In my opinion this entire thread is a huge disservice to prospective ROTC Cadets. There has been NOTHING announced about what will be cut or how. There is NO REASON to expect that the current pathways to a commission will not continue to be open although it is reasonable to expect that they will be more competitive. Beyond that- Who knows? - and nobody on this forum is privy to that information.
bruno and JAM, trying to squelch this discussion is irresponsible. Candidates absolutely need to know the headwinds they are facing and how best to navigate through that environment. Only if candidates know what the risks are can they effectively formulate plans and backup plans. After all, life is ALL about navigating through risks. Those who do not know what the risks are and proactively deal with them end up getting slammed.
Neither I nor Pima have EVER advised ANYONE not to become an officer, and I do not understand why you equate discussions about the budgetary environment as "don't even bother" advice. Wrong. I certainly would not advise someone to reject the idea of becoming a lawyer simply because the economy is down, so I'm not sure where that's coming from. Instead, my approach to advising students thinking about law school is this: "Here are your challenges -- now, here's how to overcome them." When they do become lawyers, they will learn what "thinking like a lawyer" really means -- identifying the risks ahead and then formulating a plan to navigate through those risks.
The advice that ROTC candidates should do the best they can academically, etc. is advice that will ALWAYS be given in any environment, in good times and in bad. But not alerting users that there are challenges ahead and here's how best to deal with those challenges denies the users of probably the most important value that SAF brings to its users. This is NOT a "cheerleading" website -- it is an INFORMATION website. I don't think ANYONE needs SAF to hear that they should try to get the highest grades possible and do the best they can. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think every candidate knows this already!!
The reason folks need information about the developing ROTC landscape is because it will impact their major strategic decisions, such as deciding which schools to put on their ROTC application list, or whether to pursue the SMP program or hold out hopes for a 3-year scholarship at a campus that happened to hand out many last year. Users should NOT be denied this information simply because those who control access to the information are afraid that folks will be spooked by it.
Anyone who intentionally tries to deny users access to information is doing the members of SAF a huge disservice.
It is, however, perfectly legitimate to advise folks -- as I and Pima have done (and indeed, as bruno and JAM have done) -- that nothing is set in stone, things haven't happened yet, things can turn on a dime.
Of course, the users are more than smart enough to wholly reject -- for themselves -- anything that patentesq or anyone else says about what they think will be the challenges in the upcoming year.
JAM, I understand that you are concerned that users will not be able to handle the information and will get spooked because challenges appear on the forum. But I think it can be equally harmful to sugar-coat things and say things like "IRR has ZERO to do with budget cuts", because that is not how it has been handled historically.
The truth is that all views should be allowed to be presented, so long as it is done in a courteous, non-slanderous way. You will note that I did not suggest that your statement about IRR was inappropriate. I just challenged the accuracy of the information of your thesis statement, based on historical precedent. Of course, your response that the historical evidence is "old" is a perfectly legitimate response that users can digest as they see fit. As I have previously said in this thread, the 1990's "Peace Dividend" was far different than the one we are currently facing -- in 1990, there were fewer threats to US national security than there are now.
If someone really believes that we are not facing budgetary problems in this country, and that DoD will have to deal with them, then they should post and say so. But nothing should be squelched. In my mind, the discussion really should be "Here are the likely challenges ahead -- now, here's how to deal with them."