Major Changes for the Army ROTC OML Model-Article

Imagine a parent with two children. The parent values a science education more than a humanities education. That same parent announces he will award $100 each semester for each .1 GPA over 3.2. Now, being the intelligent child of such a parent, would YOU major in Physics, or Anthropology? Depends on whether you like money, I'd say. But if you're the parent, would you scratch your head wondering why both of your children do not seem to value a scientific education as much as you do? Would you rack your brain trying to figure out why they chose humanities majors? It's pretty simple... they figured out that humanities gets them the most money from their parent.

I'm not sure I even follow this logic.

I would sure hope that students and cadets would be intelligent enough to choose a major they like, one that the feel they can excel, and find interesting as a future career. Believe it or not they do not always choose STEM and Humanities degrees are not always an easy A.
 
Personally I find the changes to be a good thought in the right direction, yet I don't think they significantly improve certain cadets chances. Honestly, the PMS/cadre can be significantly more biased at an institution, and the more weight the PMS judgment has, it seems like cadets could lose out at campus instead of at LDAC. For instance, from speaking to many cadets over the past few years, many have shared that their PMS will have certain preferences, and it isn't necessarily leadership performance.

To me, the major choice thing seems to make more sense. I didn't know until my senior year in ROTC that Engineering majors were guaranteed active duty with 2.5+ GPA if they want to be engineers. My opinion is that there should be more incentives for STEM majors in general, because right now, the system doesn't reward doing all that extra work to do well in them. I personally chose a B.A. because I wanted to play the game and win at it; getting As in a degree that's easy for me would guarantee me AD and my branch choice. I did end up getting AD, my top branch choice w/o ADSO, but in the event the Army doesn't work out for me, my degree won't do much. At my old school, I can't recall a single STEM major who stayed with it - they all switched to humanities because of the stats that showed how important GPA was, especially getting AD and branch choice. A lot of kids just didn't have the discipline or free time and would rather do an easy major to get the job they wanted.

I think another thing is that a lot of STEM kids don't want to put in all the effort and bullcrap with ROTC because they know if they stick it out, they'll have a great paying job after college anyway. Incentives would definitely help get more people to stick around.
 
While certain majors may have higher averages than others, you can't make a blanket statement that everyone will pick a liberal arts major because it's easier. Different people excel and struggle at different things. I've met brilliant engineers that were atrocious writers. They could ace through calculus, but couldn't wrap their heads around history. With rare exceptions, students are going to major in what they desire to study, not what has the simplest degree completion requirements.

While the Army adds small incentives to promote STEM, it doesn't do this because everyone who majors in a hard science is going to have a lower GPA than if if they had pursued a BA. It does this to promote diversity in the academic backgrounds of the officer corps. Having a degree in Mechanical Engineering will not make you any better an infantry or quartermaster officer than an officer with a BA in English. Even in certain assignments in the Engineer branch, those with a BE aren't going to have an advantage over a kid with a BA. For instance, it doesn't take a degree in the hard sciences to drive a Buffalo up and down an MSR to play IED magnet for route clearance.
 
While the Army adds small incentives to promote STEM, it doesn't do this because everyone who majors in a hard science is going to have a lower GPA than if if they had pursued a BA. It does this to promote diversity in the academic backgrounds of the officer corps.
and you know this...how? Only speaking of averages, an Engineering major will be at a 3 OMS points disadvantage, and a math/science major a 2.5 OMS point disadvantage, vs a Humanities major. Just IS, it is a reality. Why would a sane minded person choose a STEM major, assuming their primary goal in life is to graduate ROTC in the top 10%, or at least top 20% to get DMG? Just doesn't compute.

Having a degree in Mechanical Engineering will not make you any better an infantry or quartermaster officer than an officer with a BA in English.
Agreed.

Another comment: Like the poster up above who majored in Humanities to get the best possible GPA, most ROTC cadets will have the basic reasoning skills to look at the OML game the way CC has set it up, and conclude...NFW they are going to bust their buts in Engineering or Chemistry, then get pushed to the middle or back of the line because of their lower STEM GPA.
 
While certain majors may have higher averages than others, you can't make a blanket statement that everyone will pick a liberal arts major because it's easier. Different people excel and struggle at different things. I've met brilliant engineers that were atrocious writers. They could ace through calculus, but couldn't wrap their heads around history. With rare exceptions, students are going to major in what they desire to study, not what has the simplest degree completion requirements.

While the Army adds small incentives to promote STEM, it doesn't do this because everyone who majors in a hard science is going to have a lower GPA than if if they had pursued a BA. It does this to promote diversity in the academic backgrounds of the officer corps. Having a degree in Mechanical Engineering will not make you any better an infantry or quartermaster officer than an officer with a BA in English. Even in certain assignments in the Engineer branch, those with a BE aren't going to have an advantage over a kid with a BA. For instance, it doesn't take a degree in the hard sciences to drive a Buffalo up and down an MSR to play IED magnet for route clearance.

+1 At my daughters UMD-CP graduations there seem to be as many if not more STEM's getting the highest GPA's (I noticed because they were on the lists :biggrin:)
 
Personally I find the changes to be a good thought in the right direction, yet I don't think they significantly improve certain cadets chances. Honestly, the PMS/cadre can be significantly more biased at an institution, and the more weight the PMS judgment has, it seems like cadets could lose out at campus instead of at LDAC. For instance, from speaking to many cadets over the past few years, many have shared that their PMS will have certain preferences, and it isn't necessarily leadership performance.

To me, the major choice thing seems to make more sense. I didn't know until my senior year in ROTC that Engineering majors were guaranteed active duty with 2.5+ GPA if they want to be engineers. My opinion is that there should be more incentives for STEM majors in general, because right now, the system doesn't reward doing all that extra work to do well in them. I personally chose a B.A. because I wanted to play the game and win at it; getting As in a degree that's easy for me would guarantee me AD and my branch choice. I did end up getting AD, my top branch choice w/o ADSO, but in the event the Army doesn't work out for me, my degree won't do much. At my old school, I can't recall a single STEM major who stayed with it - they all switched to humanities because of the stats that showed how important GPA was, especially getting AD and branch choice. A lot of kids just didn't have the discipline or free time and would rather do an easy major to get the job they wanted.

I think another thing is that a lot of STEM kids don't want to put in all the effort and bullcrap with ROTC because they know if they stick it out, they'll have a great paying job after college anyway. Incentives would definitely help get more people to stick around.

I agree with your post for the most part and also concur with your observations of major switching. The reality is not everyone is interested in STEM majors nor do many have the dedication to put the lab or study hours in and still maintain a high GPA.

People choose their majors for a myriad of reasons and gaming the system is actually really common. I know a ton of cadets who with state their major and GPA with a smirk on their face because they know that 4.0 in Sociology, CJ or Psych is going to boost their OML. However, that isn't to say that all non-STEM majors are easy nor should we blanket all other majors as non-essential.

The system is still broken though and not enough incentives are given for people in AROTC STEM slots. I even recall a cadet asking about STEM/OML during an LDAC Q & A and the accessions rep didn't even have a good answer about a remedy in the near future.
 
and you know this...how? Only speaking of averages, an Engineering major will be at a 3 OMS points disadvantage, and a math/science major a 2.5 OMS point disadvantage, vs a Humanities major. Just IS, it is a reality. Why would a sane minded person choose a STEM major, assuming their primary goal in life is to graduate ROTC in the top 10%, or at least top 20% to get DMG? Just doesn't compute.

Well, they went so far as to build a giant special effects-laden truck to encourage recruitment. The Department of Defense recognizes how important professionals in these disciplines are to national security.

http://www.army.mil/article/71653/

Another comment: Like the poster up above who majored in Humanities to get the best possible GPA, most ROTC cadets will have the basic reasoning skills to look at the OML game the way CC has set it up, and conclude...NFW they are going to bust their buts in Engineering or Chemistry, then get pushed to the middle or back of the line because of their lower STEM GPA.

That's a good point if the student in question knows he will achieve a better GPA with a program other than STEM. But it also demonstrates a severe degree of shortsightedness; by the sixth year of service, retention rates for officer year groups fall from about one in three to one in two. Eventually we all take off the uniform. I'd like to think that most people have more compelling reasons to decide on a field of study than an OML for a job you aren't even sure if you'll enjoy.
 
That's a good point if the student in question knows he will achieve a better GPA with a program other than STEM. But it also demonstrates a severe degree of shortsightedness; by the sixth year of service, retention rates for officer year groups fall from about one in three to one in two. Eventually we all take off the uniform. I'd like to think that most people have more compelling reasons to decide on a field of study than an OML for a job you aren't even sure if you'll enjoy.

That's the problem, every one of these cadets trying to game the system thinks they will be Army for life. Around 70-80% of the MS I-IIIs I am around believe they will do the full 20 but according to reality that is not the case. They are very blatant when you ask them why they chose their major and adamant that AV or IN will be their career no matter what.
 
Like the poster up above who majored in Humanities to get the best possible GPA, most ROTC cadets will have the basic reasoning skills to look at the OML game the way CC has set it up, and conclude...NFW they are going to bust their buts in Engineering or Chemistry, then get pushed to the middle or back of the line because of their lower STEM GPA.

There seems to be this assumption that if you major in Engineering you will automatically get a low GPA. There may be published national averages showing a grade deflation among engineering students, but that's a national average, not an average of ROTC cadets. You would need to find the average GPA of ROTC engineering majors to be able to make a conclusive argument.

With the current system a cadet majoring in engineering could get a 3.4 GPA, add the extra point and they now have a 3.5. If this same cadet excels in ROTC and LDAC they would be in a position to receive most any branch they want. GPA is not the only factor in branching. Over the past 5 years I've seen cadets in my son's battalion receive 3.7+ GPA's in LA Majors only to find themselves in that dreaded Dead Zone due to poor performance in other areas. At the same time there were engineering majors that, when given the extra point to get a 3.5, exceled in all areas and ended up in the top 15%.

The Army holds a number of Engineering branch slots aside for engineering majors. Currently the Army has no trouble filling those branch slots, and filling the entire Engineer Branch, it's one of the harder branches to get.

Until the Army feels they have to fill more branches with more engineers then they currently are recruiting, the current system will work just fine. Even though completing Flight School is a condensed engineering school, most pilots do not have engineering degrees, half the pilots don't even have degrees.
 
Last edited:
Cadet Command keeps on putting new articles out, here is one regarding LDAC and the changes being made: http://www.army.mil/article/103259/New_look_for_LDAC/

Sounds like quite a departure from years past in terms of depth of training with Land Nav and Live Fire exercises.

And with fewer "scored" events, perhaps there will be more focus on the "development" part of LDAC as opposed to score management for OML by cadets. Learning that new behavior may be easier said than done, though...
 
Sounds like quite a departure from years past in terms of depth of training with Land Nav and Live Fire exercises.

And with fewer "scored" events, perhaps there will be more focus on the "development" part of LDAC as opposed to score management for OML by cadets. Learning that new behavior may be easier said than done, though...

In the end I think this will prove to be a better evaluation process toward the cadets. With less pressure to garner every point possible the cadets will have a chance to try new things without the stress of losing points. The TAC's should have more flexibility in how they evaluate each cadet, a small mistake may now not cause a cadet to get an overall low score if they have excelled in all other areas.

I agree the learning curve may take a year for both cadets and the TAC's. The cadets going this year have heard tips from all the other cadets in their battalion on how to perform at LDAC, only now the game has changed. It will be ineteresting to see how things progress over the summer from the first class to the last.

In the past there have been only a small percentage that received E's, with this new system I can see there being a lot more E's. This will make the Battalion ranking and leadership assesment, and the APFT, all the more important.
 
Getting onto my soapbox once again, I have been thinking about how negatively cadets view certain branches of the military. These are mostly kids who have never held a permanent full-time job, who have very little idea of where much of America's economic activity exists and where the real "hot jobs" are.

For example, TC is a branch where you can get in without ADSO unless you are in the bottom 20% and even those can get in with ADSO. A large percentage of slots are held for DABM because they need to balance out the distribution of upper and lower half cadets.

TC, from what I understand is all about logistics. And logistics is a HOT career field today. Most kids have NO idea how all that stuff they order on Amazon gets to their warehouses much less to their doorstep.

I think the Army needs to do a better job of selling the "less popular" branches and what they mean to careers after the Army. Not everyone is capable of coordinating the movement of a support infrastructure anywhere in the world, which makes moving ordinary goods and materials simple in comparison. In the old days, when recruiting was difficult, they used to sell the enlisted on what Army training could get you in the private sector. They need to show real retired officers in really challenging private sector jobs for these "less popular" branches to educate today's cadets in the real world that they still know very little about.

Yeah, there are always those who join up wanting nothing but infantry and don't want to look beyond their fighting days, but many cadets lack guidance as to what they want to do with the rest of their lives. And a couple hours on one day at LDAC to go to a couple talks is not enough education a very important decision. It probably should happen as part of the general talk about what an Army career and should be done by real retired officers as guests at the ROTC units.

I think there is a missed opportunity out there that leaves many feeling bad about their career prospects when they don't get that dream branch and fail to realize what other opportunities they have due to a simple lack of communication.
 
I agree. It's largely a product of age and inexperience. Funny that once you talk to those who have been in for awhile and deployed, attitudes towards combat arms flip. At least for enlisted. They aren't the most accommodating branches for family or quality of life. But those are issues way too far down the road for most of these kids to understand. I'm big on recommending branch detail to cadets who want to branch combat arms, but are either uncertain or ill informed about the Army. They can play rock star for a few years and then move onto a combat service or support branch.
 
Getting onto my soapbox once again, I have been thinking about how negatively cadets view certain branches of the military. These are mostly kids who have never held a permanent full-time job, who have very little idea of where much of America's economic activity exists and where the real "hot jobs" are.

For example, TC is a branch where you can get in without ADSO unless you are in the bottom 20% and even those can get in with ADSO. A large percentage of slots are held for DABM because they need to balance out the distribution of upper and lower half cadets.

TC, from what I understand is all about logistics. And logistics is a HOT career field today. Most kids have NO idea how all that stuff they order on Amazon gets to their warehouses much less to their doorstep.

I think the Army needs to do a better job of selling the "less popular" branches and what they mean to careers after the Army. Not everyone is capable of coordinating the movement of a support infrastructure anywhere in the world, which makes moving ordinary goods and materials simple in comparison. In the old days, when recruiting was difficult, they used to sell the enlisted on what Army training could get you in the private sector. They need to show real retired officers in really challenging private sector jobs for these "less popular" branches to educate today's cadets in the real world that they still know very little about.

Yeah, there are always those who join up wanting nothing but infantry and don't want to look beyond their fighting days, but many cadets lack guidance as to what they want to do with the rest of their lives. And a couple hours on one day at LDAC to go to a couple talks is not enough education a very important decision. It probably should happen as part of the general talk about what an Army career and should be done by real retired officers as guests at the ROTC units.

I think there is a missed opportunity out there that leaves many feeling bad about their career prospects when they don't get that dream branch and fail to realize what other opportunities they have due to a simple lack of communication.

I agree 100%. If I wasn't in the medical arena, a logistics branch would probably be in my top 3 branches. From logistics you can move into acquisition corps, contractor jobs or even more lucrative positions in corporations like Amazon, Boeing etc.
 
I agree 100%. If I wasn't in the medical arena, a logistics branch would probably be in my top 3 branches. From logistics you can move into acquisition corps, contractor jobs or even more lucrative positions in corporations like Amazon, Boeing etc.

Just to provide some facts about Acquisition (link may be gated):

Any officer can compete for Acquisition Functional Area designation (FA51) who meets certain non-branch specific requirements.

General Eligibility for Active Duty Officers:

Minimum grade of Captain
Graduate of the Captains Career Course
Successful completion of the appropriate key/developmental position in the grade of CPT

General Eligibility for Reserve Officers:

Must be a Senior Captain or Junior Major
Graduate of the Captains Career Course
Successful completion of the appropriate key/developmental positions in the grade of CPT
 
Getting onto my soapbox once again, I have been thinking about how negatively cadets view certain branches of the military. These are mostly kids who have never held a permanent full-time job, who have very little idea of where much of America's economic activity exists and where the real "hot jobs" are.

For example, TC is a branch where you can get in without ADSO unless you are in the bottom 20% and even those can get in with ADSO. A large percentage of slots are held for DABM because they need to balance out the distribution of upper and lower half cadets.

TC, from what I understand is all about logistics. And logistics is a HOT career field today. Most kids have NO idea how all that stuff they order on Amazon gets to their warehouses much less to their doorstep.

I think the Army needs to do a better job of selling the "less popular" branches and what they mean to careers after the Army. Not everyone is capable of coordinating the movement of a support infrastructure anywhere in the world, which makes moving ordinary goods and materials simple in comparison. In the old days, when recruiting was difficult, they used to sell the enlisted on what Army training could get you in the private sector. They need to show real retired officers in really challenging private sector jobs for these "less popular" branches to educate today's cadets in the real world that they still know very little about.

Yeah, there are always those who join up wanting nothing but infantry and don't want to look beyond their fighting days, but many cadets lack guidance as to what they want to do with the rest of their lives. And a couple hours on one day at LDAC to go to a couple talks is not enough education a very important decision. It probably should happen as part of the general talk about what an Army career and should be done by real retired officers as guests at the ROTC units.

I think there is a missed opportunity out there that leaves many feeling bad about their career prospects when they don't get that dream branch and fail to realize what other opportunities they have due to a simple lack of communication.

Again we think alike.

I think a lot can be contributed to a culture in the military that has been around for a long time. You have infantry that calls others POG's (Person other the Grunt), comments about those that are "In the rear with the gear", "If your not Armor, you ain't S#$%", the list goes on. That culture filters it's way into ROTC and WP, cadets feel that they will only get respect if the choose one of the "Rock Star" branches. Your right, I don't think a lot of them think about the future.

This culture continues even within the branches themselves. My son is Aviation, has selected his Airframe, the first words out of the new IP's mouth was something like "You have selected the best, the rest are wannabe pilots", and of course every other IP is saying the same thing about their airframe.

A lot of these cadets feel the peer pressure to select someyhing that will make them stand out. The funny thing is, after talking to many after they have branched one of the less popular branches, they tend to admit they really enjoy what they are doing.

I wish there were a way to convey this to the cadets, but I fear that the culture is still too strong. Personaly I have always thought Transportation would be a great branch, it doesn't matter if your deployed or not, your always doing you job, and the experience for after the military is very useful. Try telling that to a cadet while thay are on a FTX or learning tactics, to them that's what the Army is all about.

I spent the last couple years in the CG in command of a District Supply Office, others thought I was nuts leaving what I had been doing. Because of the experience I gained, I walked straight from the uniform to a great job at the time which allowed me to finish school. Sometimes it takes a while before you catch on.
 
Just to provide some facts about Acquisition (link may be gated):

Any officer can compete for Acquisition Functional Area designation (FA51) who meets certain non-branch specific requirements.

I am aware of that as well, I know an armor officer who went acquisition. Just saying a previous position in logistics could set you up even better.

Functional areas are something every cadet should look at
 
In the OML scoring it contains a category for Language and Cultural Awareness. Does anyone know if a CULP trip counts for any points in this category? Or are these points just for the formal language courses?
 
Back
Top