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.
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.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.
Agreed.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.