thought encampment was harder.

I really don't think you can compare a ROTC/Academy cadet dropping out of the commissioning program in order to serve enlisted with a CAP cadet transferring to the adult side of CAP.

I guess I agree that the two events have differential consequences, but a better analogy might be a Spaatz cadet turning senior and a MSIV getting commissioned.

Each represents a lot of time, effort, and some military training.

In the Academy/AFROTC cadet corps, most cadet activities are planned and ran by the cadets.  The Commissioned Officers provided academic instruction and oversight of the cadet activities.   

Non-concur in your implication.  CAP cadet activities should be planned and run by cadets whenver reasonably feasible, just like my ROTC experience.

Remember, Uncle Sam has cadets ranging from the age of 13 or so (JROTC) all the way up to 30 years of age (and older) in the Academies.  If Uncle Sam doesn't care about whether his cadets are over or under the age of 18, why should we get wrapped around the axle worrying about it?

Also, the age of majority in this country has changed before, and may well change again.  It is not even the same in all of our wings.  It is certainly not 18 in Puerto Rico, for example.  "Cadethood" and "adulthood" are simply unrelated concepts, and trying to impose one paradigm upon the other is silly.

This is really in the "if it's not broke, don't fix it" category.  There is simply no earthly reason to throw out 10% or our cadet corps without at least some sort of problem statement that might suggest depriving our best and brightest of scholarships and enlistment incentives is a good idea.

Ned Lee
#356
National Cadet Advisor (Acting)

[Short Field]

So being enrolled in a program that leads to a commission in the armed forces is pretty close to the same thing in CAP?

Absolutely.  By definition a "cadet" is simply a military student, normally being trained as an officer.

Guess you need to start lobbying the military to accept our top CAP cadets as O-1s instead of E-3s (at the completion of basic training).

I really don't think you can compare a ROTC/Academy cadet dropping out of the commissioning program in order to serve enlisted with a CAP cadet transferring to the adult side of CAP.

I guess I agree that the two events have differential consequences, but a better analogy might be a Spaatz cadet turning senior and a MSIV getting commissioned.

Now you are comparing a SM to a RM 2Lt?  Apples and Oranges.

In the Academy/AFROTC cadet corps, most cadet activities are planned and ran by the cadets.  The Commissioned Officers provided academic instruction and oversight of the cadet activities.   

Non-concur in your implication.  CAP cadet activities should be planned and run by cadets whenver reasonably feasible, just like my ROTC experience.

Read what I was responding to.  I was rebutting the implication that

ROTC/Academy "cadets" are over 18, are part of an educational program, and basically have 0 real responsibility for the oversight of the program they are in.  However, if they wanted they could "go senior" and join the services.   Pretty close to the same thing as in CAP. 

Remember, Uncle Sam has cadets ranging from the age of 13 or so (JROTC) all the way up to 30 years of age (and older) in the Academies.  If Uncle Sam doesn't care about whether his cadets are over or under the age of 18, why should we get wrapped around the axle worrying about it?

JROTC and ROTC are separate programs, same thing for the Academies.  I haven't seen JROTC cadets being trained by ROTC cadets and participating in ROTC activities and summer camps.  I really have not seen 16 year old JROTC cadets leading 19 year old ROTC cadets in activities.

[davidsinn]

The only problem I see with the current set up is you can have a 19 year old squadron commander that is an FO and 20 year old cadets that are subordinate to him and treated legally as children. That's stupid. Make all under 21 members cadets or all over 18 members SM but you shouldn't have that gray area.

[Ned]

The only problem I see with the current set up is you can have a 19 year old squadron commander that is an FO and 20 year old cadets that are subordinate to him and treated legally as children. That's stupid. Make all under 21 members cadets or all over 18 members SM but you shouldn't have that gray area.

No cadets should ever be treated as "children;" that would indeed be stupid.

Cadets should be treated as the students that they are.  Some happen to be under the age of majority, some are over. It makes no difference.

In college I saw a fair number of returning students that were older than the TAs leading some sessions and even older than some of the proffesors.  They were treated as students, not children.

When I was a 2Lt platoon leader, my platoon sergeant was considerably older.  He didn't treat me as a child.  (Well, OK sometimes when we were alone.)

There really is no "grey area" regardless of how often you (and others) claim there is.  At the risk of repeating myself, the United States Goverment does not make the distinction that you are claiming to make.  If Uncle Sam doesn't have a grey area, why do we think we do?

And after speaking with the leaders of JROTC and ROTC, I can tell you that they are jealous of some aspects of our program - particularly our age range.  They would love to have contact with young people for as long as we can.  They dislike the artificial four year limitation imposed because they are school-based rather than community based.

And you'd be surprised how often ROTC cadets work with JROTC cadets.  And the fact that there have to be separate programs does not change the fact that the participants are all "cadets," regardless of the age of majority in that particular location.

And we are indeed working on getting our cadet officers advanced placement in commissioning programs.  To that end, watch of alignment and harmonization with some of our requirements with USAF pre-commissioning standards.  But I have already sat and watched Air University instructors instructing CAP cadets at COS with materials and curricula straight out of SOS.

Without some sort of statement of the "problem" we are trying to solve by forcibly tossing out several thousand cadets, I'm having trouble understanding the purpose of this discussion.

[PhoenixRisen]

Finally, there already exists a program to give former cadets more credit to completing senior member professional development criteria once they reach the dark side.  For those that haven't seen that yet, log onto eServices and look at the interim change letter from 5 Jun 08 posted there.  This gets rid of the need for an "OTC" program, etc. th over 18 cadets who resent being treated like children."

Are you referring to the Mitchell -> 2d Lt, Earhart -> 1st Lt, Spaatz -> Capt transitions?  I can't seem to find any ICL for that date / subject.

[davidsinn]

The only problem I see with the current set up is you can have a 19 year old squadron commander that is an FO and 20 year old cadets that are subordinate to him and treated legally as children. That's stupid. Make all under 21 members cadets or all over 18 members SM but you shouldn't have that gray area.

No cadets should ever be treated as "children;" that would indeed be stupid.

Cadets should be treated as the students that they are.  Some happen to be under the age of majority, some are over. It makes no difference.

In college I saw a fair number of returning students that were older than the TAs leading some sessions and even older than some of the proffesors.  They were treated as students, not children.

When I was a 2Lt platoon leader, my platoon sergeant was considerably older.  He didn't treat me as a child.  (Well, OK sometimes when we were alone.)

There really is no "grey area" regardless of how often you (and others) claim there is.  At the risk of repeating myself, the United States Goverment does not make the distinction that you are claiming to make.  If Uncle Sam doesn't have a grey area, why do we think we do?

And after speaking with the leaders of JROTC and ROTC, I can tell you that they are jealous of some aspects of our program - particularly our age range.  They would love to have contact with young people for as long as we can.  They dislike the artificial four year limitation imposed because they are school-based rather than community based.

And you'd be surprised how often ROTC cadets work with JROTC cadets.  And the fact that there have to be separate programs does not change the fact that the participants are all "cadets," regardless of the age of majority in that particular location.

And we are indeed working on getting our cadet officers advanced placement in commissioning programs.  To that end, watch of alignment and harmonization with some of our requirements with USAF pre-commissioning standards.  But I have already sat and watched Air University instructors instructing CAP cadets at COS with materials and curricula straight out of SOS.

Without some sort of statement of the "problem" we are trying to solve by forcibly tossing out several thousand cadets, I'm having trouble understanding the purpose of this discussion.

By children I mean we do not treat them as legal adults. They can not be responsible or supervise for themselves. They can not sign their own forms. Yet we allow someone younger to sign as the commander and to be the "legal adult" present.

[lordmonar]

Really not an issue -- ROTC/Academy "cadets" are over 18, are part of an educational program, and basically have 0 real responsibility for the oversight of the program they are in.  However, if they wanted they could "go senior" and join the services.   Pretty close to the same thing as in CAP. 

That being said, if we were starting over I would probably end the cadet program at within 1 year of completion of high school or age 19, whichever comes last.  But, its not worth worrying over at this point.

Not even close to a proper anlogy with CAP's cadet program.

[lordmonar]

No cadets should ever be treated as "children;" that would indeed be stupid.

Cadets should be treated as the students that they are.  Some happen to be under the age of majority, some are over. It makes no difference.

Ned,

I know you and I went round and round on this before....and for the most part I do agree with your point of view....and that we don't really need to "fix" anything....but I got to throw the BS flag on this statement.  There are lots of rules that restrict what a cadet can or cannot due simply based on their status as a cadet and not on their age, maturity or skills.

This is the "confustion" that I talk about with the current set of rules we work with.

[Ned]

There are lots of rules that restrict what a cadet can or cannot due simply based on their status as a cadet and not on their age, maturity or skills.

Did you mean what you said here?  Because I don't disagree with restrictions based on "cadet status" like requriing senior supervision.

As we've discussed before, we treat 18 year old high school students as students that require supervision even if they are over the age of majority in their location.  Even as a 28 year old ROTC cadet, I still needed to have a cadre member present on FTXs.


Same same.

[Ned]

By children I mean we do not treat them as legal adults. They can not be responsible or supervise for themselves. They can not sign their own forms. Yet we allow someone younger to sign as the commander and to be the "legal adult" present.

True enough, but why do you choose to see this as a "problem" that requires tossing a couple of thousand of our best cadets out on the street?

[RiverAux]

The only problem I see with the current set up is you can have a 19 year old squadron commander that is an FO and 20 year old cadets that are subordinate to him and treated legally as children.

How often does that happen?  How many under 21 squadron commanders do you think there are in CAP at any one time?  I bet its less than half a dozen. 

[davidsinn]

The only problem I see with the current set up is you can have a 19 year old squadron commander that is an FO and 20 year old cadets that are subordinate to him and treated legally as children.

How often does that happen?  How many under 21 squadron commanders do you think there are in CAP at any one time?  I bet its less than half a dozen.

I bet it's less than that but my point still stands. You are treating one person as an adult yet not treating another, older person as an adult.

[lordmonar]

There are lots of rules that restrict what a cadet can or cannot due simply based on their status as a cadet and not on their age, maturity or skills.

Did you mean what you said here?  Because I don't disagree with restrictions based on "cadet status" like requriing senior supervision.

As we've discussed before, we treat 18 year old high school students as students that require supervision even if they are over the age of majority in their location.  Even as a 28 year old ROTC cadet, I still needed to have a cadre member present on FTXs.


Same same.

Well....same but different.   Anytime you talk ROTC you are starting with a group of people who are 99% adults to begin with (and the other 1% will soon follow).  I'm not sure that it is a fair comparison.

Again...I agree that we don't need to fix anything....but you have to admit that the over 18 and under 21 members (both senior and cadet) create a gray area that there are no easy answers to solve.

But to use your comparison:

CAP Cadet over 18 who is married must cross over to the gray side.
CAP Cadet who joins goes extened active duty guard (a deployment) must cross over to the gray side.
CAP Cadet who turns 18 must take Senior Member level cadet protection training.

ROTC cadet who gets married does not have do anything.
ROTC cadet who is NG and goes on a deployment does not have to do anything.
ROTC cadets can be 18-35 and they are all treated all the same.

These three areas alone shows how the systems are different.

I agree that it would be too hard to rewrite the program and it would hurt us in a lot of way if we made some sort of hard date (18) where a cadet must cross over.  But you have to admit that there is a lot of confusion and crossed circuits when we talk about CAP cadets.

[ZigZag911]

It occurs to me that it would not be that difficult to revise the cadet program: simply reserve Spaatz and Eaker milestone awards for those of appropriate age (we can argue that one later, let's say 16 + for starters).

Presto! No more 13 year old cadet colonels!

My big concern is not with the 'legal rights' of 18 year old cadets, but with the separation of the age groups -- there are reasons (psychological, emotional maturity, social adaptation) junior high kids are kept separate from high school kids, and why college students are not generally mixed with those in high school.

[Eclipse]

It occurs to me that it would not be that difficult to revise the cadet program: simply reserve Spaatz and Eaker milestone awards for those of appropriate age (we can argue that one later, let's say 16 + for starters).

Presto! No more 13 year old cadet colonels!

Already done - based on current testing rules and minimum entry age requirements this is no longer a possibility.  Someone do the math, but I believe 16 is now the practical minimum for Spaatz.

[Eclipse]

The only problem I see with the current set up is you can have a 19 year old squadron commander that is an FO and 20 year old cadets that are subordinate to him and treated legally as children.

How often does that happen?  How many under 21 squadron commanders do you think there are in CAP at any one time?  I bet its less than half a dozen.

Since the FO grades aren't tracked by NHQ, there's no way to tell, however last I checked there were 10 SMWOG's, and a few could be  in those numbers.

The mere fact that its a possibility is a program "crack" if you ask me, even if the numbers are small.

[vmstan]

Unless they're prior enlisted choosing to keep their RM grade, and not participating in PD, why would any SMWOG be a commander of any size in CAP? I'm now within sight of my butter bars and I can say without hesitation I am no where near qualified to run a squadron.