First Assignments from West Point

The SA grads are the one I would think the services want to keep past their ADSO.
What is the rationale there? All commissioning routes produce equally fine officers; there is nothing special about graduating from a service academy once out of it.

Also, the academies have determined that five (or whatever the minimum length of service required by the branch) is sufficient payback for the cost of the education, and the services absolutely depend on a certain amount of attrition after those minimums are met. There are not enough slots for every officer to move up the ranks or make a long-term career of that service. That’s the way pyramids work. The military has been in this business a while and appears to be satisfied with how the model works.
 
The new branching system was ridiculous from the start and destined to failure. It is a fancy way of replacing merit with equity.

Those force branched under a merit system have a clear understanding of the reason for the outcome and can better accept the results.

One phrase I have always disliked - "The needs of the Army." Too often this is used to excuse the ineptness of petty functionaries too lazy to work a problem.
 
ROTC provides the bulk of the officer corps. A reduction in retention and interest in SA's due to a stupid branching system would be bad. Doing the same to ROTC would be devasting.
ROTC uses a market-based system now. Unclear whether forced branching occurred at comparatively equal levels across ROTC and USMA.
 
As for force-branching of women:
1. could it be due to more enlisted women in combat arms, so it's reasonable to have proportionately more women officers in it too
2. countries where we currently have combat deployments need more women officers due to cultural aspects where women will be more effective? Like, some cultures don't allow women to talk to men, having women officers would solve this among other similar issues

As for ROTC vs academy branch choices, I agree that more ROTC should be force branched since there's just more of them, if openings need to be filled. I don't know why most go into NG or reserve (by their choice) when DoD is still paying for their training. Is there a law that dictate this? 🤔 (Just my logical opinion ofcourse, I have a son whose applying to ROTC and one cadet in USMA).
 
As a follow-up since I don't have military background, I also don't understand why they say in ROTC that getting Active Duty status is competitive yet force branching in academies occur. So why doesn't the service just send those ROTC grads to Active Duty status?
 
As a follow-up since I don't have military background, I also don't understand why they say in ROTC that getting Active Duty status is competitive yet force branching in academies occur. So why doesn't the service just send those ROTC grads to
 
Academies produce their fair share of turds to be blunt. The worst officer I ever knew was a West Pointer large on ego and short on competence. More to the point, USMA gets its quota of branch assignments as does ROTC and OCS. USMAs compete against each other only for branches as they all are guaranteed Active Duty on I-Day. ROTCs compete against each other for Active Duty (about half must go NG/USAR) and once selected again compete for branches of choice. In the past, omls ruled the day on branch selection. It appears WP has taken a hard turn away from this most likely for non-national defense related reasons.
 
The decision to move away from purely academic standing for branch selection was not for non-national defense related reasons. Using purely academic standing, for example, resulted in some Cadets being “punished” for selecting more difficult STEM majors while rewarding those who took “easier” majors.
There is also the aspect that some people just may not be suited for certain branches. A history major without an extensive computer background won’t be selected for Cyber no matter their GPA.
The active duty versus reserves for ROTC is a complex subject. Each year the DOD comes out with end strength goals for each rank based upon needs of the military, projections of future needs (you don’t just produce an O-4 overnight), and federal law.
West Point numbers are locked in four years prior, so they adjust very little. Some years retention is better than others, but it’s fairly consistent. ROTC numbers can be adjusted a little easier. My year getting active duty was somewhat competitive. DWs year they were so short LTs that she was actually forced on active duty in spite of her “guaranteed reserve” scholarship. Finally, OCS can easily be throttled to adjust needed numbers, increasing when the need is great such as a war, then throttling back during peace. Yes, I know there are other means of getting a commission, but those numbers are relatively small.
 
The decision to move away from purely academic standing for branch selection was not for non-national defense related reasons. Using purely academic standing, for example, resulted in some Cadets being “punished” for selecting more difficult STEM majors while rewarding those who took “easier” majors.
There is also the aspect that some people just may not be suited for certain branches. A history major without an extensive computer background won’t be selected for Cyber no matter their GPA.
The active duty versus reserves for ROTC is a complex subject. Each year the DOD comes out with end strength goals for each rank based upon needs of the military, projections of future needs (you don’t just produce an O-4 overnight), and federal law.
West Point numbers are locked in four years prior, so they adjust very little. Some years retention is better than others, but it’s fairly consistent. ROTC numbers can be adjusted a little easier. My year getting active duty was somewhat competitive. DWs year they were so short LTs that she was actually forced on active duty in spite of her “guaranteed reserve” scholarship. Finally, OCS can easily be throttled to adjust needed numbers, increasing when the need is great such as a war, then throttling back during peace. Yes, I know there are other means of getting a commission, but those numbers are relatively small.
My understanding is OMLs are not based solely on GPA. While hypothetically possible, a high-OML history major choosing cyber may be possible but seems improbable. There really aren't that many branches where your undergrad degree matters, at least in the Army. You don't need to be a mechanical engineer to be a combat engineer. The Navy is obsessed with STEM majors and classifies officer applicants on what they want to major in. The Marines don't care about your major. Not sure how AF sees it. Obviously, each service needs some specialists to do the geek stuff and officers need STEM basics to be competent. Your descriptions of supply and demand is spot on. It is worth noting that many ROTCs don't want active duty and many USMAs just want to get out as soon as possible. Paid college is quite an incentive. This is likely where lots of branch dissatisfaction comes from.
 
The OML advantage for non-STEM majors exists, but is not as great as you would think.

If I recall correctly, OML at West Point is 55% academic, 30% leadership, 15% athletic. Additionally, those who choose non-STEM majors still take the same STEM preparatory courses as STEM majors - Calculus, Physics, Chemistry. The coursework for the first two years is quite similar. Non-STEM majors also and take a 3 course engineering sequence, although usually not as rigorous as the STEM equivalents.

Since branches are chosen during 1st semester Firstie year and Cow year still has core courses, the only real difference in coursework is about 6 courses. Assuming a significant difference in difficulty of those courses, the impact on OML is lessened by the 55% academic weighting.
 
Since branches are chosen during 1st semester Firstie year and Cow year still has core courses, the only real difference in coursework is about 6 courses. Assuming a significant difference in difficulty of those courses, the impact on OML is lessened by the 55% academic weighting.
Gotta disagree with you there. I took 14 engineering courses before I branched. They were all significantly more challenging than any core course and had great impact on many of my major peers' OMLs and branches for those on the cusp. Cadets should select a major where they know they will excel. OML still matters in branching.
 
What is the rationale there? All commissioning routes produce equally fine officers; there is nothing special about graduating from a service academy once out of it.

Also, the academies have determined that five (or whatever the minimum length of service required by the branch) is sufficient payback for the cost of the education, and the services absolutely depend on a certain amount of attrition after those minimums are met. There are not enough slots for every officer to move up the ranks or make a long-term career of that service. That’s the way pyramids work. The military has been in this business a while and appears to be satisfied with how the model works.
I do not disagree with you in that "fine officers are produced in all the ascension programs". There are also those "less than fine" officers produced in every ascension program. The issue IMHO opinion is that those individuals attending SA's are more "immersed" in their service (24-7-365) than their ROTC or OCS/OTS counterparts. We had son's in both NROTC and USMA, the son at USMA excelled, loves the service, got any needed help when needed (even during COVID), and is on track to graduate and got his first choice in branch. The son who was in NROTC, is a engineering double major who during COVID struggled as every class was online, and 0 help was available. In addition, his NROTC Cadre was little or no help in assisting with his academic struggles, only did NROTC stuff twice a week, provided no summer training (again COVID), and when he tried to get help with different things was not provided what my wife and I (both military vets) thought appropriate. He had a 2.7 GPA while in NROTC and was overloaded with the NROTC and Academic workload and didn't get any help from Cadre and became extremely frustrated. He ended up leaving NROTC. A year and a half later he has a 3.4 GPA and rising, has a fantastic internship that gives him outstanding academic support, and still has the option of OCS or Direct Commission if he chooses that path.

These are just my thoughts..... Those people who desire to attend SA's (for the most part) seem to get a higher level of basic training and help when needed than ROTC or OCS candidates. This is overcome by BOLC, where everyone is highly trained in whatever branch or specialty they are going into as well as advanced schools and grad schools. So once in duty status, there isn't much difference between Commissioning sources, but it seems to appear that the services are trying to get SA's grads to serve more than their initial ADSO, and modifying service assignment and branching may be the way they are trying to do this. I personally do not feel the new methods are for any "Equity, equality, or other non defense related reasons", but rather to try and fit people in a position they are most likely to succeed and remain in the service.
 
I do not disagree with you in that "fine officers are produced in all the ascension programs". There are also those "less than fine" officers produced in every ascension program. The issue IMHO opinion is that those individuals attending SA's are more "immersed" in their service (24-7-365) than their ROTC or OCS/OTS counterparts. We had son's in both NROTC and USMA, the son at USMA excelled, loves the service, got any needed help when needed (even during COVID), and is on track to graduate and got his first choice in branch. The son who was in NROTC, is a engineering double major who during COVID struggled as every class was online, and 0 help was available. In addition, his NROTC Cadre was little or no help in assisting with his academic struggles, only did NROTC stuff twice a week, provided no summer training (again COVID), and when he tried to get help with different things was not provided what my wife and I (both military vets) thought appropriate. He had a 2.7 GPA while in NROTC and was overloaded with the NROTC and Academic workload and didn't get any help from Cadre and became extremely frustrated. He ended up leaving NROTC. A year and a half later he has a 3.4 GPA and rising, has a fantastic internship that gives him outstanding academic support, and still has the option of OCS or Direct Commission if he chooses that path.

These are just my thoughts..... Those people who desire to attend SA's (for the most part) seem to get a higher level of basic training and help when needed than ROTC or OCS candidates. This is overcome by BOLC, where everyone is highly trained in whatever branch or specialty they are going into as well as advanced schools and grad schools. So once in duty status, there isn't much difference between Commissioning sources, but it seems to appear that the services are trying to get SA's grads to serve more than their initial ADSO, and modifying service assignment and branching may be the way they are trying to do this. I personally do not feel the new methods are for any "Equity, equality, or other non defense related reasons", but rather to try and fit people in a position they are most likely to succeed and remain in the service.
This is true. I was ROTC and the SAs probably spend more money on a Cadet/Midshipman plebe summer than ROTC spent on me over my entire time.
My DD commented that the ROTC cadets were good people but, due to COVID, they lacked many basic military skills such as just how to put your rucksack together. Many had never fired a weapon before BOLC. Almost none of them had taken the ACFT, the new Army fitness test.
It’s not to say an ROTC graduate can’t make up this difference, and many of those attending SAs do not take advantage of the opportunities given.
 
Gotta disagree with you there. I took 14 engineering courses before I branched. They were all significantly more challenging than any core course and had great impact on many of my major peers' OMLs and branches for those on the cusp. Cadets should select a major where they know they will excel. OML still matters in branching.
Agree that a cadet should choose a major where they can excel. Just as there are those who don't excel at STEM courses, there is no shortage of STEM majors who dread humanities courses - I much preferred Experimental Fluid Mechanics and Thermodynamics to Philosophy and my grades in each confirmed that preference.

I did not say that major choice had no affect on OML, just that the 55% academic weighting mitigated much of the difference, along with the smaller number of elective courses compared to core courses prior to branching (for most cadets). Since all cadets take core courses, there is no advantage/disadvantage between majors regarding core courses and OML. I realize there are those who validate courses or select advanced versions (i.e. Jedi math), but that is a personal choice that should be made just as wisely as choice of major.

If you took 14 engineering courses from Plebe through Cow year, you did not take a typical cadet curriculum and were presumably among the group satisfying West Point's goal for "Scholars" and are not the average cadet.
 
Back
Top