- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
True. True dat!
ROTC vs SA Difference?
- Thread starter dlee96
- Start date
True. True dat!
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
Men care about pucks.
Boys and their balls it always comes back to that...Golf, BBall, FBall, etc.
All you ever care about!
You left out Pool/Billards
A good round of golf for me is:
1. Making it through the course without losing all my balls.
2. Leaving the course with no broken clubs
3. Not getting lost
4. Cold beer served in a frosty mug at the 19th hole
We were deprived, we had no golf courses at any of our Coast Guard Stations, we did however have a Pool Table.
-Bull-
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,431
I found this interesting paragraph on the Cadet Command website, under History of ROTC: http://www.rotc.usaac.army.mil/history.aspx
"Today, Army ROTC has a total of 273 programs located at colleges and universities throughout the 50 states, the District of Columbia , Puerto Rico with an enrollment of more than 35,000. It produces approximately 60 percent of the second lieutenants who join the active Army, the Army National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserve. More than 40 percent of current active duty Army General Officers were commissioned through the ROTC.
Of even greater importance is that ROTC trained and educated officers bring a hybrid vigor to our officer corps by drawing on the strength and variety of our social fabric. This reduces the natural tendency of armies to drift into inbred professional separatism. Cadet Command accomplishes this by combining the character building aspects of a diverse, self-disciplined civilian education with tough, centralized leader development training. This process forges a broad-gauged officer who manifests the strength and diversity of the society from which he or she is drawn as well as the quality of strong officer leadership."
Clearly the Army sees value in having officers who bring with them the social and other skills developed within a civilian training environment. Each has its distinctives: The Academy is more cloistered socially, more hands on in direction and discipline, and more intense in specific military training. The ROTC is more open socially, less hands on (thus requiring a greater development of self-discipline -- which is a hugely important skill) but less intense in specifically military training.
The question is -- which set of experiences....Academy or ROTC, makes a better officer in the long run? Nobody has ever satisfactorily answered that question. To answer it, one would need to find that subset of ROTC commissioned officers who present the same initial quality at 18 -- that is the same strength of S-A-L as WP commissioned officers, and track their progress though 40 years. Not sure how one would do that... perhaps there are sufficienct numbers of officers who were accepted into both ROTC and WP, and chose one or the other. Tracking the evaluations of these these dual acceptance ROTC officers would be an interesting project that would control for quality of 18 year old raw material, with the only difference being training environment, and then track effectiveness over an officer career.
What if... *ON AVERAGE* ROTC officers of the same initial (as 18 yr. olds) quality as WP officers turn out to have more successful Army careers? Or *ON AVERAGE* the opposite? It certainly would be an interesting read. Unfortunatly, I don't think it would be meaningful. The issue is one of FIT. Some 18 year olds fit better at the Academy, and some in ROTC. Fit trumps everything else, since no person is an AVERAGE person.
"Today, Army ROTC has a total of 273 programs located at colleges and universities throughout the 50 states, the District of Columbia , Puerto Rico with an enrollment of more than 35,000. It produces approximately 60 percent of the second lieutenants who join the active Army, the Army National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserve. More than 40 percent of current active duty Army General Officers were commissioned through the ROTC.
Of even greater importance is that ROTC trained and educated officers bring a hybrid vigor to our officer corps by drawing on the strength and variety of our social fabric. This reduces the natural tendency of armies to drift into inbred professional separatism. Cadet Command accomplishes this by combining the character building aspects of a diverse, self-disciplined civilian education with tough, centralized leader development training. This process forges a broad-gauged officer who manifests the strength and diversity of the society from which he or she is drawn as well as the quality of strong officer leadership."
Clearly the Army sees value in having officers who bring with them the social and other skills developed within a civilian training environment. Each has its distinctives: The Academy is more cloistered socially, more hands on in direction and discipline, and more intense in specific military training. The ROTC is more open socially, less hands on (thus requiring a greater development of self-discipline -- which is a hugely important skill) but less intense in specifically military training.
The question is -- which set of experiences....Academy or ROTC, makes a better officer in the long run? Nobody has ever satisfactorily answered that question. To answer it, one would need to find that subset of ROTC commissioned officers who present the same initial quality at 18 -- that is the same strength of S-A-L as WP commissioned officers, and track their progress though 40 years. Not sure how one would do that... perhaps there are sufficienct numbers of officers who were accepted into both ROTC and WP, and chose one or the other. Tracking the evaluations of these these dual acceptance ROTC officers would be an interesting project that would control for quality of 18 year old raw material, with the only difference being training environment, and then track effectiveness over an officer career.
What if... *ON AVERAGE* ROTC officers of the same initial (as 18 yr. olds) quality as WP officers turn out to have more successful Army careers? Or *ON AVERAGE* the opposite? It certainly would be an interesting read. Unfortunatly, I don't think it would be meaningful. The issue is one of FIT. Some 18 year olds fit better at the Academy, and some in ROTC. Fit trumps everything else, since no person is an AVERAGE person.
Last edited: