POLL: Time in Grade for Cadets

[Cadetter]

Pretty self-explanatory.

I agree with the 5th.

2nd sentence edited: I agree in principle with the 5th, although I do not applaud "fast burner" cadets.

[BHartman007]

It's almost a moot point. There's probably only one cadet in a thousand that has all of the requirements met inside of 56 days.

[Майор Хаткевич]

It's almost a moot point. There's probably only one cadet in a thousand that has all of the requirements met inside of 56 days.

Then you'd be dead wrong.




Can it / does it happen? Yes. Do I support it? No.

[Eclipse]

Define "mature enough".

No TIG would potentially equal first or second year Spaatz cadets.

One of the points of TIG is to allow cadets to acclimate to the expectation and responsibilities
of their new grade, the fact that few units have the manpower to afford those expectations
notwithstanding.

[ZigZag911]

I'd like to see 12 weeks time in grade, perhaps even 16...some of the real young "fast burners" would benefit from the additional experience...also, it would probably more accurately reflect what cadets are capable of doing ..by which I mean, it has always seemed to me that it was the rare cadet that could meet all requirements well in 8 weeks.

[Cadetter]

It's almost a moot point. There's probably only one cadet in a thousand that has all of the requirements met inside of 56 days.

I've seen it happen quite a lot, for the objective requirements. Rarely for subjective.

Define "mature enough".

No TIG would potentially equal first or second year Spaatz cadets.

One of the points of TIG is to allow cadets to acclimate to the expectation and responsibilities
of their new grade, the fact that few units have the manpower to afford those expectations
notwithstanding.

Commanders' definition.

Potentially, yes. But would it be very likely that a cadet will promote every 2-3 weeks?

Sure, if a cadet doesn't meet the expectations of the grade, then no promotion.

I'd like to see 12 weeks time in grade, perhaps even 16...some of the real young "fast burners" would benefit from the additional experience...also, it would probably more accurately reflect what cadets are capable of doing ..by which I mean, it has always seemed to me that it was the rare cadet that could meet all requirements well in 8 weeks.

Maybe degressive TIG reqs? Most 17 year olds shouldn't need 16 weeks TIG... 13 year olds might.

[Eclipse]

"Commander's decision" isn't something that is a good idea when the program is supposed to
be standardized nationwide.

You would potentially have cadets cramming between milestones and then walking in expecting
3 clicks at a time.

The TIG is intended for a cadet to age into the role and grade, by design.  It is also intended
to actually have cadets stick around and help others do the same.

If anything, the responsibilities of a 16 year old cadet officer are higher then an NCO.
Between milestones you're supposed to be doing, learning, mentoring, being mentored, and
using the things you learned to get to that point, not just stewing that you have to wait.

It's not a race.

[Cadetter]

"Commander's decision" isn't something that is a good idea when the program is supposed to
be standardized nationwide.

You would potentially have cadets cramming between milestones and then walking in expecting
3 clicks at a time.

The TIG is intended for a cadet to age into the role and grade, by design.  It is also intended
to actually have cadets stick around and help others do the same.

If anything, the responsibilities of a 16 year old cadet officer are higher then an NCO.
Between milestones you're supposed to be doing, learning, mentoring, being mentored, and
using the things you learned to get to that point, not just stewing that you have to wait.

It's not a race.

Didn't say it was good. But if it's commanders deciding promotions, then it's commanders' definition.

Maybe. So, there is a truly amazing cadet who passes tons of tests quickly, excels at all subjective expectations for promotion. What's wrong with promoting them.

If so, TIG should be longer, because two months is not enough time to "age into the role and grade" for most, except the airmen ranks (in my limited experience).

Yup. But why have 8 weeks time in grade rather than 2, or rather than 15? Not having specific time in grade... does not mean we'll have 12-year old Spaatzen. It means that less cadets will race to meet the minimum, because there is no minimum. If a cadet seems to think it is a race and demands promotions quickly, then are they showing maturity for promotion?

Promoting too quickly is bad, yes. I learned from personal experience.

[Eclipse]

Maybe. So, there is a truly amazing cadet who passes tons of tests quickly, excels at all subjective expectations for promotion. What's wrong with promoting them.

What advantage is there?

Two other things - if you haven't dealt with helicopter parents, then you don't know what you're speaking of.
There's a fair number who view things like CAP, Boy Scouts, and Sports as simply a belt notch towards some other
thing later.  This is also prevalent in homeschoolers.  Given the incentive, you'd have cadets
blowing through the online tests in a few nights, whether they actually understand the work or not, these are, afterall,
online, open-book unproctered tests.

Second, it makes it easier to read if you quote what you are responding to.

[Cadetter]

Maybe. So, there is a truly amazing cadet who passes tons of tests quickly, excels at all subjective expectations for promotion. What's wrong with promoting them.

What advantage is there?

Two other things - if you haven't dealt with helicopter parents, then you don't know what you're speaking of.
There's a fair number who view things like CAP, Boy Scouts, and Sports as simply a belt notch towards some other
thing later.  This is also prevalent in homeschoolers.  Given the incentive, you'd have cadets
blowing through the online tests in a few nights, whether they actually understand the work or not, these are, afterall,
online, open-book unproctered tests.

Second, it makes it easier to read if you quote what you are responding to.

Motivation.

My parents have been helicopter parents and I am a homeschooler. I have "dealt with" a few helicopter parents, but not many.

Edited that.

[Eclipse]

Your motivation as a cadet should be participating in the program, hands-on learning to be a follower and leader,
and generally gaining as much experience as you can.  If you do it properly, the promotions will follow organically.

The TIG was specifically put in place to slow down the fast burners. There is no advantage to
fact-burning and a lot of risk to retention.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Given that cadet officers are already "throttled", based on grade (at least partially,  4 months as 1st Lt, 6 as Capt/Maj), I always  figured that phase I and II should take at least 3 months per stripe.

If I were king, WBA would be about 9-12 month mark, so 3 months as Airman, 3 as A1C, 3 as SrA.
WBA at say 9 based on that, so TSgt at 12, MSgt at 15, SMSgt at 18, Chief1 at 21, Chief2 at 24, with Mitchell at any time after that.

Mitchell at 24 min, 1st at 28, Capt/Earhart at 32.
Major at 38, Eaker at 40, Spaatz at 42.

So the shift is
18-24 Mitchell
24-32 Earhart
38-40 Eaker
38-42 Spaatz

In the long run, not much of a change.

[Cadetter]

Eclipse - True. Promoting tends to motivate cadets, and vice versa, or so I see it. Why specifically 8 weeks TIG? Because in the long run it's not a very large time span.

usafaux2004 - How about degressive (like I suggested earlier), as follows?

1 month in CAP for first stripe
4 months for Curry-Arnold, and Arnold-Feik
Wright Brothers any time after that
3 months for Wright Brothers-TSgt, TSgt-MSgt, MSgt-SMSgt, SMSgt-Goddard
2 months for Goddard-Armstrong
Mitchell any time after that
2 months for 2dLt-2dLt
1stLt any time after that
2 months 1stLt-1stLt
Earhart any time after that
1 month for Capt-Capt, and Capt-Capt
Major any time after that
1 month for Maj-Maj and Maj-Maj
Eaker any time after that
Spaatz any time after that

Roughly 32 months (assuming "any time after that is ~6 days.)

[Storm Chaser]

I think this is a "solution" looking for a problem. The current time between achievements is fine as it is. I would argue that in most cases 8 weeks is not enough. And even if a cadet is ready for promotion to the next grade before the 8 weeks are up, how is waiting a extra few days or weeks detrimental to the cadet? Besides, 8 weeks (or even 16) barely provide enough time for a cadet to gain experience in that grade before moving to the next.

[MIKE]

TIG requirements are the minimum time to complete an achievement or award.  If you want the Cadet Program to devolve into take tests, get promoted as fast as regulations will allow... Then IMO you are doing it wrong.

For me personally, I would like to see earned grade not necessarily tied to directly to achievements completed.

[CAP_truth]

12 weeks for training and testing. 13 week as an awards night. If a cadet joins after completing 6 grade should have their Mitchell when they complete 8 grade, Earhart by the end of Freshman year, and Eaker by the end of Sophomore year. Spaatz by the time they end Junior year.

[Cadetter]

MIKE - Not just tests, the maturity and carrying out of the duties.

[MacGruff]

Maybe. So, there is a truly amazing cadet who passes tons of tests quickly, excels at all subjective expectations for promotion. What's wrong with promoting them.

What advantage is there?

Two other things - if you haven't dealt with helicopter parents, then you don't know what you're speaking of.
There's a fair number who view things like CAP, Boy Scouts, and Sports as simply a belt notch towards some other
thing later.  This is also prevalent in homeschoolers.  Given the incentive, you'd have cadets
blowing through the online tests in a few nights, whether they actually understand the work or not, these are, afterall,
online, open-book unproctered tests.

Second, it makes it easier to read if you quote what you are responding to.

Motivation.

My parents have been helicopter parents and I am a homeschooler. I have "dealt with" a few helicopter parents, but not many.

Edited that.

We just had that problem in my Squadron. A cadet was being pushed hard by their parents. Once promoted, they would have taken  their leadership and aerospace tests within a week. When PT was offered, they would be right there ready to meet it. All with the idea of promoting as fast as possible and no slower than a promotion every two months.

This was fine as long as the cadet was in the early parts of the program. Unfortunately, when the requirements for displaying leadership by actually leading other cadets rolled in, this cadet was not ready. They were completely dependent on their parents for everything and always looked to someone else to see what to do. They were clearly not ready to assume the duties of a Tech Sergeant or higher, yet the parents were there, arguing with the Senior officers about it.

This caused a lot of friction and drama that was noticed by the other cadets and took a few months to play out. Unfortunately, the results were poor for everyone. The cadet and parents ended up disillusioned and leaving the program; while the cadet officers and Senior leaders had to deal with the drama and the negative effects on the rest of the squadron during the whole process and even beyond it.

That cadet should have taken much more time to move up, but there was no real reason to slow their progress over the first few steps. Having longer time limits would have helped this particular cadet who was pushed into a position beyond their current level of maturity to everyone's detriment.

[Cadetter]

MacGruff - When I promoted too quickly (personal definition), I definitely lacked the maturity to be a senior NCO. Thankfully one of my promotions was stopped, and I actually had to work towards being promoted. (Current promotion is being held too.) There is one cadet in my squadron, who is very motivated and hardworking, who has (as far as I know) gotten all promotions except the last with 8-9 weeks TIG. However they definitely have the maturity for it (an "older" cadet.)

Also, just to note - I and a few others in my squadron have found that testing as soon as possible after the previous promotion helps us retain information for milestones, so we test soon after, not necessarily because we are trying to promote quickly but because we enjoy passing milestone exams.

[Eclipse]

There is one cadet in my squadron, who is very motivated and hardworking, who has (as far as I know) gotten all promotions except the last with 8-9 weeks TIG.

exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis

[SarDragon]

Why 8 weeks?

50 years of experience with the current cadet program structure. It's a short enough period of time to give the fast burners experience in the grade, without throttling them back too much, and it ensures a long enough time to to get slower learners up to speed.

[Cadetter]

StormChaser - Not detrimental (to their goals) unless they are an older cadet (to a 19 year old C/MSgt it may well be important to promote right now if he wants to get above his Earhart).

SarDragon - In my admittedly limited experience as a fast burner, 8 weeks is not enough for experience. 12-16 weeks is closer to what was/is necessary for me. In a couple other "fast burner" cases I know of, 5 weeks would have been enough.

[Eclipse]

And since a standardized system needs something beyond "command determination" to decide?

What's about midpoint between 5 and 12?  About 8?  Hm...

The trouble is that "command determination" isn't an option in a situation where you
have inconsistently trained commanders with diverse motivations. A poor CC who cares more
about making members happy then helping them grow may be inclined to simply open the flood gates.

I have personally been witness to units where every cadet makes every promotion exactly to the
date they are eligible, only to see these same cadets be unable to perform at grade level
and not a single one ever even attempted Spaatz.

The motivation in those cases was not where it should have been, nor the supervision from higher HQ.

[Майор Хаткевич]

And since a standardized system needs something beyond "command determination" to decide?

What's about midpoint between 5 and 12?  About 8?  Hm...

The trouble is that "command determination" isn't an option in a situation where you
have inconsistently trained commanders with diverse motivations. A poor CC who cares more
about making members happy then helping them grow may be inclined to simply open the flood gates.

I have personally been witness to units where every cadet makes every promotion exactly to the
date they are eligible, only to see these same cadets be unable to perform at grade level
and not a single one ever even attempted Spaatz.

he motivation in those cases was not where it should ave been, nor the supervision from higher HQ.

And that's how you end up with C/Majors in a training flight at an encampment commanded by a C/Capt with C/1st Lt Exec staff.

[Eclipse]

Yep. (Though we're speaking hypothetically, of course...)

[Cadetter]

The trouble is that "command determination" isn't an option in a situation where you
have inconsistently trained commanders with diverse motivations. A poor CC who cares more
about making members happy then helping them grow may be inclined to simply open the flood gates.

Then, train commanders consistently. (Disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm talking about now.)

I have personally been witness to units where every cadet makes every promotion exactly to the
date they are eligible, only to see these same cadets be unable to perform at grade level...

They should get their promotion "on the date they are eligible" if they are mature, hardworking, whatever, enough to get the promotion - they are not eligible if they are unable to perform at grade level. True eligibility includes ability to perform one's job.

The motivation in those cases was not where it should have been...

True and false.

And that's how you end up with C/Majors in a training flight at an encampment commanded by a C/Capt with C/1st Lt Exec staff.

Just an aside - what is a training flight at encampment? Isn't one either staff or a basic?

[SarDragon]

SarDragon - In my admittedly limited experience as a fast burner, 8 weeks is not enough for experience. 12-16 weeks is closer to what was/is necessary for me. In a couple other "fast burner" cases I know of, 5 weeks would have been enough.

Well, Maybe you aren't Ace of the Base, and just Wingman of the base. 

[lordmonar]

Weird.

52-16 already says everything that you are talking about.

The 8 week is the MINIMUM TIG before eligible for promotion.

What do you need to get promoted?

Leadership Test.
Aerospace Test.
Character Development.
Drill Test.
PT Test.
TIG

-----AND------

Commander's sign off that the cadet meets the maturity, responsibility and leadership guidelines as spelled out in 52-16.

No one.....should be getting promoted until he/she meets ALL of the promotion requirements.

If they meet those requirements in 8 weeks then they deserve to be promoted.   If it takes 6 months....it takes six months.

Where the break down happens is one commander may have a different ideal of "what a SSgt should be" vs what another commander thinks.

This is solved by consistent training by wing CP officer and active over sight of squadron CP operations by those same officers.

[Cadetter]

lordmonar - In the (hypothetical) instance that a cadet meets all the requirements in, say, 2 weeks - why make them wait?

What's a CP officer?

[SarDragon]

lordmonar - In the (hypothetical) instance that a cadet meets all the requirements in, say, 2 weeks - why make them wait?

What's a CP officer?

CP officer is, amazingly enough, Cadet Programs Officer. Funny how that works.

As for the other Q, Do you really think the two weeks is enough time to demonstrate "the maturity, responsibility and leadership guidelines as spelled out in 52-16"? That's barely enough time to accomplish the required testing.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Cadetter, Training flight, I suppose now is actually "basic" flight. I was talking about typical second year "advanced" flight. Many places know them by many names. Realistically, doesn't matter, a phase IV should be running the show, not learning to drill a flight or lead a small group.

[lordmonar]

lordmonar - In the (hypothetical) instance that a cadet meets all the requirements in, say, 2 weeks - why make them wait?

What's a CP officer?

If it has only been two weeks......they have met all of the requirements.

Why?  Because sitting there in rank learning the responsibilities of that ranks is part of the program.  Getting experience at one level is part of the process.

Sure.....there are some cadets who could easily jump up take on higher rank and responsibilities.....but that is just the way it goes.

[Cadetter]

SarDragon, had never heard of one before now, thank you sir. I love sarcasm.

lordmonar and SarDragon, for some great individuals, it is enough time.

[lordmonar]

I agree but there is no mechanism in the program to accelerate a high speed low drag cadet. And if there were it would be abused too much.  8 weeks is not to long to make some one wait.

[BHartman007]

...for some great individuals, it is enough time.

Lemme guess. You?

[Cadetter]

...for some great individuals, it is enough time.

Lemme guess. You?

Nope.

The tests aren't terribly challenging for me yet, but the "leadership lab" is.

[PHall]

And that's how you end up with C/Majors in a training flight at an encampment commanded by a C/Capt with C/1st Lt Exec staff.

I thought it's because the C/Capt and the C/1st Lt applied for and were selected for their positions and the C/Maj didn't.

[Eclipse]

And that's how you end up with C/Majors in a training flight at an encampment commanded by a C/Capt with C/1st Lt Exec staff.

I thought it's because the C/Capt and the C/1st Lt applied for and were selected for their positions and the C/Maj didn't.

A valid assumption from 50k feet - more like "due to the inability to perform at grade level, we're making some changes..."

The term "tarnished diamonds" might be a little melodramatic, but it's also sadly apropos. Certainly was very disappointing
for a number of reasons.

[Storm Chaser]

StormChaser - Not detrimental (to their goals) unless they are an older cadet (to a 19 year old C/MSgt it may well be important to promote right now if he wants to get above his Earhart).

A 19 year old C/MSgt would most likely not care that much about earning the Earhart Award, as he/she would have different goals at that age.

As a former cadet and senior member with years of experience with the Cadet Program, I understand what you're saying. But trust me, "wants" and "needs" are not the same. The program has evolved into what it is based on years of experience and lessons learned. There's always room for improvement. But I don't think this is an area where we want to spend too much time or effort "reinventing the wheel" just because it would be convenient for some cadets to promote faster or earlier.

If you really want to improve the Cadet Programs, there are other areas in need of attention.

[Cadetter]

A 19 year old C/MSgt would most likely not care that much about earning the Earhart Award, as he/she would have different goals at that age.

I've seen more than four (around that grade) who cared, but yes, a lot of 19 year olds wouldn't.

As a former cadet and senior member with years of experience with the Cadet Program, I understand what you're saying. But trust me, "wants" and "needs" are not the same. The program has evolved into what it is based on years of experience and lessons learned. There's always room for improvement. But I don't think this is an area where we want to spend too much time or effort "reinventing the wheel" just because it would be convenient for some cadets to promote faster or earlier.

If you really want to improve the Cadet Programs, there are other areas in need of attention.

Sir, it would be convenient to some squadrons as well.

I can only name around 20 areas to improve on for Cadet Programs...

[Майор Хаткевич]

How does that help a squadron?

[Cadetter]

By allowing a capable, hardworking, motivated cadet to advance so they would be the proper rank for a staff position that should be filled. And I have seen it a lot. Currently am dealing with it.

[Eclipse]

Fast burning a cadet just to fill a staff position
is a problem, not a solution.

[Cadetter]

Sir, if they are an older, mature, cadet (like 18 or 19), where is the problem?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Sir, if they are an older, mature, cadet (like 18 or 19), where is the problem?

Where is the advantage?

[jeders]

Sir, if they are an older, mature, cadet (like 18 or 19), where is the problem?

Hmmm, putting a teenager who thinks they know everything into a position of authority with little experience in lower levels due to fast burning through them. Oh, and lets add the fact that a lot of CP officers and squadron commanders are going to promote people before they are mature enough for the promotion just because they checked all the boxes. Nope, can't see any chance of that going horribly wrong.

[Cadetter]

The advantage is that the squadron will have a capable cadet who can help the squadron assigned to a staff position.

If they think they know everything, they are not mature and hence do not qualify for what I am talking about.

[jeders]

The advantage is that the squadron will have a capable cadet who can help the squadron assigned to a staff position.

If they think they know everything, they are not mature and hence do not qualify for what I am talking about.

Except that they can't help because they haven't "been there, done that" if they are promoting every couple/few weeks. Also, while you may think that maturity is something that everyone can tell and only the best will advance, I can tell you right now that that isn't true. Incompetent immature cadets are promoted well past their abilities today despite that 8 week rule, that's a problem. This proposal does nothing to curb that and will most likely make it more common.

[Майор Хаткевич]

The advantage is that the squadron will have a capable cadet who can help the squadron assigned to a staff position.

If they think they know everything, they are not mature and hence do not qualify for what I am talking about.

Like what? We need a C/Commander, so lets promote C/A1C Seventeen to C/Captain in the next two months? Because his old and wise age will cover the lack of 2+ years of CAP experience to lead in a CAP environment? But hey, we're all friends, I'm sure the morale of all the OTHER cadets won't be affected.

[Cadetter]

Except that they can't help because they haven't "been there, done that" if they are promoting every couple/few weeks. Also, while you may think that maturity is something that everyone can tell and only the best will advance, I can tell you right now that that isn't true. Incompetent immature cadets are promoted well past their abilities today despite that 8 week rule, that's a problem. This proposal does nothing to curb that and will most likely make it more common.

Sir (?), have you ever heard of semi-realistic idealism?

True on the BTDT, although it isn't *that* hard to think what it's like to be in such-and-such position below flight sergeant.

Most reasonable adults can recognize most forms of maturity. I know that "incompetent, immature cadets are promoted well past their abilities despite that 8 week rule" because I have been one of those cadets.

Like what? We need a C/Commander, so lets promote C/A1C Seventeen to C/Captain in the next two months? Because his old and wise age will cover the lack of 2+ years of CAP experience to lead in a CAP environment? But hey, we're all friends, I'm sure the morale of all the OTHER cadets won't be affected.

Max of flight sergeant. Not all staff positions must be filled. Need experience, yes, but if C/A1C Seventeen is an outstanding cadet, and is in reality the most qualified and "best" cadet in the squadron - why not?

Morale - Not saying that this only applies to cadets above X age. Just example of cadets in that age range.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Flight sergeants aren't a required position. C/CC (at C/Capt or higher) is. Of your unit doesn't have anyone to fill the role, you don't. SMs are supposed to guide the program at the appropriate level, taking a step back when cadets can take a step forward. 

[jeders]

Sir (?), have you ever heard of semi-realistic idealism?

Yes I have, have you ever heard of reality? Because that is what you need to be judging things on, not a pie in the sky dream.

True on the BTDT

Thank you for agreeing that your argument has no foundation.

Most reasonable adults can recognize most forms of maturity.

You've been an adult have you?

I know that "incompetent, immature cadets are promoted well past their abilities despite that 8 week rule" because I have been one of those cadets.

So if you know that incompetent cadets are promoted by well-intentioned commanders, and you know that leaders need some real BTDT experience, why are you continuing to advocate for this change?

...if C/A1C Seventeen is an outstanding cadet, and is in reality the most qualified and "best" cadet in the squadron - why not?

So if c/A1C Seventeen really is the best, then appoint him to a leadership position; but don't short change him by promoting him beyond his experience or abilities.

-Jed Taylor
Former fast burning test banker

[Cadetter]

Flight sergeants aren't a required position. C/CC (at C/Capt or higher) is. Of your unit doesn't have anyone to fill the role, you don't. SMs are supposed to guide the program at the appropriate level, taking a step back when cadets can take a step forward. 

SMs are supposed to, yes.

The reason I said max of flight sergeant is because that is, in my opinion, the most logical thing in the hypothetical case - obviously having an inexperienced cadet commander is a poor idea, but flight sergeant is an entry-level leadership position.

Yes I have, have you ever heard of reality? Because that is what you need to be judging things on, not a pie in the sky dream.

Thank you for agreeing that your argument has no foundation.

You've been an adult have you?

So if you know that incompetent cadets are promoted by well-intentioned commanders, and you know that leaders need some real BTDT experience, why are you continuing to advocate for this change?

So if c/A1C Seventeen really is the best, then appoint him to a leadership position; but don't short change him by promoting him beyond his experience or abilities.

-Jed Taylor
Former fast burning test banker

Yes, I have not, no, because I am very stubborn, and precisely what I am saying.

[Eclipse]

semi-realistic idealism?

Nowhere in a context where the words go together.

but if C/A1C Seventeen is an outstanding cadet, and is in reality the most qualified and "best" cadet in the squadron - why not?

Because "best" and "most qualified" are relative terms and mean little in a system which espouses objective criteria, and in an organization
which will accept just about anyone as a member.

In a room full of brand new slick-sleeve cadets, the one who has read the brochure and knows how to properly
pronounce "CAP" may be the "most qualified", but isn't actually qualified.

In times of stress and emergency, occasionally people will rise above their training and assume a mantle considered
well above what they would normally be qualified to carry, however the risk when doing this is harm to both the
subordinates and the leader, and in the normal course of squadron operations there is no justification for the risk.

Since adult members are always responsible for squadron operations, there is no such thing as a "required"
cadet staff position. Unit CCs who don't understand this appoint cadets ahead of their phase to the detriment of everyone
involved.

You seem to be viewing the TIG as somehow holding a cadet back, quite the opposite, it is intended to allow a cadet the experience
to grow into the grade appropriate roles and responsibilities.

At the enlisted and lower NCO levels, this might not seem like such a big deal, but 2-3 fast clicks and a cadet will find themselves
in a position that they are ill-equipped to handle, and when those situations occur, they become retention issues quickly,
because few adolescents are interested in being held out as failures, even though failing is more important then success
during your developing years.

So fast-burner cadets with well-intentioned and ill-informed leaders tend to rise quickly until the first time they find an empty
cup, and then no one hears from them again.

[Cadetter]

Unit CCs who don't understand this appoint cadets ahead of their phase to the detriment of everyone
involved.

Training problem.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Unit CCs who don't understand this appoint cadets ahead of their phase to the detriment of everyone
involved.

Training problem.

That's what you're advocating for.

[Cadetter]

Unit CCs who don't understand this appoint cadets ahead of their phase to the detriment of everyone
involved.

Training problem.

[Eclipse]

^ Yes, and the ones who do, would never consider the idea.

Are CAP CC's inconsistently trained and many times chosen based on physical presence?

Yes.

Which is why the program, especially on the cadet side, is standardized, and leaves little room for people to be "special".

[Cadetter]

Sir, CCs already are the promotion authority. Fail to see it - What is changing in what I am advocating?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Sir, CCs already are the promotion authority. Fail to see it - What is changing in what I am advocating?

The squadron commander's child becoming the top dog within a few weeks, merit or no? An insurmountable tide of C/NCOs who don't know left from right? Chaos at encampments because selected staff are clueless? Zero progression to C/Officer grades because it's too hard after being swiftly advanced to C/NCO status?


How do you imagine this working out?

[Cadetter]

Have seen the nepotism, spread out, a lot during my limited experience. If an NCO doesn't know left from right - bingo they don't have the ability or experience to be an NCO.

Of course there are flaws with it. As there are with everything.

Maybe, relinquo.

[jeders]

Of course there are flaws with it. As there are with everything.

And there are many more flaws with what you are advocating than with the system we have now. So why should we adopt your system?

Yes I have, have you ever heard of reality? Because that is what you need to be judging things on, not a pie in the sky dream.

Thank you for agreeing that your argument has no foundation.

You've been an adult have you?

So if you know that incompetent cadets are promoted by well-intentioned commanders, and you know that leaders need some real BTDT experience, why are you continuing to advocate for this change?

So if c/A1C Seventeen really is the best, then appoint him to a leadership position; but don't short change him by promoting him beyond his experience or abilities.

-Jed Taylor
Former fast burning test banker

Yes, I have not, no, because I am very stubborn, and precisely what I am saying.

You might try operating their instead of semi-real idealism (read dreaming); actually you did, you just don't realize it; once you are, you'll see why what your advocating is such a bad idea; all the more reason to stop; it really isn't, I'm saying appoint, you're saying fundamentally change the promotion system.

The reason I said max of flight sergeant is because that is, in my opinion, the most logical thing in the hypothetical case - obviously having an inexperienced cadet commander is a poor idea, but flight sergeant is an entry-level leadership position.

Flight sergeant is absolutely NOT an entry level leadership position. Perhaps you've not understood your leadership material as well as you think you have. The entry level leadership position is being a follower, an in-flight cadet. You must learn to follow, and that includes waiting a respectable period of time before you advance either in grade or to a position of greater responsibility. From there, you become an assistant element leader, then an element leader, and then a flight sergeant (ideally of course). At each step you must spend time waiting and learning before you are ready to progress.

Now, if you just want to advance people who are capable of an entry level leadership position, then I'm all in favor of it. As soon as the membership app is processed, we'll move you all the way up to in-flight cadet. But from there, you have to spend time learning.

Seriously though, if you want to just be stubborn and waste electrons arguing this out, Eclipse and usafaux will be more than happy to oblige you. If, however, you really believe that this idea is a good one and is in the best interest of CAP and the cadets involved, please spend more time thinking it out. Your own words here have shown that you have not fully thought it out and that it is a solution, and a potentially awful one at that, in search of a problem. I'm not saying this to be mean or disparaging, I say it because part of the purpose of the leadership lab is to teach critical thinking; something that you have shown a great lack of with this proposal.

[Cadetter]

Seriously though, if you want to just be stubborn and waste electrons arguing this out, Eclipse and usafaux will be more than happy to oblige you. If, however, you really believe that this idea is a good one and is in the best interest of CAP and the cadets involved, please spend more time thinking it out. Your own words here have shown that you have not fully thought it out and that it is a solution, and a potentially awful one at that, in search of a problem. I'm not saying this to be mean or disparaging, I say it because part of the purpose of the leadership lab is to teach critical thinking; something that you have shown a great lack of with this proposal.

Wasting time, actually. I am a critical thinker. I'm hardly proposing that this be changed to what I'm thinking because it is brainstorming. NOT a plan. If this was really a plan, then I would seriously doubt the sanity of holding the position I do. Besides, the idea that I think is better geared is what I posted earlier -

1 month in CAP for first stripe
4 months for Curry-Arnold, and Arnold-Feik
Wright Brothers any time after that
3 months for Wright Brothers-TSgt, TSgt-MSgt, MSgt-SMSgt, SMSgt-Goddard
2 months for Goddard-Armstrong
Mitchell any time after that
2 months for 2dLt-2dLt
1stLt any time after that
2 months 1stLt-1stLt
Earhart any time after that
1 month for Capt-Capt, and Capt-Capt
Major any time after that
1 month for Maj-Maj and Maj-Maj
Eaker any time after that
Spaatz any time after that

Roughly 32 months (assuming "any time after that is ~6 days.)

[abdsp51]

And this is why we have issues in the program. 

[lordmonar]

^ Yes, and the ones who do, would never consider the idea.

Are CAP CC's inconsistently trained and many times chosen based on physical presence?

Yes.

Which is why the program, especially on the cadet side, is standardized, and leaves little room for people to be "special".

Me and Eclipse don't agree often......but in this case we do 100%.

We get what you are saying.   In fact a few years back the CP types actually drafted a proposal to "fast track" or allow older cadets to "challenge" the test......so your hypothetical older more mature 16 year old could speed through the lower ranks.

The general consensus was that it was an "okay" idea but would cause more problems then it would fix.

I've been doing this for 10+ years.....maybe.....maybe.....it would have helped two or three cadets...and the squadron too....but that's it tops.

[Cadetter]

Beating a dead horse.

[PHall]

Or maybe they know what they're talking about and you refuse to listen.

[Cadetter]

Listened to and agree with them. Ego is one of my main vices.

[Cadetter]

And thusly a textbook example of appointing a cadet to a position inappropriate to his grade and experience.

I get the point, sir.

[Johnny Yuma]

The way we have it set up is perfect, let's not reinvent the wheel.

A cadet CAN progress every 2 months. Just because he's done all the tasks doesn't mean he's automatically promotable. That's why we have promotion boards and commander's discretion. In the case of promotions below Mitchell, I believe the question the board and commander should ask is why shouldn't they promote, while the question for cadet officers should be why they should be promoted.

[Storm Chaser]

In my experience, many (most?) cadets who want to promote faster than the minimum time-in-grade requirement are those who probably need more time before they should be promoted anyway. A cadet may be knowledgeable and mature, but gaining experience still takes time. That's one of the reasons we have TIG requirements.

[Cadetter]

Agreed.

[Майор Хаткевич]

In my experience, many (most?) cadets who want to promote faster than the minimum time-in-grade requirement are those who probably need more time before they should be promoted anyway. A cadet may be knowledgeable and mature, but gaining experience still takes time. That's one of the reasons we have TIG requirements.

Dealing with that right now. Courtesy of the former leadership that bent over backwards to get cadets in, within the minimum time, even if the cadets attempt to complete the whole achievement in the final week of the cycle...