Officers from USAFA and AFROTC

I have a question. Would the exact same person be a "better" officer going one direction or the other? In other words, would they be in better physical shape, would they be more ethical, would they be "smarter" (academically speaking), better long term leaders, etc.

Of course their will be trade-offs.

Is the academy population self-selecting? It's a reasonable question.

Keep in mind the Coast Guard doesn't have an ROTC program, so I have to compare CGA to Coast Guard OCS.

I'm not going to try to argue which program has better people. I know of at least one (but I think I know of two) people who went to CGA, were disenrolled, and eventually attended OCS. They were "good enough" for CGA, but they were good enough for OCS. She isn't the most impressive officer, but then, not all CGA-produced officers were either.

I can also think of at least one instance of an officer candidate having some kind of "honor violation" that, as a cadet, would have forced him out, but as an OC... he lived to see another day. That sent ripples through the Corps of Cadets.

And I know from talking to OCS grads, especially about the Coast Guard Academy Alumni Association's publication "The Bulletin" that OCs often feel like second class citizens. That makes sense when we think about the Bulletin, because the Bulletin isn't for OCs... its for CGA grads.

The first ship I was stationed on had a Citadel-produced ex-Navy officer, turned CG enlisted, turned OCS grad commanding officer (an O-5 eventually promoted to O-6). The XO was also an OCS grad, and also prior enlisted. The OPS was an OCS grad, no prior experience, and the EO was a mustang (I think direct commission). Five of the JOs were academy, and the other three or four were OCS. The CGA grads didn't make much of the academy upbringing (except for the fact that we all knew eachother, either as classmates or adjacent classes) and the senior members in the wardroom, the CO and XO, as well as the EO didn't bring it up either. The OPS on the other hand (remember, the guy with no prior military experience), always had something to say about his time at the Academy (Coast Guard OCS occupies a small wing of Chase Hall, where the CGA cadets live). Eventually, after a number of little jabs, he was asked to produce his class ring... and after that toned it down a bit. Generally, when OCs made fun of cadets from "Canoe U." or "the Factory" they were asked how Summer Camp in New London was.

My experience as a cadet, and then as an officer, was Coast Guard Academy generated officers tended to down-play where they came from with other members of the Coast Guard, unless it was a number of academy grads... then they might tell some stories.

Once I left my cutter and went to CGHQ in D.C., I started to wear my ring again.

I agree that an Academy education prepares you better for that initial tour, because you've been living and breathing "military" for four years. That said, we tended to be less developed socially (we thought all the girls loved us and our manly uniforms....) and our fashion senses were hurting...

But after the inital shock to new members of the military, I would guess comissioning sources in some measures, even out. Academy grads have a better network, both within their academy and with other ring-knockers, and they have a good looking start for their resume. After that it's all about performance, academy, OCS, direct commission or ROTC...
 
Noblesse oblige

I have a little different opinion about this thread.

Historically US academies came from European countries.
Which was started for the education of the royal families.
Noblesse oblige!!

ROTC is another way to be an officer.

To be an officer, yes, it could be the same. However,
if we consider the root of the philosophy,
this is totally different path.

Just my 2 cent opinion...

Delta
 
But after the inital shock to new members of the military, I would guess comissioning sources in some measures, even out. Academy grads have a better network, both within their academy and with other ring-knockers, and they have a good looking start for their resume. After that it's all about performance, academy, OCS, direct commission or ROTC...

I agree with LITS' post and especially the quote above.
(Disclaimer: ROTC commissioning path)

I would also share that I certainly ran into some academy grads that put too much stock in that "I have been living 4 years in the military" comment. It came off as arrogance and hurt their assimilation into the active duty (with both peers and enlisted personnel).
 
I agree with LITS' post and especially the quote above.
(Disclaimer: ROTC commissioning path)

I would also share that I certainly ran into some academy grads that put too much stock in that "I have been living 4 years in the military" comment. It came off as arrogance and hurt their assimilation into the active duty (with both peers and enlisted personnel).

I wonder how much of that was preconceived bias.
 
I wonder how much of that was preconceived bias.

"I've been living four years in a military environment" isn't something I would share with the crew of my ship.

I made the mistake of talking about cadet rank as a very very junior cadet. It's something I regretted and remembered as a cadet later, and then as an officer.

People develop opinions of cadets and midshipmen based on past experiences. I think I did an OK job, after some growing pains on my ship, of being a decent, even-handed officer. That said, the mistakes we make, and the mistakes past cadets (or cadidiots) and midshipmen made follow us and future cadets and midshipmen around. The dumb actions of a Air Force Academy cadet 5 years ago shades how other officers and enlisted members will view future cadets. It's a bias, but it's sometimes earned (but certainly not always).
 
I think all in all, each officer coming into active duty from either the academy or ROTC, is going to have a unique assimilation.

Considering that 50%+/- of the entire academy graduating class will be rated officers, (Pilots, and the like), I can't speak for life on a navy/coast guard ship; or life in the army/marines. But in the air force, bases get smaller the longer you're there. In time, everyone knows most everyone. "Depending on your job". If you meet a butter-bar (O-1) fresh out of the academy or ROTC, unless you're at a training base, they won't be pilots or similar. By the time a pilot and such makes it to an operational base, they'll almost have 2 years in. Plus, they don't let them out much. LOL!!!

The other officers who did come recently from the academy or ROTC are pretty few and far between. You're talking about 500 Lt's spread out among hundreds of stateside and overseas assignments. Honestly, you don't see a lot of fresh LT's coming on a base. So most times, whether they are academy or ROTC, they are pretty reserved, shy, and overwhelmed by the experience. Of course, you do have that ocassional dingle berry that thinks they are all that and a bag of chips. That usually only lasts until the first time they open their mouth in front of the wrong person at the wrong time. And it doesn't have to be a higher ranking officer.

Again; army, navy, and coast guard might be a bit more noticeable, but in the air force, it's not really that much of an issue. As I mentioned previously, it all depends on the LT's job, as to how much exposure s/he will get to the "General Population". They definitely aren't in the position yet of significant responsibility and command. At least not in the air force. I don't think it's a big issue in the air force. We handle it pretty well.
 
I think all in all, each officer coming into active duty from either the academy or ROTC, is going to have a unique assimilation.

Considering that 50%+/- of the entire academy graduating class will be rated officers, (Pilots, and the like), I can't speak for life on a navy/coast guard ship; or life in the army/marines. But in the air force, bases get smaller the longer you're there. In time, everyone knows most everyone. "Depending on your job". If you meet a butter-bar (O-1) fresh out of the academy or ROTC, unless you're at a training base, they won't be pilots or similar. By the time a pilot and such makes it to an operational base, they'll almost have 2 years in. Plus, they don't let them out much. LOL!!!

The other officers who did come recently from the academy or ROTC are pretty few and far between. You're talking about 500 Lt's spread out among hundreds of stateside and overseas assignments. Honestly, you don't see a lot of fresh LT's coming on a base. So most times, whether they are academy or ROTC, they are pretty reserved, shy, and overwhelmed by the experience. Of course, you do have that ocassional dingle berry that thinks they are all that and a bag of chips. That usually only lasts until the first time they open their mouth in front of the wrong person at the wrong time. And it doesn't have to be a higher ranking officer.

Again; army, navy, and coast guard might be a bit more noticeable, but in the air force, it's not really that much of an issue. As I mentioned previously, it all depends on the LT's job, as to how much exposure s/he will get to the "General Population". They definitely aren't in the position yet of significant responsibility and command. At least not in the air force. I don't think it's a big issue in the air force. We handle it pretty well.

LMAO. I'm surprised by your choice of the word 'chips'. Thought you were going somewhere else with that one. :biggrin:
 
The service academies can also be seen as a repository for the professional military officer corps. Those "others" who are not without influence are also without majorities who support their view (for the economic impact of SA's, as well as their view about their importance to the nation). So the "influence" of those who would eliminate the SA's is limited by the lack of consensus. While there are certainly less expensive ways to commission officers, it should not be lost in the debate that upon balance the pluses outweigh the minuses with regard to the value of military academies.

Institutions and traditions have been successfully attacked in this country in ways unthinkable 10 years ago. It is naive to assume that the SAs are immune to this because their supporters seem to be a majority.

Do ROTC programs produce quality officers? Of Course! Do the SAs produce some stinkers? Of course! I was hoping that the SAs and SMCs would be more strongly defended than I have seen so far. Do the SAs produce more career officers? Are the rated officers a stronger group because of SA grads?

My concern is that the military budget is the most vulnerable target to fund social programs. The proposed cuts to Coast Guard fleet and air modernization plans (1/3, I have read) is an example of this vulnerability.
 
Of course, any cuts in defense spending, is in turn "Funding" for social programs. That's a given. Number 1 rule of power is to ensure those you have power over,,,,,,, NEED YOU. There will not be cuts in social programs. And with ObamaCare being pushed so hard for full implementation, and the CBO and other experts admitting that the country can't afford or fund it; it will receive it's funding from things like defense cuts. The country, at this time, has no idea on how to reduce the debt. Nor do they care to try.

The only hope we have in the military community; is that those in decision making positions in the military, haven't become so complacent and indoctrinated by the politics, that they too make decisions on WHERE to spend the limited resources, based on political reasons instead of for operational reasons.
 
Institutions and traditions have been successfully attacked in this country in ways unthinkable 10 years ago. It is naive to assume that the SAs are immune to this because their supporters seem to be a majority.

Do ROTC programs produce quality officers? Of Course! Do the SAs produce some stinkers? Of course! I was hoping that the SAs and SMCs would be more strongly defended than I have seen so far. Do the SAs produce more career officers? Are the rated officers a stronger group because of SA grads?

My concern is that the military budget is the most vulnerable target to fund social programs. The proposed cuts to Coast Guard fleet and air modernization plans (1/3, I have read) is an example of this vulnerability.

Having served in the Military in the late 1970's till near the turn of the century, my sample size is a bit bigger than the past 10 years. After Vietnam and especially in the Carter administration, the military, which includes the service academies were under huge stress for resources, so while sequestration is a particularly blunt mechanism for controlling the budget, those of us who served in the 1970's have seen this before. As for better defending the SA's and SMC's, I think their history and the success of their graduates is a better defense than anything I can add.
 
I dunno... seems like maybe some of these budget-related conversations concerning the military have a bit too much doom and gloom in them.

The reality is that every country, empire, kingdom, etc has wrestled with this topic throughout history. Our own history in the US is full of examples of the same.

Change is never easy. But somehow through it all, we have managed to maintain the finest military in the world; even when many of our friends and rivals have had to make devastating defense cuts that have literally crippled vast swaths of their military.

Will there be more changes in defensse spending in the US? Smart money says, you betcha.

But let's have a little faith that our leadership (civillian and military) is not bent on reducing us to a nation-state that must rely on others for protection. It's hard to imagine a scenario of defense cuts in the foreseeable future that would not still leave us with the greatest military on the planet.
 
Last edited:
And every one of the great civilizations, have eventually fallen.

There is perhaps no better example of this than Medieval China. In the 1400's when the largest armies in Europe had less than 50,000 men at arms still using swords and bows, China had a million man army, brass canon, and massive ships whose rudders were longer than the largest European ships, add to that the technology of the compass, extensive maps of the known world, and the knowledge of gunpowder, China was the superpower of the 1400's. But China turned inward, to focus on their own social programs, there was the false belief that there was no need to engage the rest of the world. By the 19th century, China was a paper tiger, partitioned by other states, unable to protect it's people, only recently (over 500 years later) has China reemerged as an economic power.
 
Good and bad officers come from all commissioning sources.

From an individual point of view, I think the important thing is which route is best suited to develop each individual. I also think a diversity of sources and experiences is a healthy thing for developing the services. I notice that people from different backgrounds identify and analyze things differently, and it usually helps to listen to a couple different ideas when trying to solve problems.
 
Good and bad officers come from all commissioning sources.

From an individual point of view, I think the important thing is which route is best suited to develop each individual. I also think a diversity of sources and experiences is a healthy thing for developing the services. I notice that people from different backgrounds identify and analyze things differently, and it usually helps to listen to a couple different ideas when trying to solve problems.

+1 couldn't agree more!
 
Back
Top