Army ROTC 2nd Board Results!

OPFOR6 said:
If they hold too much back now, they might not meet their recruiting numbers. That will be a promotion killer for everyone in the chain of command. Again, the Army, keeps rolling along. The need for LT's across the Army won't diminish.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, I'm not sure if they even have held back without looking at the numbers from last year. They awarded 1,003 this second board which seems in line when reaching the same 3,000 awarded as last year. The real question is just how many applicants are there.
 
OPFOR6 said:
If they hold too much back now, they might not meet their recruiting numbers. That will be a promotion killer for everyone in the chain of command. Again, the Army, keeps rolling along. The need for LT's across the Army won't diminish.
Click to expand...
I understand that, but I think the pattern so far is holding consistent with years past. The vast majority of scholarships are 3-year and awarded on Board 3. Although this year is different, I don't think the end result of the Boards will be vastly different than years past.
 
OPFOR6 said:
If they hold too much back now, they might not meet their recruiting numbers. That will be a promotion killer for everyone in the chain of command. Again, the Army, keeps rolling along. The need for LT's across the Army won't diminish.
Click to expand...
CC wants quality cadets. They will not bend on that. The expectation has been, is, and will be for the programs to recruit and make up any difference. They have to do 1000’s anyway, a few hundred more is nothing. We are 2 years from having the Army G1’s commissioning requirement for mission set 2025. We’ll get it down (or close at least).
 
OPFOR6 said:
If they hold too much back now, they might not meet their recruiting numbers. That will be a promotion killer for everyone in the chain of command. Again, the Army, keeps rolling along. The need for LT's across the Army won't diminish.
Click to expand...
No one has been fired for missing mission. CC routinely misses mission. Relax. The national board awards less than 1/2 the scholarships than the commissioning mission is 4 years down the road. This is not a big deal. The programs will make the numbers up like the system requires.
 
Montana State Army ROTC said:
CC wants quality cadets. They will not bend on that. The expectation has been, is, and will be for the programs to recruit and make up any difference. They have to do 1000’s anyway, a few hundred more is nothing. We are 2 years from having the Army G1’s commissioning requirement for mission set 2025. We’ll get it down (or close at least).
Click to expand...
So, you would agree with leaving a few million dollars, already appropriated for this exact purpose, on the table in the hope that the schools could make up the difference? Hope is not a method.
 
Montana State Army ROTC said:
No one has been fired for missing mission. CC routinely misses mission. Relax. The national board awards less than 1/2 the scholarships than the commissioning mission is 4 years down the road. This is not a big deal. The programs will make the numbers up like the system requires.
Click to expand...
Fired and a bad OER block are two different things. You know that.
 
OPFOR6 said:
So, you would agree with leaving a few million dollars, already appropriated for this exact purpose, on the table in the hope that the schools could make up the difference? Hope is not a method.
Click to expand...
The majority of scholarship money is given to the programs for on campus scholarships anyway. They’ll just move it there. Again, not a big deal.
 
AcademyHopefulCO25 said:
@Montana State Army ROTC , you wouldn't happen to know the average stats for 3 year scholarship winners, would you? I believe a lot of us would like to compare where we stand to both scholarship winners. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Not answering for @Montana State Army ROTC - My 2 cents - Good question. Of the 1194 scholarships awarded, only 450 are 3 year. Those who received four-year scholarship offers averaged a 1399 on their SATs with a 3.81 GPA. The vast majority of the remaining will be 3-yr, so that data will be available after Board 3. Based on years past, the SAT/ACT is going to be lower - in the 1250-1300 range and GPA in the 3.5 range.
 
hrtly said:
Well yeah, I'm not sure if they even have held back without looking at the numbers from last year. They awarded 1,003 this second board which seems in line when reaching the same 3,000 awarded as last year. The real question is just how many applicants are there.
Click to expand...
Great question.
 
OPFOR6 said:
Great question.
Click to expand...
Greater than 3000 but less than 7000.

Way too much thought going into this. As @Montana State Army ROTC stated - the majority of scholarship dollars go to the programs for on campus scholarships. A lot less risk in a cadet who has been in the program for 1,2 years vs a high-school kid with a 1400 SAT. When the dust settles, I am 95% sure that the stats and numbers for this years class will be very similar to years past.
 
Montana State Army ROTC said:
Plenty of PMS’s go to command battalions after missing mission. Quality will always trump quantity.
Click to expand...
Miss mission and still get promoted must be some kind of "new Army" stuff. But, it's a new world out there, I guess. I'm not going to go down the old man road of "in the old days...." LOL.
 
OPFOR6 said:
Miss mission and still get promoted must be some kind of "new Army" stuff. But, it's a new world out there, I guess. I'm not going to go down the old man road of "in the old days...." LOL.
Click to expand...
The missing mission statement was referring to selecting quality candidates over numbers. Come on @OPFOR6 - you get that.
 
Honestly, it seems the take-away here is that the 553 who were awarded 4-yr scholarships in this round were highly qualified. With excellent test scores and grades. I hope my DD is one of them, but I am sure that each and every one of those 553 is well deserving and that the ROTC programs will be lucky to have them.
 
OPFOR6 said:
If they hold too much back now, they might not meet their recruiting numbers.
Click to expand...
I don't have any dog in the fight this year, but I'm dubious that your reasoning stands up to much scrutiny. As I understand your concern, it is that too many of the 3AD winners from the third board (and I believe that's all they offer on the third board, particularly given the math that EEBTTF set forth) will be lost to "better offers" that they will have already accepted. Consider me skeptical. While certainly good applicants (my son was a 3AD winner last year as a matter of fact), they are not on the whole as strong as the 4 year winners are. (As a matter of fact, academic stats for 4 year winners across all services exceed their SA counterparts' stats, which a lot of people don't realize.) And those have all already been awarded . . . for precisely the reason you mention. So I think your concern about losing winners on the last board is overblown.
 
Last edited:
EEBTTF said:
The missing mission statement was referring to selecting quality candidates over numbers. Come on @OPFOR6 - you get that.
Click to expand...
I completely get that, understand it, and support it. However, it is wildly different than my experience at this level. It's true at Ranger School and the Q-Course, but not here (in my experience from many years ago).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top