dbc03 Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Not the same. Did the evaluation involve actively competeing for the position against other applicants?A yearly evaluation is not a new interview because you obviously already knew enough to get the job in the first place. And you are not being evaluated against other people who are actively competing for your position. If there is such a deficiency during a review that it results in that person losing their job, it is because that person has been consistantly underperforming (equivalent to cutting vets for bad attitude or slacking), not because someone else came along that the company liked better despite your acceptable performance. If your company holds open interviews for each position in it's company every year then that is the equivalent to what drum corps are doing. No it's not. The yearly evaluation idea is MUCH closer to what drum corps are doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartyount Posted December 7, 2006 Author Share Posted December 7, 2006 No it's not. The yearly evaluation idea is MUCH closer to what drum corps are doing. I don't believe so. I think most consider all the spots open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 (edited) I don't believe so. I think most consider all the spots open. Everyone in here has been saying pretty much the opposite except for someone from SCV and maybe the Bluecoats. Every spot is open in that if a vet has attitude issues or some other issues he or she is not guaranteed a spot. Edited December 8, 2006 by dbc03 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartyount Posted December 8, 2006 Author Share Posted December 8, 2006 Everyone in here has been saying pretty much the opposite except for someone from SCV and maybe the Bluecoats.Every spot is open in that if a vet has attitude issues or some other issues he or she is not guaranteed a spot. Well that's good if it's only SCV and Bluecoats. I've heard from different sources that Bluecoats are treating every spot as open. I'm very disappointed in that because it communicates to me (and others) that they value talent more than they value the people that got them to where they are. I'm not saying that they are defintely going to cut vets - or that they shouldn't cut vets who have attitude problems or are slacking. But the fact that they are open to cutting a vet (based purely on talent) to take a more talented rookie is very disappointing. By doing this, a corps is using people as long as it suits their needs and then discarding them when it doesn't suit their needs. This is treating people as tools and it's just wrong ethically in my opinion. I'm sure the situation is rare but I hope if the situation arose that they wouldn't really do it when it comes right down to it. I hope that they are just using that policy to cover themselves if they need to cut vets for other reasons and also to motivate the current vets to work hard for their spot. I guess the reason I'm so passionate about this subject is that I can picture myself having been in that situation. I was not a greatly talented player or marcher, but I was ok and I worked hard. My abilities were never really worthy of special praise, but I was rarely one that was singeled out for correction. Having average talent, I am one that could have easily been beaten in an audition with above average rookie auditionees. If I had been cut like this in my ageout year I would have been crushed - and REALLY ###### off. I would have felt used (that's exactly what it would have been). Especially since the year before, I had come in at the beginning of everydays to fill a hole where they seemed pleased to have someone there that had experience, could play and march decent, had a positive attitude and who wasn't just a plug. <edited for filter circumvention: ds> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 (edited) Well that's good if it's only SCV and Bluecoats. I've heard from different sources that Bluecoats are treating every spot as open. I'm very disappointed in that because it communicates to me (and others) that they value talent more than they value the people that got them to where they are. I'm not saying that they are defintely going to cut vets - or that they shouldn't cut vets who have attitude problems or are slacking. But the fact that they are open to cutting a vet (based purely on talent) to take a more talented rookie is very disappointing. By doing this, a corps is using people as long as it suits their needs and then discarding them when it doesn't suit their needs. This is treating people as tools and it's just wrong ethically in my opinion. I'm sure the situation is rare but I hope if the situation arose that they wouldn't really do it when it comes right down to it. I hope that they are just using that policy to cover themselves if they need to cut vets for other reasons and also to motivate the current vets to work hard for their spot. I guess the reason I'm so passionate about this subject is that I can picture myself having been in that situation. I was not a greatly talented player or marcher, but I was ok and I worked hard. My abilities were never really worthy of special praise, but I was rarely one that was singeled out for correction. Having average talent, I am one that could have easily been beaten in an audition with above average rookie auditionees. If I had been cut like this in my ageout year I would have been crushed - and REALLY pi$$ed off. I would have felt used (that's exactly what it would have been). Especially since the year before, I had come in at the beginning of everydays to fill a hole where they seemed pleased to have someone there that had experience, could play and march decent, had a positive attitude and who wasn't just a plug. I agree completely actually. Excluding the extreme circumstances that come up from time to time there is no reason to cut someone who works their tail off just because someone else is more talented. I find it extremely disappointing if what has been said about the policies of SCV and Bluecoats is true. And any other corps that has that policy. Edited December 8, 2006 by dbc03 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cire Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 i think every spot SHOULD be open.. in the sense that if someone is better than you, they should take that higher spot. if someone can solo better than you, they should get the solo.. even if youve been in the corps for 5 years. but unless you were just really bad the year before, or had horrible attitude, you shouldnt be kicked out on the curb and not welcomed back. as far as spots go.. we had a guy who improved so much in the off season, that he went from lower euphonium his rookie year, to an upper lead baritone the next year. he earned and desearved the spot.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn craig Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 i think every spot SHOULD be open.. in the sense that if someone is better than you, they should take that higher spot. if someone can solo better than you, they should get the solo.. even if youve been in the corps for 5 years. but unless you were just really bad the year before, or had horrible attitude, you shouldnt be kicked out on the curb and not welcomed back. as far as spots go.. we had a guy who improved so much in the off season, that he went from lower euphonium his rookie year, to an upper lead baritone the next year. he earned and desearved the spot.. I don't think anyone has a problem with a change in their position, up or down, within the group. It's being pushed out that I and the other posters have a problem with. If some corps are taking this attitude, then I guess they shouldn't expect any corps loyalty from members if they have no loyalty or appreciation for their past members. It goes both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corps_forever07 Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 If some corps are taking this attitude, then I guess they shouldn't expect any corps loyalty from members if they have no loyalty or appreciation for their past members. That is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sday88 Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Well that's good if it's only SCV and Bluecoats. I've heard from different sources that Bluecoats are treating every spot as open. I'm very disappointed in that because it communicates to me (and others) that they value talent more than they value the people that got them to where they are. I'm not saying that they are defintely going to cut vets - or that they shouldn't cut vets who have attitude problems or are slacking. But the fact that they are open to cutting a vet (based purely on talent) to take a more talented rookie is very disappointing. By doing this, a corps is using people as long as it suits their needs and then discarding them when it doesn't suit their needs. This is treating people as tools and it's just wrong ethically in my opinion. I'm sure the situation is rare but I hope if the situation arose that they wouldn't really do it when it comes right down to it. I hope that they are just using that policy to cover themselves if they need to cut vets for other reasons and also to motivate the current vets to work hard for their spot. I guess the reason I'm so passionate about this subject is that I can picture myself having been in that situation. I was not a greatly talented player or marcher, but I was ok and I worked hard. My abilities were never really worthy of special praise, but I was rarely one that was singeled out for correction. Having average talent, I am one that could have easily been beaten in an audition with above average rookie auditionees. If I had been cut like this in my ageout year I would have been crushed - and REALLY pi$$ed off. I would have felt used (that's exactly what it would have been). Especially since the year before, I had come in at the beginning of everydays to fill a hole where they seemed pleased to have someone there that had experience, could play and march decent, had a positive attitude and who wasn't just a plug. I guess I need to chime in since I was in a similar situation. I joined the Bluecoats in 1986 and played tenors. In 1987 I went back as a vet and there were at least a couple of rookies that gave me a run for my money. I made the line, but found out just a couple of years ago that the only reason I made it was because all five tenors came back from the year before. In my opinion, if there was someone else trying out that was better than me, whether it was a rookie or not, I should have got the boot. I'm sure I could have tried for another section, but otherwise, send me packing. And realize that this was back when we were 28th in '85, 15th in '86, and 11th in '87 & '88. So it's not just an "upper echelon" corps situation in my opinion. And I don't consider it as the corps lacking loyalty or appreciation for the member. Even then, with us placing where we did, the corps wants to improve and the best way to do it is with the best possible members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaritoneBamBam Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 Procrastination of payments that span over years will get you cut faster than anything else. I know of girls in guards like Phantom Regiment and Blue Devils who got cut because they let themselves go with their figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.