ROTC vs SA Difference?

dlee96

5-Year Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
260
I obviously know that the quality between ROTC and SA's are huge, but since it is RESERVE-OTC, 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?
 
In other words, does going to an SA guarantee the new 2nd Lieutenant active duty and ROTC giving a chance at active duty?

Well you got that part of your question correct.
 
I obviously know that the quality between ROTC and SA's are huge, but since it is RESERVE-OTC, 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?

If you attend a service academy or a military college (VMI, Citadel, etc) you do not have to compete for an Active Duty slot. If you attend a "regular" college and commission through ROTC, you must compete for an Active Duty slot. Only the top 10% of ROTC graduates are guaranteed Active Duty. You don't find out that you are in the top 10% until OCT/NOV of your Senior year. Until that point, you are competing.
 
I obviously know that the quality between ROTC and SA's are huge

I'm sure putting that in your personal statement will eliminate you from consideration from both...

Now repeat the following statement 100 times before making another such statement on SAF

Discretion is the better part of valor
 
I'm sure putting that in your personal statement will eliminate you from consideration from both...

Now repeat the following statement 100 times before making another such statement on SAF

Add in another 100 times of...

Better to remain quiet and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
 
I obviously know that the quality between ROTC and SA's are huge, but since it is RESERVE-OTC, 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?

The EXPERIENCE is much different between SAs and ROTC, however the quality of the officers produced doesn't have a "huge" gap. Basically SAs are 24/7 military, ROTC trains you to become an officer and PTs you (oversimplification, I know) but otherwise you get to experience civilian college life.
 
@Goaliedad, Jcleppe, -Bull-

I meant no disrespect to any current, former, and future ROTC/SA cadet/member. I merely meant that the quality of the SA's are held in higher regard than ROTC.

Considering the plethora of fine officers the US military has seen from both, Colin Powell, George Marshall, etc, there is no distinction of the commissioned officer from both pathways.

If I have insulted any member on the forum (which I see I have), I apologize and have no excuse regarding my erroneous behavior.

Please accept my deepest bereavement when I say that I regret my askew statement.
 
@Goaliedad, Jcleppe, -Bull-
I merely meant that the SA's are held in higher regard than ROTC.

This doesn't really help your cause. ROTC is held in pretty high esteem because of the difficulty to attain a scholarship, pass through the program, and become a commissioned officer. Also, just say sorry instead of all the unnecessary vocab, it doesn't make it sound any better.
 
Ahh, but still officers commissioned through the SA's are expected to do more and expected to be better than officers commissioned through ROTC just because they were commissioned through a SA. I'm not saying that SA>ROTC because I've heard stories of BS SA officers and magnificent ROTC officers.
It's just that fine difference between an SA and ROTC. If one were better than the other, the government could have done away with SA's and made it law to have ROTC at every university/college in the US; or expanded the number of cadets accepted to the SA's and do away with ROTC. It's just the difference of experience, both can produce good and bad officers.
 
Ahh, but still officers commissioned through the SA's are expected to do more and expected to be better than officers commissioned through ROTC just because they were commissioned through a SA.

After graduation there are times when it don't matter whether you went to an SA, SMC, College or even completed high school. In those tough situations certain people rise when everyone else fall.
 
@Goaliedad, Jcleppe, -Bull-

I meant no disrespect to any current, former, and future ROTC/SA cadet/member. I merely meant that the quality of the SA's are held in higher regard than ROTC.

Considering the plethora of fine officers the US military has seen from both, Colin Powell, George Marshall, etc, there is no distinction of the commissioned officer from both pathways.

If I have insulted any member on the forum (which I see I have), I apologize and have no excuse regarding my erroneous behavior.

Please accept my deepest bereavement when I say that I regret my askew statement.

No need for an apology, though I will say that was a nice recovery.

Just remember one thing....

When you stand in front of your platoon, they are not going to care one bit where you received your commission, they are going to care how you lead, and how you respect the men and women under your command.

Marist gave you the best answer regarding Active Duty.

Ahh, but still officers commissioned through the SA's are expected to do more and expected to be better than officers commissioned through ROTC just because they were commissioned through a SA.

Now that one is just plain false.

Once you graduate from either the SA or ROTC you will go to BOLC for your branch, you will train along side every commissioning source. The instructors could care less where you came from, they expect the same from every trainee. Competition at these BOLC's is fierce and this year ROTC commissioned nearly 3 times the number of Active Duty officers then USMA.

USMA has it's advantages and so does ROTC.
 
Last edited:
Ahh, but still officers commissioned through the SA's are expected to do more and expected to be better than officers commissioned through ROTC.

This statement is not correct. All officers regardless of commissioning source are expected to uphold the same Army Values and meet the exact same standards specified by regulations or unit policy.
 
@Goaliedad, Jcleppe, -Bull-

I meant no disrespect to any current, former, and future ROTC/SA cadet/member. I merely meant that the quality of the SA's are held in higher regard than ROTC.

Considering the plethora of fine officers the US military has seen from both, Colin Powell, George Marshall, etc, there is no distinction of the commissioned officer from both pathways.

If I have insulted any member on the forum (which I see I have), I apologize and have no excuse regarding my erroneous behavior.

Please accept my deepest bereavement when I say that I regret my askew statement.

Put the vocabulary book on the ground and step back slowly. Don't make any sudden disambiguations
 
Ahh, but still officers commissioned through the SA's are expected to do more and expected to be better than officers commissioned through ROTC just because they were commissioned through a SA. I'm not saying that SA>ROTC because I've heard stories of BS SA officers and magnificent ROTC officers.
It's just that fine difference between an SA and ROTC. If one were better than the other, the government could have done away with SA's and made it law to have ROTC at every university/college in the US; or expanded the number of cadets accepted to the SA's and do away with ROTC. It's just the difference of experience, both can produce good and bad officers.

I will repeat myself... Say this 100 times before posting again.

It is better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt

And I'll add one more quote to be recited 100 times

The first thing one should do when stuck in a hole is to stop digging

Marist is absolutely correct about the expectations being the same regardless of source of commission. The rank and paycheck are the same as well.

Both train young adults in the skills to be good leaders. It is up to the graduate to execute on that training. Additionally, both sources have the responsibility to weed out bad officers if they see them. You will not commission if your cadre find you to be unfit to lead others regardless of your grades or APFT.
 
I mean this in no disrespect to you, but please, just stop. I'd suggest not taking this further. You've tried to apologize and yet continued to dig yourself deeper. Over and over. Just don't press any button that says "Reply".

You obviously have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Start with simple questions first, we'll work from there.


West Point is an excellent place. I'd argue the best school in the nation. I'm named after a WP grad. 4 of my good friends are cadets. I've got family that are professors there. I'm no expert (by far) on WP, but have a general understanding. This thread should not turn into a pissing match. Both programs are different for a reason and ultimately because of the different cultures between the programs, the Army benefits.
 
I saw the title and knew this wasn't going to be good. As a WP grad do you have a better shot at making general over some ROTC grad? Ya probably, but the fact of the matter is all officers receive the same commission and are expected to fulfill their duties and branch assignments according to the regulations set forth as well as pay heed to the commands above them.

This is a troll/ inane question which I do not care to elaborate on further. I am sure the search feature and google will more then answer your "question".


The apology format makes you seem pretentious, sorry will do. If you get into USMA (which looks like your goal) please don't be one of THOSE WP cadets...
 
Last edited:
bereavement, askew, plethora, erroneous
those are a lot of SAT words right there :smile:

OK, I think I know what you meant, but the fact is there is a lot of debate about whether the SAs or ROTC produce the best officers in the field, over the long run.

I have read Army Staffing studies, reports, etc. and here are the conclusions I recall:

- SAs produce better O1s and possible O2s than ROTC-Scholarship does in the first year or two of active duty service. This is attributed to the more intense military focus of the SA vs. ROTC, rather than the inate capability of the officer.
- By the time both sources of commission reach O3, there is no perceptible difference in military bearing, military skill, culture, effectiveness, staff management, or by any other measure between a SA produce O3s and ROTC - Scholarship produced O3s.
- There is a large difference in perceived quality of Officer between Scholarship and Non-Scholarship cadets at all levels.

So, having addressed what I think you meant in your question, you have to ask yourself whether you would more apprecate the environment of the SA vs. an equally academically rigorous college or University... say anything ranked in the top 75 in US News.
 
Back
Top