What does "Watered Down" mean?

[jimmydeanno]

In another thread the comment was made that the cadet program has been watered down.  I'm just curious what people mean by that?

I must be a general CAP newb with only 12 years in, but I can't think of a single example of where things have been watered down.  I was a cadet in the late 90's and I think that the current cadet program is far better than what I went through.

Of all of the changes that have occurred in the last 5 years, I can't think of a single example that has restricted me from being able to do something I could before.  I can't think of a single thing that has become "policy" that shouldn't have been done in the first place.

Perhaps some of you "old timers" can expound on this a bit more and give some difinitive examples of why the "new" cadet program is so much worse than "your cadet program?"

[BrandonKea]

In another thread the comment was made that the cadet program has been watered down.  I'm just curious what people mean by that?

I must be a general CAP newb with only 12 years in, but I can't think of a single example of where things have been watered down.  I was a cadet in the late 90's and I think that the current cadet program is far better than what I went through.

Of all of the changes that have occurred in the last 5 years, I can't think of a single example that has restricted me from being able to do something I could before.  I can't think of a single thing that has become "policy" that shouldn't have been done in the first place.

Perhaps some of you "old timers" can expound on this a bit more and give some difinitive examples of why the "new" cadet program is so much worse than "your cadet program?"

Exhibit A. New Aerospace Modules taught by cartoon eagle vs Old Aerospace Book with in-depth information about relevant aerospace topics.

[dwb]

Exhibit A. New Aerospace Modules taught by cartoon eagle vs Old Aerospace Book with in-depth information about relevant aerospace topics.

That in-depth AE book still exists.  It's just for cadet officers now.

If I had to guess, I'd say that NHQ noticed most new cadets were 12-13 years old, so they designed an AE text for that age group.

My first AE book was Horizons Unlimited, and let me tell you, that was some tough reading for a 13-year-old.  The very first chapter was the most difficult, and more than one cadet spent a really long time at C/Amn because of it.

I'm not a big fan of Cappy, but I can appreciate the argument for his existence.  Especially since there is a plenty-tough-enough AE book awaiting cadets as they enter Phase III (actually, I think the leap from Cappy to the officer AE book is a little too steep).

[jimmydeanno]

Exhibit A. New Aerospace Modules taught by cartoon eagle

Is that anything like this? (1978 recruiting material CAPP 10 file too large to upload entire thing)

[notaNCO forever]

 As much as I don't like cappy it's better than trying to make a twelve year old learn from the book cadet officers use. One instance of watering down might be the fact that cadet officers can take the AE test open book which I believe should not be done.

[BrandonKea]

Exhibit A. New Aerospace Modules taught by cartoon eagle vs Old Aerospace Book with in-depth information about relevant aerospace topics.

That in-depth AE book still exists.  It's just for cadet officers now.

If I had to guess, I'd say that NHQ noticed most new cadets were 12-13 years old, so they designed an AE text for that age group.

My first AE book was Horizons Unlimited, and let me tell you, that was some tough reading for a 13-year-old.  The very first chapter was the most difficult, and more than one cadet spent a really long time at C/Amn because of it.

I'm not a big fan of Cappy, but I can appreciate the argument for his existence.  Especially since there is a plenty-tough-enough AE book awaiting cadets as they enter Phase III (actually, I think the leap from Cappy to the officer AE book is a little too steep).

The argument was made against Cappy and the modules when I was on NCRCAC. We also agreed that the learning curve was soo steep to go from a childrens book to an upper level high school type of text. We were shouted down by arguments of the 12-13 year olds not progressing. I joined as a cadet when I was 13, and I admit, it was a challenging task to get all that read in prep for a test, but I did it, and after I passed those test, I felt like a freaking aerospace genius. If you ask me, Cappy represents the "I want it done now" factor that plays into America today. Lets get 'em by with a splash instruction in what needs to be known, not an in depth evaluation of the topic at hand.

[BrandonKea]

As much as I don't like cappy it's better than trying to make a twelve year old learn from the book cadet officers use. One instance of watering down might be the fact that cadet officers can take the AE test open book which I believe should not be done.

That open book BS came out after I got my Mitchell. I never took a AE test open book, despite the fact that everyone I knew was just thrilled to do so.

[jimmydeanno]

I don't recall even having to take an AE exam as a cadet officer.  Even if it's open book, wouldn't that be an additional requirement? 

[BrandonKea]

I don't recall even having to take an AE exam as a cadet officer.  Even if it's open book, wouldn't that be an additional requirement?

I thought it was a requirement since 52-16 came out in '98(ish).

[SamFranklin]

"Watering down" is a myth. It's usually code for people who are upset that they cannot play Full Metal Jacket.

Setting aside the hazing-related issues, here's a list of ways the program has been changed since WIWAC in the 1980s. I say the program has hardly been watered down; if anything, it's been dramatically strengthened.

In no particular order...
   
Now:   AE tests for officers
1980s: AE ended at Mitchell

Now:  Multi-faceted CPFT
1980s:  Simply run the mile

Now:  Speech and essay requirements
1980s:  None except at Spaatz

Now:  Official rules allowing us to retain cadets in grade
1980s:  More nebulous

Now:  Official guidance on tying cadet jobs to rank and skill
1980s:  C/Amn as cadet commanders

Now:  Performance requirements for leadership
1980s:  No leadership skill "required" to earn promotions

Now:  20 or 30 NCSAs
1980s:  A handful of NCSAs

Now:  Milestone exam at the end of Phase I
1980s:  None

Now:  AF provides cadets their books for free
1980s:  Had to pay for them with dues

Now:  AF provides virtually every kid a blues uniform
1980s:  Chit program served maybe 10% of cadets

Now:  AF provides funding for O-Flights
1980s:  No funding. Cadets often had to pay to fly, depending on the wing

Now:   CP includes senior NCO grades
1980s:   Stopped at C/MSgt

Now:   More formal recognition of color guards and honor guards
1980s:  No NCGC, no HGA, no Honor Guard Manual

Now:  TLC course an official part of the CP specialty track
1980s:   No course existed

Now:  Tons of training resources
1980s:  Hardly anything available

Now:   Two months between every achievement and award
1980s:  Not so.

Sure, it's harder to get encampment hosted on a AF base now, but there are far fewer bases around the country due to BRAC, plus there is a war on. And sure, the AE book has that stupid bird and the modules are indeed "easier" than "Aerospace 81" or "Horizons" or "Flight of Discovery," but most of us who struggled through those books at age 13 will tell you they weren't "challenging," they were just beyond the average cadet's ability.

The "old days" weren't all that great.

[Eclipse]

^+1

But let's not let facts get in the way of a good discussion.

[BrandonKea]

The program has been given much more in the way of guidance, I'll agree.

I'm not a fan of the Wright Brothers as a Milestone. The only reason they did that is to track the retention of cadets since NHQ only had info on them when they hit their Mitchell. I don't subscribe to the fact that you need an award after you complete the Airman Phase. That's just my 2 cents.

The myriad of NCSA's, as I said on another post, bothers me. Some NCSA's have groups of 20-30, whereas some could easily have 150-200, and if we put funding from the NCSA's that have squat for attendance into the biggies, we could do so much more with them.

Thankfully, the Air Force is providing funding to subsidize the cost of many activities, and uniforms, this is great. But that's not what I'm getting at with the watering down. I have no interest in playing FMJ, nor did I as a cadet. I just think to focus has become blurred and the program is suffering.

Don't get me wrong, the support is there at NHQ. Curt LaFond, Joe Curry, the rest of the CP SuperTeam, they kick ass at what they do. I don't want to sound overly critical, I just have opinons on the subject.

[notaNCO forever]

I still see C/Amn as cadet commanders.

[Eclipse]

The myriad of NCSA's, as I said on another post, bothers me. Some NCSA's have groups of 20-30, whereas some could easily have 150-200, and if we put funding from the NCSA's that have squat for attendance into the biggies, we could do so much more with them.

Which ones have low attendance where that isn't by design?

[BrandonKea]

The myriad of NCSA's, as I said on another post, bothers me. Some NCSA's have groups of 20-30, whereas some could easily have 150-200, and if we put funding from the NCSA's that have squat for attendance into the biggies, we could do so much more with them.

Which ones have low attendance where that isn't by design?

Why design something with low attendance in mind?

And it appears the ones I'm thinking of have since gone away, I can't even remember the names of some of them.

[Eclipse]

The myriad of NCSA's, as I said on another post, bothers me. Some NCSA's have groups of 20-30, whereas some could easily have 150-200, and if we put funding from the NCSA's that have squat for attendance into the biggies, we could do so much more with them.

Which ones have low attendance where that isn't by design?

Why design something with low attendance in mind?

Because its a unique activity or opportunity, or requires specific training or experience.  Not all venues and activities can or should support 200 participants, some are designed to offer much more direct instruction or interaction.

[NC Hokie]

Setting aside the hazing-related issues, here's a list of ways the program has been changed since WIWAC in the 1980s. I say the program has hardly been watered down; if anything, it's been dramatically strengthened.

In no particular order...
   
Now:  Multi-faceted CPFT
1980s:  Simply run the mile

Now:  Official guidance on tying cadet jobs to rank and skill
1980s:  C/Amn as cadet commanders

Now:  AF provides virtually every kid a blues uniform
1980s:  Chit program served maybe 10% of cadets

Now:   CP includes senior NCO grades
1980s:   Stopped at C/MSgt

Some comments:

On the CPFT, I cannot help but think that it has gone a bit too far in the opposite direction by making it too hard for some cadets to pass.  I appreciate what they're trying to do with the standards from the President's Challenge, but I think it might be time to consider going to a points system similar to what the real Air Force uses.

Regarding C/Amn as cadet commanders, this still happens.  Guidance is an improvement, but I think it's past time to turn this guidance into regulations.

The FCU program is, IMHO, incomplete until it provides a FULL uniform to all cadets.  A shirt, pants, belt, and a flight cap are a good start, but cadets (or their squadrons) are still left with the hassle and expense of sourcing shoes and accoutrements.

Finally, I wonder if the inclusion of the senior NCO grades has contributed to the "NCO for life" mentality that so many senior NCO cadets seem to have.

[BrandonKea]

Eclipse - I see your point, and I've previously attended one of the "low attendance" NCSA's. It's an interesting experience, but I think it's possible that National may not need to focus on these events, maybe farm this out to Regions or, maybe just publicize them for the outside agency putting them on.

Magoo - CPFT IS way too hard. I agree with what you said, and National's heart was in the right place, but it makes me wonder how many cadets have left because they couldn't pass the first couple PT tests. I think we should go back to the previous 300 point CPFT, but that's just me...

Full uniforms would be nice, but the fact is, it's expensive! The subsidy is nice, and if I were a parent, I wouldn't expect for my kid to join a new program and just pay for dues. There's going to be SOME expense, and if the worst of that is shoes and nametags, we're not too bad.

I hate the NCO for Life mentality, but see the total need for senior NCO grades. That's one of the times the Air Force actually wants us to match up...

[jimmydeanno]

On the CPFT, I cannot help but think that it has gone a bit too far in the opposite direction by making it too hard for some cadets to pass.  I appreciate what they're trying to do with the standards from the President's Challenge, but I think it might be time to consider going to a points system similar to what the real Air Force uses.

We had a point system before.  100 points max for mile-run, 100 points max for situps, 100 for sit and reach.  What was really great about that system is that you didn't even have to do the mile run or situps until around the Mitchell (I think you needed 120 points to pass the Mitchell).  Then you only had to add one more event until the Earhart.  It wasn't really all that great.  Even recently, the AF is reconsidering its PT standards as they don't appear to meet the goal of making their troops "combat ready."  But, we're not producing soldiers, so...I think the program based off researched standards and having a goal of "developing a lifelong habit of exercise" is better.  None of the cadets in my squadron appear to have an overly difficult time with passing it.

On NCSAs, having an NCSA without the encampments "anonymous" feel IMO is a good thing.  The smaller ones have an actual immersion that happens and the attendee gets more out of it.  Plus, those smaller ones have small budgets anyway.  E-Tech operates off around 3-5K and services about 20 cadets per session.

The FCUP is great.  Most other youth programs actually require you to buy the entire uniform.  They used to provide shoes, but realized they could service nearly 1/3 more cadets by removing them from the package.  Plus, the way that 12 year olds grow out of them, it seems like a pretty good waste of money.  It's still way better than the musty smelling, previously worn, stripe holes in the sleeves blues I was issued when I joined.

The guidance on cadet grades for positions still resulting in C/Amn as cadet commanders isn't a result of "watering down" anything, it is further proof that poor local leadership is the key determinate of a successful cadet program.  Local leaders are failing their cadets by doing this, not the cadet program itself.

[ThorntonOL]

I joined Aug 2000 when we still had one of the youngest of those old aero books, and the SM's knew whether or not if you had actually read the chapter, I had no problems taking and passing aerospace, it was that annoying chapter three in leadership 2000 book 1.