Changes to AROTC?

Hiring Data

Some of your comments piqued my interest. I guess I suspected from talking to hiring authorities so I thought I'd take a quick look at my market segment. to see the breakdown of preferred degrees.

I own a recruiting firm and we recruit management and supply chain professionals. So I don't do sales and marketing, but more of the execution side of businesses. This also does not include IT, it is obviously skewed. I also eliminated specific engineering positions as that would be skewed as well. These are the general management positions in the salary range of 65K-125K for this year and the degrees of those we placed.

46 total
16 engineering and engineering tech
15 Business and accounting (Included supply chain degrees)
6 General Science (environmental, chemistry, physics, biology)
4 No-bachelor Degree
3 Liberal arts,science and Exercise
2 Technology (Systems/IT)

Now when you get into sales and marketing things will change a great deal. However, you may be surprised at how valued the Stem people are for these positions as well.

Most of our sons and daughters no matter what their degree have learned some valuable skills in leading people. They should at a minimum be able to leverage that if they don't get their first job choice (Active Duty).

You may draw your own conclusions, but I have steered both of my children to learn technical skills in their bachelor and pursue an interest later as a graduate degree.
 
Pima said:
No flaming, just a curiosity question.

AFROTC has done this for decades,(I am betting every 4 star in the ADAF took it as a cadet) it is called the AFOQT. They still use the cgpa, but that % is lower than the AFOQT when it comes to the OML.

Why doesn't the Army create an exam like that?

Goaliedad,

I agree and disagree about leaders. Yes, part of it is what you describe as born, but the other part is learned. Hard to be a great leader when academically your degree leaves you in the dust behind others.
~ If the academic world did not matter, than why not just hold the OCS board for candidates with no college education?

I am not saying an underwater basket weaving major is less of a leader than the aerospace engineering major. I am saying that as our technological world changes, and understanding the platforms/systems, the ability to comprehend complex systems due to an academic background will make them a stronger leader.
~ Hard to be the respected leader when you are constantly asking the number two for guidance/training on how it works, especially if you are doing this in front of the troops.

OBTW, as most of you know my DS is an AF pilot. He would be what in the AF calls the basket weaving major (Govt and Politics). He was picked up for UPT because the AF uses not only the AFOQT, but TBAS too for rated OML. His scores were high enough that they said, the kid has the ability to succeed in pilot training.
~ I guess what I am saying is why is there the assumption that those in STEM are always going to score at the top? My DS is living proof. He had the brains to be an engineer (34 ACT), he just wanted to be the non-tech major cadet.

I wonder how many of the posters would like what AFROTC is doing now for the OML. The CoC ranking is being dropped in the % and they are raising the AFOQT %. I might be wrong, but also think the cgpa % was increased too.
~ Sooner or later, at least for the AF IMPO it is going to be more about how you look on paper from a statistical perspective than your people skills.
~~ Let's be honest, people skills are subjective CoC Whatever may love Cadet Smith and give him the highest marks. CoC Whatever is replaced by CoC Getitdone and now Cadet Jones is their golden child, Cadet Smith drops down to number 5.

That is how it works even in the corporate world. I have seen it done, we have all seen it done. The military is no different. The academic push removes that issue, or at least that is how the AF is seeing it now when it comes to ROTC OML.
Click to expand...

Pima,

Surprisingly, for a person who earns his living in higher education, I have a healthy disrespect for credentials as a measure of anything beyond what was included in the requirements. Not too many degrees I see out there requiring extensive leadership training.

And as for officers without 4-year degrees (OCS), I would be fine with that strangely enough as long as they have come through the enlisted ranks.

And for how to identify it, without some kind of standardized testing, I'm of the opinion that "standardized" anything is designed to engineer out all of the qualities that make leaders - insight, creativity, ingenuity, willingness to take calculated risks - are virtually impossible to measure in a multiple guess exam. Seeing what others don't in a situation and finding a way to take advantage of that is what separates those who move us forward from those who can only color within the lines (or fill in the multiple guess bubbles).

It is observed in how creative (new,effective, efficient) of an an approach someone takes to an ordinary assignment. It is observed in those who question the assumption that the objective is correct and find and achieve a more rational objective - not winning the battle to end up losing the war, but finding a way to create the end-state of stability and harmony who end up as successes.

We tend to devise promotion processes to drive this non-conformance out of our leadership ranks and we get the group think that we deserve as a result.

Yes people skills judgment are subjective. But the #1 skill of an effective leader is seeing the same traits in others. If you cannot ferret out the wanna-bees and posers, you probably shouldn't be doing that job.

If you look at coaching trees in professional football, great coaches are noted by their coaching trees (assistants who go onto become great coaches and bring future generations of coaches behind them).

If you let Captains and Majors observe (at training events) and pick their Lieutenants, you would quickly figure out who gets picked last across the board probably isn't showing very well. And with their legacy on the line (picking better performing junior officers being a significant part of how you are judged), over a number of years, it would become quite clear who has the talent and who doesn't.

That being said, I believe my thoughts on using academic record is to do so as far as the academic training assists the military in placing people for branch - those with technical skills being more valued by similar skill technical branches.
 
Aglahad said:
At CTLT we had a PL who was working on his physics masters/PhD in a very combat oriented unit. He was a great leader, in tip top physical condition and of course smart as a whip. Would a criminal justice degree have served him better?

I agree the Army needs a good blend of majors but to determine that the Army needs MORE LA majors than it already has is laughable.

Sorry I worked with too many cadets trying to game the system (by majoring in the easiest major possible) to not have an opinion on this.
Click to expand...

More folks with CJ backgrounds being in the MP branch would probably would have lessened the chances of poor leadership decisions in certain detention facilities in Iraq a few years back (given that they are more likely to be aware of the consequences of their behavior from exposure to the theories behind incarceration and interrogation).

And as for gaming the system by choosing majors, I would hope that the only bearing your major has would be on your branch selection for certain branches benefiting from those specific majors.
 
Aglahad said:
Not really, every engineer I know either has a promising internship with Boeing, Amazon, a big city, Microsoft or a starting 60-70k job out here in the PNW.
Click to expand...

Aglahad said:
I assure you the line of unemployed non-practical majors is a lot longer. I have many friends still living at home or working food/retail with degrees.

Frankly I would have rather gone to tech/trade school, that is a no BS way to land a high paying tradesmen job.
Click to expand...

While having a "hot" degree does aid in being able to apply for a greater number of positions, ultimately having the people skills/networking to land the job (from the other 50 candidates with similar credentials in the applicant pool) is probably a better determinant of employment outcome both right out of school and later in one's career.

Getting a liberal arts degree from an Ivy (where your ability to network etc is enhanced) will probably yield a more positive outcome than an tech degree from for-profit institution done via correspondence from mother's basement.

Not picking on you here, but I really think too many kids (and especially their parents) forget that the most important part of being successful in society is learning how to navigate society.
 
Aglahad said:
I assure you the line of unemployed non-practical majors is a lot longer. I have many friends still living at home or working food/retail with degrees.

Frankly I would have rather gone to tech/trade school, that is a no BS way to land a high paying tradesmen job.
Click to expand...

True enough... Most plumbers I know earn more than I do. That being said, it is debatable what kind of $#1T you want to deal with on a daily basis.
 
Getting back on topic a little, I haven't heard all the changes yet; however, I did receive an email from our Cadet Battalion CO a few days ago in regards to their being major changes. Our Cadet CoC plan to meet mid August to discuss all the changes. In the email, she did mention that MSIIIs will teach labs while the MSIVs will have a lab specifically with the PMS. I'm not sure if this applies for all Battalions or just ours, but it's what I know so far. I hope this helps some! I'll pass along more as it trickles down to me.
 
kellen0176 said:
In the email, she did mention that MSIIIs will teach labs while the MSIVs will have a lab specifically with the PMS. I'm not sure if this applies for all Battalions or just ours, but it's what I know so far.
Click to expand...
Most likely Battalion-specific. Although I'm a little baffled that MSIII's are teaching lab since there practically isn't lab anymore.
 
"Battalion specific"....seems to be the only constant in AROTC...
 
kellen0176 said:
Getting back on topic a little, I haven't heard all the changes yet; however, I did receive an email from our Cadet Battalion CO a few days ago in regards to their being major changes. Our Cadet CoC plan to meet mid August to discuss all the changes. In the email, she did mention that MSIIIs will teach labs while the MSIVs will have a lab specifically with the PMS. I'm not sure if this applies for all Battalions or just ours, but it's what I know so far. I hope this helps some! I'll pass along more as it trickles down to me.
Click to expand...

I just read the Curriculum change on Blackboard, this is definitely going to all Battalions.
 
DS just returned from LDAC last nite and said this is what he had heard also. He said if any way possible he was still going to teach the MS-III's tactics just as he was last year, even if he had to do it on the side.

For him the big question is how they are going to score LDAC this year because every Reg. seemed to be treated differently and did different things. Example, his reg spent 18 days in the field. the reg after him went back to dorms every nite.

As previously stated, it will be a while before they get everything straightened out, with priorities on what goes on at the battalion level.
 
EXACTLY...best post I've read in a long time on here.

goaliedad said:
Pima,

Surprisingly, for a person who earns his living in higher education, I have a healthy disrespect for credentials as a measure of anything beyond what was included in the requirements. Not too many degrees I see out there requiring extensive leadership training.

And as for officers without 4-year degrees (OCS), I would be fine with that strangely enough as long as they have come through the enlisted ranks.

And for how to identify it, without some kind of standardized testing, I'm of the opinion that "standardized" anything is designed to engineer out all of the qualities that make leaders - insight, creativity, ingenuity, willingness to take calculated risks - are virtually impossible to measure in a multiple guess exam. Seeing what others don't in a situation and finding a way to take advantage of that is what separates those who move us forward from those who can only color within the lines (or fill in the multiple guess bubbles).

It is observed in how creative (new,effective, efficient) of an an approach someone takes to an ordinary assignment. It is observed in those who question the assumption that the objective is correct and find and achieve a more rational objective - not winning the battle to end up losing the war, but finding a way to create the end-state of stability and harmony who end up as successes.

We tend to devise promotion processes to drive this non-conformance out of our leadership ranks and we get the group think that we deserve as a result.

Yes people skills judgment are subjective. But the #1 skill of an effective leader is seeing the same traits in others. If you cannot ferret out the wanna-bees and posers, you probably shouldn't be doing that job.

If you look at coaching trees in professional football, great coaches are noted by their coaching trees (assistants who go onto become great coaches and bring future generations of coaches behind them).

If you let Captains and Majors observe (at training events) and pick their Lieutenants, you would quickly figure out who gets picked last across the board probably isn't showing very well. And with their legacy on the line (picking better performing junior officers being a significant part of how you are judged), over a number of years, it would become quite clear who has the talent and who doesn't.

That being said, I believe my thoughts on using academic record is to do so as far as the academic training assists the military in placing people for branch - those with technical skills being more valued by similar skill technical branches.
Click to expand...
 
Sat in on a briefing from a 1 star with USACC at Knox the other day (forgot his name, but not BG Combs) and heard a little about future changes. Don't take any of this as final because what I gathered overall was that cadets should be prepared to adapt to whatever changes are coming.

- CLC (replacing LDAC) will still be 28 days, but the 7 week rumor stems from the fact that some MS3's will have longer stays to serve as CIET cadre and lead MS1's/2's. CIET Cadre slots are intended to be similar to a follow-on training slot.
- I think they are still deciding on when CIET will be, but either after 1st or 2nd year. I believe he said it will not be fully implemented and required until 2016.
- The standardized tests are coming to complement the GPA in the Academics section
- It's not that FTX's will be fully eliminated, but there is a huge push to shift away from the tactics aspect. What they will consist of at this point is a guess.
- He told us he couldn't publicly talk about changes to the OML process because there are still decisions to be made by the commander on it.
- More focus is being put on continued leadership development during the MS4 year, including all new curriculum and a separate lab that will be* (*intended to be) taught by the PMS.
- CULP is a priority of the Army CoS and is on the funding cycle for atleast the next 5 years. We should see a bigger push by USACC to publicize this program more.

Someone asked about LDAC being rushed to Fort Knox and the resulting clown show. The BG said that it was initially slated to move in 2016 but was pushed from higher and that if it wasn't moved this year, it wouldn't be moved anytime soon and they wanted it moved (obviously more details were missing but that was the short answer from him).

He talked about some other things but I didn't listen to closely as it doesn't matter too much until it actually all gets finalized and rolled out. He did say he was personally trying to start a rumor that CST would be in Hawaii starting next year, obviously in jest.

It's good to be back in 'Merica...
 
Last edited:
Bull, thank you for the update. Any idea what the summer between MSII and MSIII will look like? Would there be an oppurtunity for a non-Army internship or should they forget that notion?
 
sheriff3 said:
Bull, thank you for the update. Any idea what the summer between MSII and MSIII will look like? Would there be an oppurtunity for a non-Army internship or should they forget that notion?
Click to expand...

Not sure. They still weren't sure if CIET would be after MS 1 or 2 year or if one would have the option. Also, 1 guy asked about it being mandatory or just extremely suggested because he stressed that he would need to take summer classes to stay on track and others were looking to pursue non army opportunities during the summer. I think we'll have to wait further for more info but I think it could be possible.
 
Bull - regarding CULP, I've heard rumors that CULP will be mandatory next year for contracted cadets. Hear anything about this?
 
No, I didn't. He didn't mention anything about it being mandatory just that it was a priority from the CoS that the program stay around.
 
My DD, MSII currently, has been accepted to CULP in Bulgaria and received her orders (?) last week. It sounds like an amazing opportunity for cadets. She's excited, and we're excited for her.
 
Armydad88 said:
My DD, MSII currently, has been accepted to CULP in Bulgaria and received her orders (?) last week. It sounds like an amazing opportunity for cadets. She's excited, and we're excited for her.
Click to expand...
Congratulations!
Did your DD do CIET yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top