ROTC vs SA Difference?

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

You realize Forbes is basing a big chunk of their rankings on the fact that it is basically free to go to the schools and you are guaranteed a job when you get out right? We sort of already discussed that. In this economy that is incredibly important. Of course it doesn't mean your education is as good as at other schools. But continue on slamming everyone that doubts your self proclaimed wisdom, and realize that in any other forum, debating the merits of the SA's, the SA's wouldn't be ever mentioned as one of the top 10 colleges/universities. Top 50, probably, top 25, maybe top 10, nope. But alas we are here, and you, obviously, are correct.
 
You realize Forbes is basing a big chunk of their rankings on the fact that it is basically free to go to the schools and you are guaranteed a job when you get out right? We sort of already discussed that. In this economy that is incredibly important. Of course it doesn't mean your education is as good as at other schools. But continue on slamming everyone that doubts your self proclaimed wisdom, and realize that in any other forum, debating the merits of the SA's, the SA's wouldn't be ever mentioned as one of the top 10 colleges/universities. Top 50, probably, top 25, maybe top 10, nope. But alas we are here, and you, obviously, are correct.

And I hate to burst YOUR bubble but Forbes not only ranked it #7 overall but #3 in teaching quality
 
My post was litered with typos. I apologize. :wink:

You're alma mater must be nowhere near the level of a real institution of higher learning! It's okay, the quality of students and quality of institution are not relevant to each other.
 
You realize Forbes is basing a big chunk of their rankings on the fact that it is basically free to go to the schools and you are guaranteed a job when you get out right? We sort of already discussed that. In this economy that is incredibly important. Of course it doesn't mean your education is as good as at other schools. But continue on slamming everyone that doubts your self proclaimed wisdom, and realize that in any other forum, debating the merits of the SA's, the SA's wouldn't be ever mentioned as one of the top 10 colleges/universities. Top 50, probably, top 25, maybe top 10, nope. But alas we are here, and you, obviously, are correct.

Again, you continue to prove how little you actually know about this subject and the service academies. I've given you AMPLE opportunity to debate the merits of the SAs and their rival civilian institutions. I asked you to give us all some factual evidence about why you believe these other institutions have superior facilities and superior professors. You've yet to offer even one bit of fact to support your views--views which more and more appear to be based on stereotype, generalizations, and tradition.

So unless you have some facts to offer about what makes the undergraduate education at your favorite "elite" universities so far superior to that at USMA, just save us all the trouble and stop prattling on about how you're beset on all sides by big meanies who won't just ignore the facts and proclaim you to be right.

And since you don't even seem to know what the methodology of the Forbes ranking was, see below. Note that immediate employment in the U.S. Army has no direct weight in this study, contrary to your belief, but only factors in when the average salary of a graduate is evaluated, for which the initial service period could only have a 7.5% weight in the study. Also, note that the big three Ivy League schools give tons of need-based aid, which allows poor but smart students to attend at prices approaching that of a state university. But I'm sure you knew that.


1. Student Satisfaction (27.5%)
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Student Evaluations from [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]RateMyProfessor.com [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](17.5%)
Actual Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates (5%)
Predicted vs. Actual Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates (5%)
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
2. Post-Graduate Success (32.5%)
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Listings of Alumni in [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Who’s Who in America [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](10%)
Salary of Alumni from
[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Payscale.com [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](15%)
American Leaders List (7.5%)
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
3. Student Debt (17.5%)
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Average Federal Student Loan Debt Load (10%)
Student Loan Default Rates (5%)
Predicted vs. Actual Percent of Students Taking Federal Loans (2.5%)
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
4. Four-year Graduation Rate (11.25%)
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Actual Four-year Graduation Rate (8.75%)
Predicted vs. Actual Four-year Graduation Rate (2.5%)
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
5. Academic Success (11.25%)
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Student Nationally Competitive Awards (7.5%)
Alumni Receiving PhDs (3.75%)
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
Again, you continue to prove how little you actually know about this subject and the service academies. I've given you AMPLE opportunity to debate the merits of the SAs and their rival civilian institutions. I asked you to give us all some factual evidence about why you believe these other institutions have superior facilities and superior professors. You've yet to offer even one bit of fact to support your views--views which more and more appear to be based on stereotype, generalizations, and tradition.

So unless you have some facts to offer about what makes the undergraduate education at your favorite "elite" universities so far superior to that at USMA, just save us all the trouble and stop prattling on about how you're beset on all sides by big meanies who won't just ignore the facts and proclaim you to be right.

And since you don't even seem to know what the methodology of the Forbes ranking was, see below. Note that immediate employment in the U.S. Army has no direct weight in this study, contrary to your belief, but only factors in when the average salary of a graduate is evaluated, for which the initial service period could only have a 7.5% weight in the study. Also, note that the big three Ivy League schools give tons of need-based aid, which allows poor but smart students to attend at prices approaching that of a state university. But I'm sure you knew that.

Your care factor is at a 10 ( on a 1-10 scale) right now let's step it down to a 2 or 3. Pull the big guns out on a debate that actually matters without the circular logic and anecdote ridden expanse that is third party school rankings.
 
Again, you continue to prove how little you actually know about this subject and the service academies. I've given you AMPLE opportunity to debate the merits of the SAs and their rival civilian institutions. I asked you to give us all some factual evidence about why you believe these other institutions have superior facilities and superior professors. You've yet to offer even one bit of fact to support your views--views which more and more appear to be based on stereotype, generalizations, and tradition.

So unless you have some facts to offer about what makes the undergraduate education at your favorite "elite" universities so far superior to that at USMA, just save us all the trouble and stop prattling on about how you're beset on all sides by big meanies who won't just ignore the facts and proclaim you to be right.

And since you don't even seem to know what the methodology of the Forbes ranking was, see below. Note that immediate employment in the U.S. Army has no direct weight in this study, contrary to your belief, but only factors in when the average salary of a graduate is evaluated, for which the initial service period could only have a 7.5% weight in the study. Also, note that the big three Ivy League schools give tons of need-based aid, which allows poor but smart students to attend at prices approaching that of a state university. But I'm sure you knew that.

You haven't posted anything other than a forbes article to back up your declarations, but that's ok. let's look at that for a second. Once again, a large chunk of their rankings is based on the facts that the students,
1. stay there between freshman and soph year. 5%
2. have a good salary when they graduate 15%
3. (the 17.5% chunk) Have low student loans, low defaults on those loans, and small number of students taking those loans.
4. 11.25% 4 year graduation rate, and actual vs predicted 4 year graduation rate.
5. no part of it.

The % I posted, I feel are all directly affected by the way the SA's are set up, and the article rewards the SA's based on that.

1. At a non SA if a student doesn't like it at a particular school they go to a different one, they already have paid anyway. What happens if a student decides to leave a SA after a year, do they suddenly have to pay for that year? That cost certainly would affect that students decision whether or not to see if the grass was greener somewhere else.
2. Student's graduating from the SA's are almost guaranteed a job, a student graduating from a non SA isn't, that certainly would help.
3. It doesn't cost real dollars to go to a SA, it costs a future commitment. So 17.5% of their best school rankings can be directly attributed to the fact going to a SA is free, unless you leave before you graduate.
4. At a non SA you can take as long as you want to graduate. I am not sure about this but I believe the SA's sort of frown on taking a semester or two off during your college tenure.

So 48.75% of Forbes rankings are directly affected by the way SA's are set up. By the facts that it doesn't cost anything to go to them, unless you leave before you graduate. By the facts that you have to pay for them if you leave early. By the fact that it is very difficult to take more than 4 years to graduate, and by the fact that you are pretty much guaranteed a very good paying job upon graduation. Once again, you are setting me up to make the SA's sound bad, and I don't believe that is the case at all. Furthermore, I like the way SA's are set up, and so does Forbes, however, that is why the USMA scores so well in Forbes' rankings, and a step down in most other college review sites. I thought the question wasn't which is the best school for the dollars you have to pay, or which school is free unless you don't graduate in four years, it was which school offers the best education.

I am also done debating here, I think you offer a great resource on this board and my intention is not to keep you from doing that in any manner. I think some posters here slightly over rank the SA's, and I felt it was only fair, to the kids who come here for information, to try and post a slightly different, and probably more main stream view.
 
You haven't posted anything other than a forbes article to back up your declarations, but that's ok. let's look at that for a second. Once again, a large chunk of their rankings is based on the facts that the students,
1. stay there between freshman and soph year. 5%
2. have a good salary when they graduate 15%
3. (the 17.5% chunk) Have low student loans, low defaults on those loans, and small number of students taking those loans.
4. 11.25% 4 year graduation rate, and actual vs predicted 4 year graduation rate.
5. no part of it.

The % I posted, I feel are all directly affected by the way the SA's are set up, and the article rewards the SA's based on that.

1. At a non SA if a student doesn't like it at a particular school they go to a different one, they already have paid anyway. What happens if a student decides to leave a SA after a year, do they suddenly have to pay for that year? That cost certainly would affect that students decision whether or not to see if the grass was greener somewhere else.
2. Student's graduating from the SA's are almost guaranteed a job, a student graduating from a non SA isn't, that certainly would help.
3. It doesn't cost real dollars to go to a SA, it costs a future commitment. So 17.5% of their best school rankings can be directly attributed to the fact going to a SA is free, unless you leave before you graduate.
4. At a non SA you can take as long as you want to graduate. I am not sure about this but I believe the SA's sort of frown on taking a semester or two off during your college tenure.

So 48.75% of Forbes rankings are directly affected by the way SA's are set up. By the facts that it doesn't cost anything to go to them, unless you leave before you graduate. By the facts that you have to pay for them if you leave early. By the fact that it is very difficult to take more than 4 years to graduate, and by the fact that you are pretty much guaranteed a very good paying job upon graduation. Once again, you are setting me up to make the SA's sound bad, and I don't believe that is the case at all. Furthermore, I like the way SA's are set up, and so does Forbes, however, that is why the USMA scores so well in Forbes' rankings, and a step down in most other college review sites. I thought the question wasn't which is the best school for the dollars you have to pay, or which school is free unless you don't graduate in four years, it was which school offers the best education.

I am also done debating here, I think you offer a great resource on this board and my intention is not to keep you from doing that in any manner. I think some posters here slightly over rank the SA's, and I felt it was only fair, to the kids who come here for information, to try and post a slightly different, and probably more main stream view.

Again, you didn't actually read the methodology. So I'll address your points.

1. If money were the only factor, sure, kids would want to stay at a SA because it's free. But money is FAR from the only factor. Ask a freshman at Yale or a plebe at USAFA which freshman year makes people want to leave more. Ask about quality of life. Then you might see that "mom and dad's checkbook" is far from the only factor. The SAs, because of their system, are at as much of a disadvantage in early student departures from quality of life than their lack of tuition can counteract. 50 members of the class quit after 3 weeks this year.

2. The salary issue. That's where you really need to read the metrics. The average salary is split into two parts, salary in the first 1-4 years and average salary at 10-19 years. That means that the "guaranteed job in the army" only affects half of that metric, the 1-4 years part. After that, each university's graduate is free to pursue any career he or she chooses. Considering that about 50% of a class will be in the Army at 10-19 years, the SAs lose their advantage based on the plateau of the military pay scale. The average salary of an Army officer in the 1-4 years realm is about a whopping $48,000 before housing allowance, and 57,000 if you count BAH. How much of an advantage do you think those salaries give to the SAs, given that it can only affect 7.5% of the study? Do you suppose that the average Harvard grad's salary is so far below that number? I would venture to guess that the average Harvard or MIT grad's salary is greater than that in the 1-4 year realm, though as you might have surmised I don't believe in guessing about facts.

3. I'll grant you that low loan rates do help the SAs.

4. Four-year graduation rate? Really? Let's see...last year USMA ranked 55th in 4-year graduation rate (data from US News available here: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/highest-grad-rate). That put USMA with a worse 4-year graduation rate than Princeton, Yale, Penn, Duke, Harvard, Chicago, Brown, UVA, and MIT to name some notables. So explain to me how USMA had some advantage in that category?

So, no, 48.5% of the SAs rankings are based on their structure. 17.5% will be. Otherwise, they are on par or at a slight disadvantage in comparison to more lenient civil institutions.

So, like I've said in the past, argue facts, please. Not supposition. It's fine if you don't like the Forbes rankings. Look at any other rankings you want. You still won't be able to back up your outrageous claim that the SAs would only "probably" be in the top 50 among academic institutions in this country.

If you want to be viciously obstuse because you have a bone to pick with the Service Academies, you're welcome to do so. Just don't do it here.
 
Last edited:
I know I am attacking the hornet's nest, but here goes.

1. Scout and Moose you both have valid points, but seriously do either of you think anyone's position will change with this back and forth?

Keep going at it, have a blast.

2. Here is where I am ready for :rocket::argue1::guns4::blowup: come at me.

Moosetache said:
I am also done debating here, I think you offer a great resource on this board and my intention is not to keep you from doing that in any manner. I think some posters here slightly over rank the SA's, and I felt it was only fair, to the kids who come here for information, to try and post a slightly different, and probably more main stream view.

scoutpilot said:
If you want to be viciously obstuse because you have a bone to pick with the Service Academies, you're welcome to do so. Just don't do it here.

Moose was IMPO very polite to you, admitting you are a great resource, you on the other hand, IMPO told them to shut up and color in the corner.

They defended ROTC and colleges, just like you with the SAs, but from the opposing position. You told them to not do it here on a ROTC forum. Key word ROTC. Where else is Moose to do this according to you? SA, Off Topic, or on a forum you are not a member? I am right aren't I, this is the ROTC forum, and not USMA, correct?

Yeah, yeah, I know, Pima spoke and we must all get on board, yadda, yadda, yadda same as always whenever I disagree with you. Flame on, tell me I am only a wife, and a Mom, never served a day AD. Got it, and soon I will have a T-shirt made to say it too! Go for me full flame, but before you tell me on a ROTC forum I know nothing, remember you did not go ROTC, and your anecdotal info is not living 4 yrs as a ROTC parent paying college, just friends from HS yrs. You have no clue just like Moose has no clue about the SAs. Goose meet gander, gander meet goose.

That doesn't release you from being rude to Moose when you couldn't see they took the high road and stated a positive about you in their post.

Heck, let's push it more...Mods, time to lock this thread. We are hurting our future military members with this type of in fighting.

AGAIN, to the OP. AROTC does not guarantee AD and the SA does. AFROTC and NROTC guarantees AD upon commissioning!
 
Last edited:
I know I am attacking the hornet's nest, but here goes.

1. Scout and Moose you both have valid points, but seriously do either of you think anyone's position will change with this back and forth?

Keep going at it, have a blast.

2. Here is where I am ready for :rocket::argue1::guns4::blowup: come at me.





Moose was IMPO very polite to you, admitting you are a great resource, you on the other hand, IMPO told them to shut up and color in the corner.

They defended ROTC and colleges, just like you with the SAs, but from the opposing position. You told them to not do it here on a ROTC forum. Key word ROTC. Where else is Moose to do this according to you? SA, Off Topic, or on a forum you are not a member? I am right aren't I, this is the ROTC forum, and not USMA, correct?

Yeah, yeah, I know, Pima spoke and we must all get on board, yadda, yadda, yadda same as always whenever I disagree with you. Flame on, tell me I am only a wife, and a Mom, never served a day AD. Got it, and soon I will have a T-shirt made to say it too!

That doesn't release you from being rude to Moose when you couldn't see they took the high road and stated a positive about you in their post.

Heck, let's push it more...Mods, time to lock this thread. We are hurting our future military members with this type of in fighting.

AGAIN, to the OP. AROTC does not guarantee AD and the SA does. AFROTC and NROTC guarantees AD upon commissioning!

That would be a great t-shirt.

I didn't say anything about coloring in a corner or not posting. I said don't be viciously obtuse. That means don't make up facts, ignore the facts presented to you, or otherwise engage in juvenile martyrdom like "Oh, you're right, I guess no one can argue blah blah blah." Of course anyone can argue. Discourse is the point of the forum. Just...you know...argue in the realm of fact and in light of the information presented.

I must have missed that SAF rule that someone's previous acerbic commentary is forgiven if their last post closes with a mild compliment.
 
Scout,

No you didn't say shut up and color that was my words. You did say:
scoutpilot said:
Just don't do it here.

To me that is shut up and color in the corner. Where else are they suppose to do it? You literally told them "DON'T DO IT HERE". Your words, own them.

It is your right to think they were being vicious; don't know why you feel that way with their post, but you also need to accept that this is their opinion. School rankings are subjective, you know that, they chose to disagree with your position.

I am not trying to pull Aglahad in here, but did you miss his post to you?
Aglahad said:
Your care factor is at a 10 ( on a 1-10 scale) right now let's step it down to a 2 or 3. Pull the big guns out on a debate that actually matters without the circular logic and anecdote ridden expanse that is third party school rankings.

Irony is I agree with you scout regarding SAs academics. You hurt IMPO the military with your ROTC quality comments. I highly doubt you want to fly with a pilot because they have a ring knocker. I highly suspect you want to fly with the best, ring knocker or not you couldn't care about when it comes to the mission.
 
I think the argument actually has merit, and I'm not trying to stir anything up.

Someone comes in and make wild, unsupported claims that SA's are not Top 50 schools and nowhere near Ivy's. An SA grad provided a third party ranking asking why person A thinks SA's are overrated. Person A alluded actual facts by throwing percentages into the argument without actually looking at how those percentages were broken down. The SA grad then, in great detail, broke things down factually proving SA's are in fact very good institutions ranked against Ivy schools and agreed they may not be the best, but definitely worthy of Top 50 ranking.

Just me thinking aloud though...I found it interesting and entertaining.
 
Scout,

No you didn't say shut up and color that was my words. You did say:


To me that is shut up and color in the corner. Where else are they suppose to do it? You literally told them "DON'T DO IT HERE". Your words, own them.

It is your right to think they were being vicious; don't know why you feel that way with their post, but you also need to accept that this is their opinion. School rankings are subjective, you know that, they chose to disagree with your position.

I am not trying to pull Aglahad in here, but did you miss his post to you?


Irony is I agree with you scout regarding SAs academics. You hurt IMPO the military with your ROTC quality comments. I highly doubt you want to fly with a pilot because they have a ring knocker. I highly suspect you want to fly with the best, ring knocker or not you couldn't care about when it comes to the mission.

No, I didn't miss his post. I just don't feel the need to respond. I will care about the topics I feel like caring about, and he/she can do the same. He/she is free to think I care too much about someone's claim on a site called "Service Academy Forums" that the SA's can't compare to his/her favorite institutions. Aglahad is free to care as much or little as he/she likes about that same topic.

As to your first point, you're darn right I said "Don't do it here." I am not trying to be condescending here, but did you forget that that sentence didn't stand alone? I said that Moostache is free to be viciously obtuse in his opinions on service academies. I then said he/she shouldn't do it here. To put it in context: this is a site about the factual merits of SAs and other commissioning sources. Tell me that it's incorrect to tell someone to stop being obtuse about the subject and argue on fact on a site such as this, where young people go for factual information.

As to your flying point, I don't know what you're driving at. I also don't know what "they have a ring knocker" means. You're free to disagree with my opinion on the quality of ROTC. Please note, though, it was not a statement that ROTC cannot match the quality of SA graduates (I said quite the opposite), but that ROTC graduates have a wider variance in the quality of graduate owing to the structure of ROTC itself, e.g. USMA only produces USMA graduates, whereas ROTC produces Stanford and MIT graduates, but also produces and Northwestern State (Louisiana) and Southern Connecticut graduates. Among those programs, not only does the quality of student vary widely, but there is also variance in the quality of ROTC instruction.

I'm not quite sure how pointing out a known structural characteristic of ROTC hurts the military. Can you explain that further?
 
I don't know what criteria Forbes and US News are using is measuring "world-class facilities", but my criteria center around football stadium capacity (with a sub-set of % seats occupied during a home game, nothing worse than a very big and very empty stadium), ease of getting a tee-time on a Sunday morning at the school's golf-course (sub-set: how many carts does that course have), and the average number of different beers on tap in the basements of the school's fraternities.

To each his own. :thumb:

BTW, I'm just a little disappointed that no one has rebutted my point on the Designated Hitter rule... :mad:
 
I don't know what criteria Forbes and US News are using is measuring "world-class facilities", but my criteria center around football stadium capacity (with a sub-set of % seats occupied during a home game, nothing worse than a very big and very empty stadium), ease of getting a tee-time on a Sunday morning at the school's golf-course (sub-set: how many carts does that course have), and the average number of different beers on tap in the basements of the school's fraternities.

To each his own. :thumb:

BTW, I'm just a little disappointed that no one has rebutted my point on the Designated Hitter rule... :mad:

The DH isn't even worth talking about. Nor has the DH helped the AL in the All Star game or all time world series results.
 
Scout,

I still stand by my position, time to let this thread die. We are not assisting any candidate regarding their collegiate decision.


OP asked a question, it was answered, now IMO, if you want to discuss how OML works for AROTC compared to SA, I think that is a valid point, especially since the OML is national and their cgpa is part of the equation.

You want to keep fighting about rankings regarding Forbes, Money and USNW&R, have at it too! It is your time you are spending spinning your wheels.

C'mon, honestly, do you think you changed Moose's position? Do you think you will ever change their position?
 
but that ROTC graduates have a wider variance in the quality of graduate owing to the structure of ROTC itself, e.g. USMA only produces USMA graduates, whereas ROTC produces Stanford and MIT graduates, but also produces and Northwestern State (Louisiana) and Southern Connecticut graduates. Among those programs, not only does the quality of student vary widely, but there is also variance in the quality of ROTC instruction.

Been gone for a while, things sure got interesting.

I have to say, Scout is pretty spot on in his assesment of ROTC in the statement above. Tho only thing I would add is that it dosen't always mean that the graduate from a Stanford will always be a superior officer then the graduate from a lesser known school. He really hit the nail on the head when he said there is a variance in the quality of officers that graduate from ROTC. There are great officers that graduate from both upper and lower tier schools and the reverse is the same. I agree that USMA has an avantage due to the fact that every cadet receives the same training, unlike ROTC.

Bullet,

Now that Edgar Martinez retired years ago they can scrap the designated hitter and go back to baseball the way it should be played.
 
I don't know what criteria Forbes and US News are using is measuring "world-class facilities", but my criteria center around football stadium capacity (with a sub-set of % seats occupied during a home game, nothing worse than a very big and very empty stadium), ease of getting a tee-time on a Sunday morning at the school's golf-course (sub-set: how many carts does that course have), and the average number of different beers on tap in the basements of the school's fraternities.

Seconded.

Especially the part about cart availability. No one can walk a full 18 holes after a saturday night at a major public univeristy!
 
Back
Top