ROTC vs SA Difference?

I think what should be considered; and is probably most important; isn't what Forbes, US World, Princeton Review, or any other review thinks of the academy. What matters most is what EMPLOYERS think of your education. After all; once the dust settles, more than half of officers; ROTC/OTS/Academy; will not make the military a career. They will get out and go to work in the private sector.

In this regard, the academies are considered very prestigious among Fortune 500 companies. Even the "Cal-Poly" website says:

This is the same with many employer's view on education. The military academies; all of them; are considered very prestigious and most employers are extremely impressed with such a degree. Why? 2 reason. 1) The curriculum is indeed rigorous and challenging along with many of the ivy/prestigious schools. 2) The graduates have the discipline of a minimum of 9 years of military service. They stuck it out. They aren't quitters. (This is also the same reason many companies like ex-military in general).

Now the emphasis is on engineering. In that concentration, the military academies definitely stand out among most colleges in the country. For the student with a different major; e.g. behavioral science, math, history, english, management, etc... I believe you will find that an academy education will stand up there with the same degree major from harvard, yale, princeton, etc...

Equally as important, is that in today's world, a graduate degree is becoming more common. And once you get a graduate degree, where you went for your undergraduate is almost irrelevant. For those not interested in the military, I've been counseling them for years if they intend on going to grad school, don't go into debt with your undergrad. Go to State-U or wherever you can go cheap and save your money, loans, scholarships, or whatever for the more expensive "Better" grad school. I.e. Is it better to have an undergrad from Harvard and a grad degree from the University of South Dakota; or the same exact degrees in reverse? Undergrad from the University of South Dakota and the grad degree from Harvard?

There are a lot of officers getting their graduate degrees. When the time comes to go out into the civilian world, the employers will look more at my son's PhD from RAND than they will his BS from the air force academy. Same if you were an ROTC grad from Rice, Purdue, UCLA, Harvard, etc...

Well, while I agree with most of what you say, trying to compare Cal Poly's engineering program to Stanford or MIT or Cal Tech, or wherever, is an uphill battle. The discussion, though, has never been, can you get a great education from USMA, yep you can. The discussion became, is it the best undergraduate education.

Yankees suck by the way.

If your goal in all of this is to get a job 10 years after college, then there are a ton more factors in that equation that aren't really pertinent here.
 
Well, while I agree with most of what you say, trying to compare Cal Poly's engineering program to Stanford or MIT or Cal Tech, or wherever, is an uphill battle. The discussion, though, has never been, can you get a great education from USMA, yep you can. The discussion became, is it the best undergraduate education.

Yankees suck by the way.

If your goal in all of this is to get a job 10 years after college, then there are a ton more factors in that equation that aren't really pertinent here.

If you want a degree in engineering, then yes, the military academies are in the top of being the best undergraduate education. That shouldn't even be debated. Even the other engineering schools include them in that "Clique". But for the other 50%+ who aren't going to be engineering majors, there are definitely "Better" undergraduate educational institutions. But that's only if looking at the NARROW aspect of a "Major" in which you're studying. If you look at the school as a whole, obviously from an undergraduate perspective, the military academies are indeed in the tops of educational institutions.

Put another way: Colorado State University is one of the BEST universities in the entire country for veterinarian studies. Probably top-3 world-wide. However; CSU isn't one of the top-10 schools in the country all around. Would you go to MIT and get a degree in English, History, etc... Yes, you could. But that would be a pretty big waste of money. Plus, I wouldn't say that MIT is one of the top/best universities in the country for an undergraduate degree in literature. If I wanted to major in Psychology, would I want to get accepted to MIT or to the University of Michigan or University of Illinois. Definitely the later.

So when people talk about schools being the "Best", you have to define what you consider BEST. MIT is NOT the best psych or literature school. Well; the academies are definitely some of the BEST in engineering. They are up there with MIT and Cal-tec. The reason army and air force don't show up on many lists, is because they include graduate programs. And when MIT is noted for their advanced engineering degrees/students, you can't compare an undergraduate program and say they aren't as good. They are definitely at that same level. "For what they offer".
 
^ that is painful to read. I take it you've never taken an english or history class at MIT (or Caltech)?
 
Last edited:
^ that is painful to read. I take it you've never taken an english or history class at MIT (or Caltech)?

Hey, if you want to spend all that money to go to MIT to be a literature major, then have at it. I won't tell you to your face that it was a major waste of money. Definitely not.
 
I bow to your much greater knowledge. The USMA is a much better school than any of those other schools. The facilities are better than at MIT and Stanford , heck throw in Cal Tech, all combined. The instructors are better than those at any of those other schools. Happy?

So you really can't defend your claim with facts. That's fine. I just like to know where people are coming from.

Just remember, the quality of the student has nothing to do with the quality of the school.

That's quite a bold statement, and one that I'd like to see explained a bit deeper.
 
Dunninla,

I agree with CC's post. I am not saying the Eng and History Profs aren't great, but you don't go to MIT to major in Political Science. HYPPS, yes, MIT not so much.

I doubt a hs sr who wants to major in French Lit is applying to MIT, and if they take MIT over Princeton, more power to them, but I would be with CC regarding mindset.

Wouldn't tell it to your face, but I would be wondering why?

Moose,

I agree with Scout, that comment was pretty bold.

Before you guys flame me, remember my DS opted AFROTC, because what his college offered academically was something that the AFA couldn't. Internship on the Hill as a Govt major.

I am not defending any SA. I am just saying, I think your positions are weak. Sorry, but that is the truth. Nobody in their right mind would go to MIT for a non-tech degree, unless HYPPS said no.

Nobody in their right mind would say the quality of the student has nothing to do with the quality of the school regarding Ivies, unless of course you are inferring that Ivy legacies with poor grades get in before FA applicants. If so, than you just made the case that the SA's perfected the application system. I don't think that was the goal.
 
Please let this thread die.

At this point, there is no real value in the discussion and it certainly isn't relative to the Forum's purpose.

Perhaps it can be moved to the "off topic" forum?
 
Grunt,

This is really not an off topic conversation. Sandusky is off topic, NCAA brackets are off topic, but this IMPO is still on topic.

Many applicants for 2017 are academically gifted and trying to decide between an SA or an Ivy, be it HYPPSM, or Duke, Notre Dame and UNCCH.

I think, stress, think, I get your point, it almost feels like SA vs Ivy ROTC, and the lines are clearly drawn, BUT, candidates, posters and lurkers need to see both sides IMPO.

CC and Scout in no way, shape or form will bend, nor will Moose or Dunninla. However, both sides are informing those candidates of the positive and negative when it comes to deciding next spring to accept a ROTC scholarship or an SA appointment.

I found this site back when our DS was in the process (07/08), ROTC forum was akin to the Intro threads. Look at it now! Closing this thread or letting it die does no good to any applicant that has yet to decide whether they should go ROTC or SA. They need to read both sides so they can make an informed decision.
 
Yankees suck by the way.

Well, they have been for the last couple of weeks, at least. Just saw a double digit lead in the AL East dwindle to 5.5 games.

Still, they'd have to continue with an aweful lot of sucking before they would catch up to the Bosox's choke job at the end of last season.

What is everyone else talking about again? :confused:

Oh yeah, I remember, something just as silly..... :biggrin:
 
OMG, for my sanity please don't go down the Yankees vs Red Sox rabbit hole!

I am now with Grunt let this thread die! I don't think I can survive the Yankees losing any more games.
 
Well, now it's gotten worse. When will these stupid college analysts get it right?

"Great news—America’s Best Colleges has ranked USMA # 1 Public College, #1 Best Value, #2 Liberal Arts College and #7 Top College in America by Forbes. To see the complete list go to http://www.forbes.com/​top-colleges/"
-USMA PAO Facebook Page Release


Someone should call up let all those people at those publications know that USMA isn't on par with other great institutions. Will someone please remind them that the quality of the student has nothing to do with the quality of the institution? That USMA lacks the world-class facilities (or so I've heard...haven't seen it substantiated yet)?

Man, you think these people would be better at their jobs...:confused:
 
It's Forbes.... so.... you know..... um.... well, it's Forbes.


That said, we can all agree that American League baseball isn't REAL baseball.
 
Pima my sister. I don't think "Bend" is an accurate statement. At least not for me. I can honestly say that for me, in the last 12 years, I have helped just as many people apply and get into the academies; ROTC; enlisted; traditional college; and VOTECH. Maybe not the exact same number in each, but very well distributed.

I personally don't think that the academy is right for everyone. I also don't think that ROTC is right for everyone. Some will do better at one than the other. There are some that simply shouldn't even be thinking about the military. I think I am pretty objective in the pros and cons about the academies vs ROTC.

However; this is what I was trying to convey to the readers, but obviously didn't do a good job. When you're talking about the academy; either army, air force, navy, coast guard, or merchants; then it's pretty finite. There's only the ONE academy to discuss. However; when you ask: "Is the air force academy better than ROTC"? My answer is always: "IT DEPENDS". ROTC at one school isn't necessarily equal to or as good as ROTC at another school. The major you want to study may or may not be better than another school or the academy.

So, depending on the individual; the school they have in mind; the area they want to major in; their service and military goals; etc... will determine if my advice promotes one educational opportunity over another. Some, like your son, knew that ROTC was a better choice for him over the academy. Some, like my son, knew he couldn't do a "Part Time" military training. Financials were never an issue. He wouldn't need an ROTC scholarship. But he knew if he went to a civilian school and was accepted to ROTC, he wouldn't last. He also knew he wouldn't graduate in the top of his class like he did at the academy.

This is the same reason that I knew for a fact that I would never have made it in the guard or reserves. Not to cut them down, but I couldn't do that. I needed, wanted, desired, lived for a "military lifestyle". From the time I woke up until I went to sleep. That is the life I wanted. Same applies to ROTC and the academy. When a person asks for the pros and cons, they have to be willing to spill their guts about WHO THEY ARE. Who they are, what they want, etc... will determine if one is a pro or con. E.g. Some think the 24/7 military discipline at the academy is a CON. For me, my son, and many others, that's actually a PRO, and the CON would be the "part time" military environment of ROTC. So when people ask pro/con, most times they don't understand what they are asking.
 
^ Great post CC. I completely agree with you that what is best depends on who is asking.
 
That said, we can all agree that American League baseball isn't REAL baseball.

No, we can't. If it's all about the DH, and how the American League's use of them over-emphasizes offense over the "purity" of the game and is against tradition, then I have to ask: you also want to make the forward pass illegal in the NFL like it was in the beginning? :wink: :yllol::yllol:

That being said, I will agree that the Nats are playing REAL GOOD baseball. They've taken over the #2 spot in my list of favorite MLB teams. I've got the Nat-i-tude! :thumb:
 
It's Forbes.... so.... you know..... um.... well, it's Forbes.


That said, we can all agree that American League baseball isn't REAL baseball.

They certainly couldn't be as discerning and forthright as say...U.S. News & World Report :rolleyes:
 
Mike,

I never meant to imply you played favoritism to the SA route over ROTC, for that I apologize.

I am a +1 to your post, especially this part of it:
Christcorp said:
I personally don't think that the academy is right for everyone. I also don't think that ROTC is right for everyone. Some will do better at one than the other. There are some that simply shouldn't even be thinking about the military. I think I am pretty objective in the pros and cons about the academies vs ROTC.

However; this is what I was trying to convey to the readers, but obviously didn't do a good job. When you're talking about the academy; either army, air force, navy, coast guard, or merchants; then it's pretty finite. There's only the ONE academy to discuss. However; when you ask: "Is the air force academy better than ROTC"? My answer is always: "IT DEPENDS". ROTC at one school isn't necessarily equal to or as good as ROTC at another school. The major you want to study may or may not be better than another school or the academy.

Your last paragraph is why many posters here stress meeting with the units when they do their school tours.

Just like every SA, every ROTC unit has a unique feel, every unit has different success levels regarding things like EA and career fields.

Back to the OP's question. Obviously, we diverted this thread enough. OP wants Army. His question was:
does that mean you don't have a 100% chance of making active duty when commissioned?
In other words, does going to an SA guarantee the new 2nd Lieutenant active duty and ROTC giving a chance at active duty?


AROTC does not guarantee AD.

AFROTC and NROTC do guarantee AD. There is no guard or reservist option.
 
I'll weigh in on what I think has been a pretty good discussion.

First, we all agree that AL baseball isn't REAL baseball, it's MLB's version of the XFL.

Ok, now that that's over....


More is expected of service academy grads in their first year in the service. That doesn't mean more SHOULD be expected, but I've heard more than once, for products of more than one service academy "He should have known that, he was from West Point/Annapolis/AFA/CGA" (sorry, haven't heard it used for KP.... maybe because they're just coming to grips with what KP is).

If you remove the school an ROTC program is out, an academy education is also held higher than progression through an ROTC program. That doesn't mean academy's always produce better officers, but that they are more selective than ROTC (and my service didn't even have an ROTC program).

Add the ROTC programs school back into the equation, the discussion isn't "He was in the ROTC program at Yale." No it's "He went to Yale".

I've experienced the positive side of an academy education in the private sector (and applying to grad school).

Those who know say "Wow..."
Those who don't say "Is that like college?"

I was able to attend an ROTC program at VMI my senior year. There are some VERY impressive cadets/midshipmen in ROTC programs out there. That said, you can only have some much West Point or Annapolis jammed down the public's throat on TV and movies before they begin to assume academies are a different class. Maybe they are. While there are only five federal service academies, four of which are military, there are many many ROTC programs for each service (except USCG). The imagine of ROTC is dilluted across a large range or outstanding schools and sub-par schools. Because there are only five service academies, there is less/no dillution.

Just my take on it.
 
I'll weigh in on what I think has been a pretty good discussion.

First, we all agree that AL baseball isn't REAL baseball, it's MLB's version of the XFL.

Ok, now that that's over....


More is expected of service academy grads in their first year in the service. That doesn't mean more SHOULD be expected, but I've heard more than once, for products of more than one service academy "He should have known that, he was from West Point/Annapolis/AFA/CGA" (sorry, haven't heard it used for KP.... maybe because they're just coming to grips with what KP is).

If you remove the school an ROTC program is out, an academy education is also held higher than progression through an ROTC program. That doesn't mean academy's always produce better officers, but that they are more selective than ROTC (and my service didn't even have an ROTC program).

Add the ROTC programs school back into the equation, the discussion isn't "He was in the ROTC program at Yale." No it's "He went to Yale".

I've experienced the positive side of an academy education in the private sector (and applying to grad school).

Those who know say "Wow..."
Those who don't say "Is that like college?"

I was able to attend an ROTC program at VMI my senior year. There are some VERY impressive cadets/midshipmen in ROTC programs out there. That said, you can only have some much West Point or Annapolis jammed down the public's throat on TV and movies before they begin to assume academies are a different class. Maybe they are. While there are only five federal service academies, four of which are military, there are many many ROTC programs for each service (except USCG). The imagine of ROTC is dilluted across a large range or outstanding schools and sub-par schools. Because there are only five service academies, there is less/no dillution.

Just my take on it.

I think your last point is the most important. Generally speaking, the Academies produce a very a homogenous product. Academy grads have all been exposed to most of the same things in terms of training and officership, while ROTC is a much more varied product.

In the same OBC (BOLC, whatever) class or unit you will have maybe 3 academy grads who all exhibit similar skill sets and approaches (which is most cases will surpass their ROTC counterparts because of the superior level of exposure to a military environment and the nit-noid things that make the Army move, whether it be D&C or supply inventory or squad tactics or AR 25-50 correspondence). In that same unit you can have 4 or 5 ROTC lieutenants. One went to North Georgia so he's very used to a lot of those things. Two others went to say, a fair-to-middling ROTC program at a big SEC school or a small middle-of-nowhere school. One went to Santa Clara University, where they only did PT once a week, barely ever wore uniforms, and did very few FTXs (this was my buddy's case, which is why I use it). So naturally, there is a lack of homogeneity among ROTC grads in terms of INITIAL capability. Their training was handled by dozens of individual programs, rather than by one Commandant with much more direct control. Will many of them grow to match or surpass their academy counterparts? Sure.

That's the biggest difference. With USxA, the product is largely a known quantity. With ROTC, it is not.
 
I think your last point is the most important. Generally speaking, the Academies produce a very a homogenous product. Academy grads have all been exposed to most of the same things in terms of training and officership, while ROTC is a much more varied product.

In the same OBC (BOLC, whatever) class or unit you will have maybe 3 academy grads who all exhibit similar skill sets and approaches (which is most cases will surpass their ROTC counterparts because of the superior level of exposure to a military environment and the nit-noid things that make the Army move, whether it be D&C or supply inventory or squad tactics or AR 25-50 correspondence). In that same unit you can have 4 or 5 ROTC lieutenants. One went to North Georgia so he's very used to a lot of those things. Two others went to say, a fair-to-middling ROTC program at a big SEC school or a small middle-of-nowhere school. One went to Santa Clara University, where they only did PT once a week, barely ever wore uniforms, and did very few FTXs (this was my buddy's case, which is why I use it). So naturally, there is a lack of homogeneity among ROTC grads in terms of INITIAL capability. Their training was handled by dozens of individual programs, rather than by one Commandant with much more direct control. Will many of them grow to match or surpass their academy counterparts? Sure.

That's the biggest difference. With USxA, the product is largely a known quantity. With ROTC, it is not.

I think this is a very fair assessment. Years ago I went with my son to see a Marine Recruiter. My son was thinking of enlisting after high school. Besides enlistment he talked to my son about the officer route. He spoke about OCS, ROTC and the Acadamies very much along these lines. He was fair and gave my son some things to think about.

The one thing I remember about most about this officer is that after my son said how he was in great shape the man said it doesn't matter. That this officer could still outrun him, out pushup him and out do with many other things. I am more determined than you, he said. It was to show my son of the determination officers must have. He was one tough Marine.
 
Back
Top