I want to clarify my stance on this matter:
I was asking for justification of the program. I don't care if you get it or not, I really don't - whether you're getting more money or not you will get sorted out if you are a tool, either on course or at the unit level.
What I have seen from the Cadets and CIC, with the exception of maybe bbbb (don't agree with him but he tried), are groundless reasons for the program to exist and statements as unbelievable as this:
Cadet experience does not = useful military experience
then
Show me
how this could possibly be true based on your experience in both Cadets and the CF.
I don't disagree with Michael's thoughts that the Cadet program could produce a well motivated and prepared applicant for the CF but I don't believe that it is a necessary step. I don't think you can guarantee that person's desire to make it and I don't think you can guarantee the results. My point is that when it comes time for training I believe that the guy off the street has just as much a shot as the Cadet X five years.
I was a Cadet for five years and then progressed into the PRes, I didn't even enquire about this program because I had zero clue about it. I went rhough my BMQ with about 75 people, 15 who were former Cadets and the only few I noticed were the ones who made themselves noticeable by mouthing off, screwing up, crying or quitting a week in. Yeah there were plenty of other people there, who hadn't been in Cadets, that mouthed off, screwed up, cried or quit in a week. The difference between the two is the guys from right off the street weren't telling you how good they were, they weren't expecting it to be easy, they didn't think they knew it all. Does this make sense?
I took my father's advice when I went to my BMQ and to every subsequent course I have ever done: Play the gray man, drive the body and do not open your mouth.
To repeat, I am just looking for justification of the program, that is all. If you can prove it then I would support it, I haven't seen the proof yet.