Talk:Reserve Officers Training Corps - Revision history

Reaganaut: Talk:Reserve Officer Training Corps moved to Talk:Reserve Officers Training Corps

2008-04-22T06:07:19Z

Talk:Reserve Officer Training Corps moved to Talk:Reserve Officers Training Corps

Slw2014 at 22:06, 2 May 2007

2007-05-02T22:06:49Z

Slw2014 at 22:06, 2 May 2007

2007-05-02T22:06:00Z

Slw2014 at 22:05, 2 May 2007

2007-05-02T22:05:44Z

Slw2014 at 03:23, 30 April 2007

2007-04-30T03:23:35Z

Slw2014 at 03:20, 30 April 2007

2007-04-30T03:20:36Z

Reaganaut at 07:48, 23 April 2007

2007-04-23T07:48:30Z

Stephen.wang: New page: *Why was this removed " Credit for courses is not a requirement for the establishment of a program" ? Is that not true? ~~~~

2007-04-23T05:47:47Z

New page: *Why was this removed " Credit for courses is not a requirement for the establishment of a program" ? Is that not true? ~~~~

New page

*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)

@@ 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)
 :*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 the argument would distract from the 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)
+:*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)

@@ 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)
 :*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 the argument would distract from the 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."
+:*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 the argument would distract from the 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)

@@ 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)
 :*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'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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:23, 30 April 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:*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)

−	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).	+	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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:20, 30 April 2007
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)
		+
		+	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).

← Older revision	Revision as of 06:07, 22 April 2008
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:48, 23 April 2007
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)