Difference between revisions of "Talk:Reserve Officers Training Corps"
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
*Why was this removed " Credit for courses is not a requirement for the establishment of a program" ? Is that not true? [[User:Stephen.wang|wang]] 01:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT) | *Why was this removed " Credit for courses is not a requirement for the establishment of a program" ? Is that not true? [[User:Stephen.wang|wang]] 01:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
:*I didn't remove it, but maybe because that's not a "pro-ROTC argument". It's more of a "it wouldn't be too much trouble to bring back ROTC" argument. [[User:Reaganaut|Reaganaut]] 03:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT) | :*I didn't remove it, but maybe because that's not a "pro-ROTC argument". It's more of a "it wouldn't be too much trouble to bring back ROTC" argument. [[User:Reaganaut|Reaganaut]] 03:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| − | :*That was the argument used by Advocates for ROTC in the proposal to preempt the argument that "Military courses are not academically rigorous and do not merit academic credit." While Advocates and ROTC students disagreed with that argument (particularly in light of the fact that those who were making it had never seen an ROTC class nor any evidence to back up their claims), it was decided that expending energy and effort countering | + | :*That was the argument used by Advocates for ROTC in the proposal to preempt the argument that "Military courses are not academically rigorous and do not merit academic credit." While Advocates and ROTC students disagreed with that argument (particularly in light of the fact that those who were making it had never seen an ROTC class nor any evidence to back up their claims), it was decided that expending energy and effort countering it would distract from the other, primary arguments being made. Thus, since the provision of credits would not be require for the establishment of a program, the academic rigour argument was nullified. I included it because it was one of the arguments made in the proposal. However I agree with reaganaut that it is less a "pro-ROTC argument" and more a preemptive "counter argument." [[User:Slw2014|Slw2014]] 18:06, 2 May 2007 (EDT) |
I've added a more descriptive definition of ROTC, so as to not confuse participation in ROTC, which results in an officer's commission, with enlistment. Also, while the curriculums of Air Force, Navy, and Army programs differ, I believe it is a fair assessment that all three programs have in common education in leadership development, problem solving, strategic planning, and professional ethics. [[User:Slw2014|Slw2014]] 23:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT) | I've added a more descriptive definition of ROTC, so as to not confuse participation in ROTC, which results in an officer's commission, with enlistment. Also, while the curriculums of Air Force, Navy, and Army programs differ, I believe it is a fair assessment that all three programs have in common education in leadership development, problem solving, strategic planning, and professional ethics. [[User:Slw2014|Slw2014]] 23:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 01:07, 22 April 2008
- Why was this removed " Credit for courses is not a requirement for the establishment of a program" ? Is that not true? wang 01:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
- I didn't remove it, but maybe because that's not a "pro-ROTC argument". It's more of a "it wouldn't be too much trouble to bring back ROTC" argument. Reaganaut 03:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
- That was the argument used by Advocates for ROTC in the proposal to preempt the argument that "Military courses are not academically rigorous and do not merit academic credit." While Advocates and ROTC students disagreed with that argument (particularly in light of the fact that those who were making it had never seen an ROTC class nor any evidence to back up their claims), it was decided that expending energy and effort countering it would distract from the other, primary arguments being made. Thus, since the provision of credits would not be require for the establishment of a program, the academic rigour argument was nullified. I included it because it was one of the arguments made in the proposal. However I agree with reaganaut that it is less a "pro-ROTC argument" and more a preemptive "counter argument." Slw2014 18:06, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
I've added a more descriptive definition of ROTC, so as to not confuse participation in ROTC, which results in an officer's commission, with enlistment. Also, while the curriculums of Air Force, Navy, and Army programs differ, I believe it is a fair assessment that all three programs have in common education in leadership development, problem solving, strategic planning, and professional ethics. Slw2014 23:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
