AFROTC?

They don't lose anymore "well-qualified" people than the Army and Navy. All the services waste money on a few people every year. Its inevitable. But there's no disproportionate number of AF people ditching because they feel they're getting "shafted".
You seem to be confused. I did not say that the AF is losing well qualified people because they thought they were getting "shafted". I said quite clearly I believe the "type" system of scholarships that the AF uses hurts in recruiting the best people REGARDLESS of their economic status. I don't really care how many people the Army or Navy loses, just whether the AF is losing some well qualified people because of their "type" system.

How successful would the Army's or Navy's recruiting effors be without those promises.
I would think that they (Army & Navy) might be even less successful overall at recruiting than the AF. This opinion doesn't change the fact that by marketing $175K+ opportunities all the branches are also going to attract some candidates that will accept a ROTC scholarship for primarily financial reasons. I believe they (the military) know this and not only accept that fact, but also believe the 4AD + 4IR is a worthwhile "trade" in exchange for that $175K+ money.

Career officers who are not involved in meeting military recruiting goals probably want to believe that only those that primarily want to be career commissioned officers make it through and receive commissions. I'm sure every branch (especially the AF) can quote examples of ROTC candidates being released from the program for inappropriate behavior or failure to meet ROTC standards, but seriously how high is that bar? The military wants and needs ROTC officers and if you attend regularly, demonstrate a "good attitude', pass your classes & PT tests....you'll get through at most non-military schools (VMI - Citadel ect). The officers in the college's ROTC program are often the same ones that made the recommendation that the candidate be accepted (interview). Of course they will get rid of the seriously "bad apples" but they really want to meet their recruiting goals and demonstrate their excellent personnel evaluation skills. Just my opoinion of course....

They Army wastes alot more time and money on "unqualified" people than the Air Force. One of the AD Army officers here admitted that they hand out scholarships like candy and they have many people there who are wasting their time and wont end up commissioning.
I'm not surprised about this. The Army has HUGE recruiting needs and is (as has been pointed out several times in this thread) involved in two land wars. Unlike the AF (and Navy) they cannot be as discerning in all the people they recruit.

The AF is more selective and therefore get more "qualified" people at the start than the other services.
Yes and no. Yes the AF is more selective and yes overall they probably get more qualified people than the Army (and to a lesser degree the Navy). But again, IMHO they are losing some some well qualified people to these other branches because of their "type" system.

When AFROTC cadets mess up in some form or fashion and get kicked out or lose their scholarship, they go to the Army. In my time here I've never heard of someone screwing up their time in AROTC and then having to go to the AF. But I have personally see again and again people not meeting AF standards and going to the Army for another shot.

Now which service do you think gets the cream of the crop?
Has this turned into a Ra Ra thread for the Air Force? Has someone in this thread said anything derogatory about the AF OTHER than their scholarship type system is flawed? You don't need to "preach" the benefits of the AF to me.....I'm a member of the choir. :thumb:
 
Has this turned into a Ra Ra thread for the Air Force? Has someone in this thread said anything derogatory about the AF OTHER than their scholarship type system is flawed? You don't need to "preach" the benefits of the AF to me.....I'm a member of the choir. :thumb:

By no means do I mean to go on a pro-AF rant. Each service offers different pluses and minuses. The AF is what fits ME and thats where Ill leave it. The issue we're talking here is scholarship policy and whether or not the AF puts itself at a disadvantage by not offering full-rides. I say no. Each service has their own disadvantages (the Army is much more dangerous as Pima states and the Navy restricts you to certain schools). I dont think the "tier" system is a very significant factor in that.

Ive never heard an AF cadet complain about not getting a full-ride. Again, we'd all like full rides, but we realize the money simply isnt there. The Army is the branch most severely involved in GWOT and they deserve the bigger recruiting/scholarship budget.

18K/year is a lot of money. If someone cant afford their dream school because of AFROTC's tight purse strings then they can simply go somewhere cheaper (that's what i would have done). The AF isnt going to pander to their wants on active duty so why should they in ROTC?

Im under no illusions that all of my peers would still be in AFROTC if they stopped offering scholarships. But at the same time, they all WANT to be AF officers. Its not like anyone's forcing themselves to join the Air Force because thats their only option to go to college. I know many former cadets who decided the AF wasnt for them and left their scholarships to pursue a civillian career (with student loans). You say that ROTC isnt a big time committment. Its true that it only consists of one lab, a class and a couple PTs per week (plus some summer committments). But during that time people who are solely motivated by money DO get weeded out. I witness this all the time.
 
The military is NOT walking away from the health care professionals. They are never going to put civilian health care professionals in combat zones (can't control them without the UCMJ and the threat of prison) and they know it.

The problem isn't that the military is walking away (check out their web sites and post grad recruiting efforts), the problem is that they cannot recruit enough to fill their needs so they attempt to fill the non-combat roles with civilian employees. Unfortunately they cannot get enough of those either, thus the closing and consolidating of hospitals and facilities.

You are correct about one thing....it is all about the needs of the service and getting optimal bang for their buck. Until the AF is able to offer health care professionals an experience or money that they can't get in civilian life, they will have a tough time recruiting enough. Maybe they could offer them something unique....like the ability to fly a super sonic 361 million dollar aircraft (F-22). That should really help recruit the "true believers".

They are walking away, It is cheaper in the long run (think COLA, DLA, TLA, TDY. PME, retirement pay and health benefits, plus life insurance) to bring in contractors for everyday healthcare. Recruitment is not an issue, if it was they would pay for the AFROTC scholarship, instead, they have decided that it is CHEAPER to RENT than to BUY. When we were assigned at the Pentagon and Leavenworth we did not see military docs/nurses, we saw contracted docs/nurse. At SJAFB it was different, Bullet was a flier so we went to the flight doc division (green team), all of the docs, nurses and health care personnel were military. Why? Because each and everyone was assigned to a specific squadron...go to family practice at SJAFB, that is not the same, since family practice does not deploy liike operational flying squadrons within the AF. Thus, they had Docs, Nurses and PAs that were contracted. Granted they had at least 1 of ea that were military, since they needed 1 of each to write monthly military reports.

That is the flat honest truth. They can offer contracts to recent grads and never pay them to move, never pay them retirement pay until they die, never give them health benefits. A fed contracted employee is tied to 0.5% (?, might be 1.0%) under COLA. A military member is tied right now to 1% above, and they have to give bennies to the family tied to rank...i.e., moving a military member from Fla to AK is expensive...the fed, it's for that particular base...cost savings...$ thousands

Of course they will keep a small minority within the military, but you stated the exact reason why...TO DEPLOY

OBTW FLIGHT DOCS fly the 15,16,22 and will fly the 35. They already have that unique program. On top of it they have a program where the top of the top UPT grads or reg grads can go to med school on the AF dime. Then on top of it they will also send them to specialty school. At every base we were ever assigned to in the AF, there were flight docs that were ortho, flight docs that were internists, flight docs that were cardio. Even at our very 1st base one was GYN.

It also exists for JAG, not the flying part, but the go to law school 100% covered while receiving a full military salary. Very very competitive, but it exists.

Just like it exists that directly from the AFA or ROTC you can apply for fellowships at Oxford, Cambridge, MIT and go without paying a dime while getting your paycheck from AD AF.

It does exist, your DD wants to be a nurse, do you realize that the AF or any other branch will pay at the very bottom 75% of her graduate degree? If she does it straight out of undergrad she will owe no extra time and have her Masters? Pretty sweet deal...where else do you get that?
 
Last edited:
The issue we're talking here is scholarship policy and whether or not the AF puts itself at a disadvantage by not offering full-rides. I say no.
I say yes.

If someone cant afford their dream school because of AFROTC's tight purse strings then they can simply go somewhere cheaper....
Or they can go to a different branch's ROTC program and get a full ride. I do not know how many choose this route, but I do believe some do. If ANY well qualified candidates that were offered AF type 2 or 7 scholarships choose to go to a different branch, then I think the AF is losing SOME good people.

Its not like anyone's forcing themselves to join the Air Force because thats their only option to go to college.
No, it is not the ONLY option for someone who wants to attend college. However, for a well qualified candidate whose grades / test scores are good enough to get into some of the more exclusive colleges, ROTC may be a more attractive choice than graduating with 100K+ debt (if they can even get that amount in loans).

Its true that it only consists of one lab, a class and a couple PTs per week (plus some summer committments). But during that time people who are solely motivated by money DO get weeded out. I witness this all the time.
Yes, I'm sure SOME get weeded out.......but certainly not all. Also, I do not think your experience as a member of the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets is similar to AFROTC programs that do not have a CoC programs. Isn't the living together in dormitories, marching to meals in formation, wearing a distinctive uniform on campus, and receiving an intensive military and leadership educational experience similar to that available at the United States service academies, a BIG part of the reason your and your peers chose VT? Hopefully we can agree that most non CoC AFROTC programs are considerably more laid back than the one at VT and would make success easier for those interested in an AF scholarship for primarily financial reasons.
 
Or they can go to a different branch's ROTC program and get a full ride. I do not know how many choose this route, but I do believe some do. If ANY well qualified candidates that were offered AF type 2 or 7 scholarships choose to go to a different branch, then I think the AF is losing SOME good people.

I cant argue with you here. Of course this situation can and will occur. But it isnt common enough for it to become cost-effective for the AF to start offering full-rides. Even with a less attractive scholarship, the AF is still able to attract more qualified candidates than the Army (thats if, by more qualified you mean better high school grades/test scores). Why? Because the Army isn't as attractive for reasons Pima stated. Also, the "full-ride" that Army and Navy gives do not cover everything. My Army and Navy friends still pay for room/board, food, expenses, etc. Its not even close to free.

So, could the AF become EVEN MORE attractive if they offered full rides? Probably. No one can argue with that. In a perfect world with unlimited defense budgets we'd get it. But we dont and the AF does the best they can with what resources they have. Look up DoD statistics that are released every month. The AF continues to meet or exceed quantity and quality goals. So where are they hurting themselves? What else can we reasonably expect from them. To get every single qualified candidate out there?


Isn't the living together in dormitories, marching to meals in formation, wearing a distinctive uniform on campus, and receiving an intensive military and leadership educational experience similar to that available at the United States service academies, a BIG part of the reason your and your peers chose VT?

It isn't. The VTCC is far more like traditional ROTC than a service academy.


Hopefully we can agree that most non CoC AFROTC programs are considerably more laid back than the one at VT and would make success easier for those interested in an AF scholarship for primarily financial reasons.

I cant speak for other SMCs, but here ROTC is nothing different. AFROTC is standardized nationwide. There is no coordination of training or education between the VTCC staff and the individual ROTCs.
 
Last edited:
They are walking away, It is cheaper in the long run (think COLA, DLA, TLA, TDY. PME, retirement pay and health benefits, plus life insurance) to bring in contractors for everyday healthcare. Recruitment is not an issue, if it was they would pay for the AFROTC scholarship, instead, they have decided that it is CHEAPER to RENT than to BUY.
Does it seem to you that ANY of the military branches are not attempting to recruit nurses? Perhaps you could share your views on what you think the AF is attempting to do here?
http://www.afrotc.com/admissions/professional-programs/nursing/

or for those that already have their BSN, how about a 25K signing bonus?
http://www.airforcetimes.com/benefits/pay/military_otherpay_medicalpersonnel_2007hbml/

How about the Army & Navy? Not still recruiting nurses?
http://www.goarmy.com/rotc/nurse_program.jsp
http://www.navy.com/careers/nrotc/nurseprogram/

Do you have some links to the articles or official statements from the AF indicating that they are walking away? Certainly this conclusion must be based on something more than observing how many medical professionals are currently working in AF facilities and ASSUMING the AF is walking away as opposed to being unable to meet recruiting goals.....correct?

They can offer contracts to recent grads and never pay them to move, never pay them retirement pay until they die, never give them health benefits.
While this logically makes sense, which program are they using to hire these FEDERAL employees? Certainly if they are using civil service employees they are paying through the nose and paying great benefits.

I found this link for the Army for civilian employees:
http://acpol.army.mil/employment/index.htm
They look like they are also hiring engineers, is it possible that the military is also going to sub out the engineer jobs?

It does exist, your DD wants to be a nurse, do you realize that the AF or any other branch will pay at the very bottom 75% of her graduate degree? If she does it straight out of undergrad she will owe no extra time and have her Masters? Pretty sweet deal...where else do you get that?
I do not understand the bolded part of your statement.
 
Also, the "full-ride" that Army and Navy gives do not cover everything. My Army and Navy friends still pay for room/board, food, expenses, etc. Its not even close to free.
Of course it is not close to free. However it might be affordable to those not able to swing 40K+ loans. In the interests of full disclosure it must also be pointed out that whatever the Army & Navy full rides do NOT pay for, the AF ALSO does not pay. So if it's not even close for the Army and Navy then it is even worse for non type 1 AFROTC candidates.

Look up DoD statistics that are released every month. The AF continues to meet or exceed quantity and quality goals.
I am unable to find these. Do you have a link? When you say the AF continues to meet quantity and quality goals, are you referring to recruiting / commissioning goals? Hopefully the link will break down these goals by military specialty.

So where are they hurting themselves? What else can we reasonably expect from them. To get every single qualified candidate out there?
After I see this breakdown I'll be better able to answer the first part of your question. As far as getting "every single qualified candidate out there", that question has been answered (by me) numerous times.

It isn't. The VTCC is far more like traditional ROTC than a service academy.

I cant speak for other SMCs, but here ROTC is nothing different. AFROTC is standardized nationwide. There is no coordination of training or education between the VTCC staff and the individual ROTCs.
VTCC sure sounds different than a standard (non SMC) AFROTC program:

How is this different from ROTC at most colleges?

ROTC at Virginia Tech is exactly the same in other colleges except that ROTC students from Virginia Tech benefit from being in a progressive leadership program within a structured military lifestyle that the VTCC provides. This complements the leadership training offered by the ROTC programs. The result is an officer with a lot more practical leadership experience upon graduation.

How is this different from a traditional Military College?


We are one of only two senior military colleges in the United States located within a major state university. This lets you have a close-knit military college experience you'd find at a traditional military college at the same time you are able to experience all the opportunities a large university has to offer.
Do I have to wear a uniform all the time?

Freshmen cadets wear the uniform from 7 a.m. until 5 p.m. on weekdays.
http://www.vtcc.vt.edu/Prospect/FAQ.php

Senior Military Colleges must meet certain criteria:

* All physically fit male students who reside on campus must take courses in military training. Exceptions to this requirement include foreign nationals, prior-service personnel, and students specifically excused by a professor of military science.
* Outside ROTC, the school must establish a corps of cadets in which all students wear military uniforms. The corps of cadets involves a military environment in which the students live constantly, not just during the school day, and in which the students are subject to military discipline.
* The SMC must have as an objective the development of character through military training and the regulation of cadet conduct according to principles of military discipline (a cadet code of conduct).
* The SMC must maintain military standards similar to those of the federal service academies.
 
I mean no offense to the Air Force (I am a former AF officer myself), but there are at least three big reasons why AFROTC scholarships can (and should) be less generous than the other services. First, the fact is that most (non-flying) new officers in the Air Force are not going to find themselves in the same sort of mission-critical roles as their counterparts in the Army, Navy, and Marines. They will typically be filling stateside billets in fields like logistics and contract management. Those are important jobs, but the AF has the relative luxury of providing a lot of support and supervision to its junior officers. In that environment, almost any AFROTC grad is going to develop into a productive resource. The Army and particularly the Navy are far more willing to pay for talent from elite private colleges, presumably because they believe that students who have made it into and through schools like Notre Dame and Duke are better equipped to hit the ground running in demanding tactical environments. (As for pilot slots, I assume that the AF can get all the candidates it needs without regard to the size of its scholarships.)

Second, the AF is already pushing the budget envelope by using commissioned officers in jobs that can just as easily be filled by civilian employees and contractors. The electrical engineering majors who are getting the lion’s share of AFROTC scholarships are going to spend their careers working under, over, and with civilian engineers in a traditional office setting. It is hard enough for the AF to justify giving scholarships to get engineering talent when they could hire civilians; there is no compelling reason why it should be trying to buy “elite” talent, particularly among engineering students who have a lot of other options available to them. I would also note that given the uniformity of engineering curricula, there is not all that much difference between engineering graduates from MIT and a typical in-state public university – at least for the job that the AF needs them to do.

Finally, consider the attrition rate for freshman engineering majors – it is very high under all circumstances. I don’t believe that there are many students who are taking ROTC scholarships just to get free tuition for their first year of college, but I do know that there are more than a few who decide to major in engineering – perhaps to get a scholarship, but probably because they sincerely have an interest in engineering – and then come to the realization that they can’t handle the academic demands. The AF is much more heavily invested in commissioning engineers than the other services, so it makes sense that it would structure its scholarship program to minimize the risk of wasting money on would-be engineering majors who change their plans.
 
I am unable to find these. Do you have a link? When you say the AF continues to meet quantity and quality goals, are you referring to recruiting / commissioning goals? Hopefully the link will break down these goals by military specialty.


The Department of Defense announced today its recruiting and retention statistics for active and reserve components for fiscal 2009.



Active Duty Recruiting for Fiscal 2009. All four services met or exceeded their recruiting goals for fiscal 2009.

-The Army had 70,045 accessions, making 108 percent of its 65,000 goal.
-The Navy had 35,527 accessions, making 100 percent of its 35,500 goal.
-The Marine Corps had 31,413 accessions, making 100 percent of its 31,400 goal.
-The Air Force had 31,983 accessions, making 100 percent of its 31,980 goal.
Active Duty Retention. Retention was successful for all services in fiscal 2009. http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13041


Gen. Don Cook said the number of officers commissioned through ROTC has grown by about 300 annually, and ROTC continues to be a steady source for officer accessions entering active duty. As a result, the general said reducing the number of students at OTS will help return the school to the flexible commissioning program it was designed to be. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_prfr/is_200301/ai_4031982406/


The question for this project, is ROTC an efficient means to produce officers? ROTC’s share of the commissioning budget it 37% ($123 million) and produced nearly half (49%) of the officers. ROTC is nearly one quarter the cost of an Academy grad. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA449407&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf


Forgive me for not finding more detailed stats. The top link applies to all officer and enlisted accessions but if you want more detail, the phone number is provided, or HQ AFOATS http://www.afoats.af.mil/ could give better run-downs than I ever could. What I've provided here is just what a five-minute search turned up and seems to echo the fact that the AF continually meets its recruiting goals. That's enough for me to know that they arent botching anything. I know from my own personal experience that on average, AFROTC scholarship cadets had better GPAs and SATs out of high school. So quality and quantity seem to be filled.




VTCC sure sounds different than a standard (non SMC) AFROTC program

I really don't know what to say. I guess the VTCC website has more knowledgable experience on our lifestyles than I do.
 
ISo, could the AF become EVEN MORE attractive if they offered full rides? Probably. No one can argue with that. In a perfect world with unlimited defense budgets we'd get it. But we dont and the AF does the best they can with what resources they have. Look up DoD statistics that are released every month. The AF continues to meet or exceed quantity and quality goals. So where are they hurting themselves? What else can we reasonably expect from them. To get every single qualified candidate out there?

Forgive me for not finding more detailed stats. The top link applies to all officer and enlisted accessions but if you want more detail, the phone number is provided....
No problem. Based on your previous post I thought you had seen some breakdown of ROTC goals and whether quality and quantity had been met. It is great that you got the overall fiscal 2009 quantity goals, but where are the monthly DoD statistics which show that quality goals have been met?

....the AF continually meets its recruiting goals. That's enough for me to know that they arent botching anything.
Well we know that they certainly have met the quantity portion of their overall goals. But according to the above stats every branch has met their goals. I don't know whether we can extrapolate any quality factors from the above stats unless of course we then applied them to each branch.

I know from my own personal experience that on average, AFROTC scholarship cadets had better GPAs and SATs out of high school. So quality and quantity seem to be filled.
Well then, "on average" I would agree that the AF gets better quality cadets than the other branches. Of course I've never said otherwise. I only said they lose good quality candidates to other branches because of their method of giving "type" scholarships.

VTCC sure sounds different than a standard (non SMC) AFROTC program
I really don't know what to say. I guess the VTCC website has more knowledgable experience on our lifestyles than I do.
If the web site is wrong just say that it is wrong. I provided the link so that you could see for yourself what it said. I will say it is hard for me to believe that you went to VT without ever having heard or read this description.
 
I mean no offense to the Air Force (I am a former AF officer myself), but there are at least three big reasons why AFROTC scholarships can (and should) be less generous than the other services....
Great post DeskJockey! Care to venture an opinion on what the AF should do about scholarships for the professions which the AF needs to compete with the Army. Navy and civilian employers?
 
Well then, "on average" I would agree that the AF gets better quality cadets than the other branches. Of course I've never said otherwise. I only said they lose good quality candidates to other branches because of their method of giving "type" scholarships.

In this case I see us only disagreeing on whether or not the AF is losing so many of these well-qualified people that it is necessary for them to start handing out bigger scholarships.

I dont think so. As the stats show, they meet their goals for quantity. As far as quality goes, thats rather subjective isnt it. I dont think either of us is qualified on determining who will be the best officer (thats why neither of us sits on scholarship boards). But if we're to use high school GPA and SATs to measure "quality" then the AF beats Army despite handing out lesser scholarships.

So, with those facts, I feel that the AF should continue its present policy and not divert any more funds from more critical needs like Ops/maintenance, research/acquisition, healthcare/personnel costs, etc. To me, those are more important than pandering to the wants of people like me.


If the web site is wrong just say that it is wrong. I provided the link so that you could see for yourself what it said. I will say it is hard for me to believe that you went to VT without ever having heard or read this description.
I meant no disrespect and apologize if thats how I was perceived. But our website is there to serve a purpose: to recruit high schoolers. I read the same description two years ago when applying to VT and have found that it is a rather exaggerated description of our lifestyles. For me to sit here and say that we live similar lives as our academy/VMI/Citadel counterparts is just unfair to them.
 
In this case I see us only disagreeing on whether or not the AF is losing so many of these well-qualified people that it is necessary for them to start handing out bigger scholarships.
So many? How many? How many did I suggest? I never said many, just some. Let me quote my first post in this thread:
If this approach to scholarships has reduced the AF's number of applicants "bailing out" AND is also meeting its need for quality ROTC candidates then I think it can be qualified as having excellent "results". If on the other hand, the AF is losing some of its best potential officers to other ROTC programs and is still requiring its recruiters to go into colleges and offer freshmen full rides to help fulfill the AF's needs, then it may need to be re-examined.
I think the post by DeskJockey raises some good questions. At the risk of incurring the ire of AF pilots let me ask why it's necessary to offer Type 1 scholarships to future jet jockeys? The competition and desire for those jobs is so great that you could offer them a dozen donuts a year and they would probably still sign-up for AFROTC and be excited about the opportunity. Not all AF jobs are unique opportunities (flying military jets) which can only be experienced (and trained) by joining the AF (and to a lesser degree the Navy & MC). Perhaps the AF should keep their "type" scholarships and just use them to attract the ROTC cadets in the majors they have the most difficult time recruiting. Anybody who wants to be a pilot gets a type 7 scholarship. I bet they will still get 20 times more WELL QUALIFIED applicants that want to be pilots than they could ever use. And at the end of the day.....the overall GPAs and SATs of the AFROTC cadets will STILL be higher than the Army.

But if we're to use high school GPA and SATs to measure "quality" then the AF beats Army despite handing out lesser scholarships.
So what? Who has said that the AF cadets don't have overall higher GPA and SATs than the Army? Does the overall GPAs and SATs superiority of the AF indicate that their scholarship "type" system doesn't cost them SOME great candidates?

So, with those facts, I feel that the AF should continue its present policy and not divert any more funds....
As you said......we'll have to disagree.

...our website is there to serve a purpose: to recruit high schoolers...
Sounds like the same purpose that the ROTC websites have. Attract the candidates.
 
So many? How many? How many did I suggest? I never said many, just some. Let me quote my first post in this thread:

Was I not clear in my post? How many? ENOUGH for the AF to change its policy as you advocate. We've established that the AF meets its recruiting goals continually. I still fail to see what your point is. So now you say they don't lose that many good candidates? If so, why is it cost-effective for them to divert funds and fix something that isnt broken?

why it's necessary to offer Type 1 scholarships to future jet jockeys? The competition and desire for those jobs is so great that you could offer them a dozen donuts a year and they would probably still sign-up for AFROTC and be excited about the opportunity. Not all AF jobs are unique opportunities (flying military jets) which can only be experienced (and trained) by joining the AF
So let me understand this...prospective cadets are supposed to be categorized into a career field before even starting AFROTC. What kind of flexibility does that give AFPC? So you propose that a 17 year old with no experience with the military should choose whether or not they want to fly before their first day of ROTC?


So what? Who has said that the AF cadets don't have overall higher GPA and SATs than the Army? Does the overall GPAs and SATs superiority of the AF indicate that their scholarship "type" system doesn't cost them SOME great candidates?
For some reason you continue to fail to understand my point here. I guess Im not explaining it enough. 1) The Army offers the scholarship system that you advocate. 2) You advocate that system because it would supposedly attract more well-qualified people. 3) Despite featuring your favored policy, the Army DOES NOT have the abundance of well-qualified cadets that you say they'd have.
 
At the risk of incurring the ire of AF pilots let me ask why it's necessary to offer Type 1 scholarships to future jet jockeys?

Many Type 1 are not future jet jockeys, actually many AFROTC scholarship recipients are going in the engineering field and will never be a jet jockey. Just as there are Type 2 and Type 7 that want to become a jet jockey. It is a personal decision.

Let's also remember these cadets at AFROTC are told in harsh real terms that the bulk of jet jockeys come out of the AFA and that unless they have a certain AFOQT score with a certain gpa and do well at summer programs chances are they will not be supported. You can't get UPT without the det commanders' support, regardless of the type of scholarship. The AF does have a problem or issue butt if the type 1 engineer who wanted to fly scores poorly on the AFOQT saying thanks, but no thanks we'll take the other cadet.

In our sons det of several hundred, you would be shocked that the percentage of Type 1 and wanting to fly is small. They don't want to be deployed and would rather spend their career at NORAD or NASA. They are not all joining to fly.

Also the cadets that want to be jet jockeys know for a fact that there is no guarantee they will get UPT/UNT in the 1st place or graduate and get their wings. They enter knowing that not only may they not get their dream, but the AF could do 1 of 2 things if they wash out
1. Be separated from the AF...and yes they do that if they have too many in that yr group for manning purposes. Bullet and I know several. Thus, it leaves them with no career at all.
2. Be forced into a career that they never planned. (Many became Maintenance officers...talk about salt in a wound) This is why the det commander and ALOs get very nervous when interviewing a potentional cadet who only wants to fly.

I bolded what I bolded to say look in the end of the day, she also can get a Masters on the AF dime or any services dime, bolt after 5 yrs and be ahead of her classmates, because even in the AF they are incredibly supportive of all officers getting a Masters since it is required for future promotions. They make it workable. Yes, you may have to pay yr 1, but that is a pitance when you add in the fact that she can also get her masters. Additionally the truly qualified that get the lower scholarships also receive merit, thus in the end of the day they get the best of both worlds...the service they want and a full ride.

Did I miss something through all of these pages, is your DD not eligible for Type 1 because she is going into nursing? Or have you looked at the glass as 1/2 empty and that she won't?

Finally if you are taking a military scholarship to work in A & F or PA, not one service will guarantee you that is the job you will have. In essence, your DD with a very specific major will guarantee her career field. I have a friend who graduated in accounting, went to UPT, washed out and the AF made him work as a maintenance officer, 20 yrs in and he has never been assigned to his field regarding his undergrad or Masters. Another friend who graduated in marketing and was ordered to work in Mission Support. Their majors had no effect on their job assignment.
 
Last edited:
Did I miss something through all of these pages, is your DD not eligible for Type 1 because she is going into nursing? Or have you looked at the glass as 1/2 empty and that she won't?
No, you didn't miss anything. The link for the Nursing Type 1 scholarship is available after the first year. Also, recruiter have for the past several years shown up on campus in September and offered Type 1 scholarships to freshmen nursing student because there was a shortage enrolled in ROTC. I'm sure I mentioned this in previous posts.

Thanks for the explanation of the MBA opportunities. I will pass it on to her.
 
We've established that the AF meets its recruiting goals continually.
Overall goals....yes. Specific ROTC goals in all fields? No.

I still fail to see what your point is. So now you say they don't lose that many good candidates?
Now? I included my first post from the first page of this thread to help you remember. What part of that post supports NOW?

So let me understand this...prospective cadets are supposed to be categorized into a career field before even starting AFROTC. What kind of flexibility does that give AFPC? So you propose that a 17 year old with no experience with the military should choose whether or not they want to fly before their first day of ROTC?
First of all some fields (such as nursing) MUST decide when they are 17 what they will do in the AF BEFORE starting AFROTC.
Second, prospective cadets that categorize into a career field (such as pilots) are free to change their career choice, just not their major. I would just not permit Type 1 or 2 scholarship recipients from choosing "pilot". Small change. :shake:

2) You advocate that system because it would supposedly attract more well-qualified people.
Where did I say it would attract "more well-qualified people"? Please quote the post so that I can see which one of my responses you are failing to comprehend or which one I wasn't clear.

3) Despite featuring your favored policy, the Army DOES NOT have the abundance of well-qualified cadets that you say they'd have.
This will be my third request in this post for an actual quote (of mine) that supports your statement. I do not recall having said that because the Army uses a Full Ride scholarship program that they would therefor have an abundance of well-qualified candidates.
 
Please quote the post so that I can see which one of my responses you are failing to comprehend or which one I wasn't clear.

I would prefer a scholarship system that gave EVERY candidate the same opportunity to join the AF and go to a school that they could get accepted (as in the Navy & Army programs), instead of forcing well qualified "poorer" students to make a choice. This system may cost the AF some good candidates. If in fact some GOOD quality candidates go to a different ROTC program then those people that believe the AF doesn't lose good quality candidates to other branches because of its scholarship "type" system would be mistaken.

Here you specifically say that you'd prefer a scholarship policy similar to Army and Navy programs. Why do you advocate this? Please clarify. You say repeatedly that the AF is losing SOME well-qualified candidates. Ok I agree with you. But how many are they losing? Is it enough so that it would be in the best interests of the AF to change to YOUR favored policy?



I would just not permit Type 1 or 2 scholarship recipients from choosing "pilot". Small change.

I'm afraid that's quite a big change. And is it warranted? Again, how badly is the AF in need of lieutenants in non-flying career fields? Not THAT bad. You cite nursing. Ok then maybe we should just increase the incentive to be a nurse instead of decreasing the incentive of being a pilot. I feel like that would be much more efficient
 
Last edited:
Nick is right...that is a huge change!

Notice the key word "AIR" Force.
 
nick4060: You can NOT just make erroneous statements about other peoples posts and then not be expected to be held accountable. If you wish to have any credibility and to continue a dialogue (with me replying to your questions) then you will need to answer (with links or quotes) my questions concerning your statements:
I still fail to see what your point is. So now you say they don't lose that many good candidates?
Now? I included my first post from the first page of this thread to help you remember. What part of that post supports NOW?

2)You advocate that system because it would supposedly attract more well-qualified people.
Where did I say it would attract "more well-qualified people"? Please quote the post so that I can see which one of my responses you are failing to comprehend or which one I wasn't clear.

3) Despite featuring your favored policy, the Army DOES NOT have the abundance of well-qualified cadets that you say they'd have.
This will be my third request in this post for an actual quote (of mine) that supports your statement. I do not recall having said that because the Army uses a Full Ride scholarship program that they would therefor have an abundance of well-qualified candidates.
 
Back
Top