Am I making the right choice?

[kinnem]

It's not a question of "can" but a question of "are far more likely to." It's not a question of the institutions themselves, but of the type of student those institutions attract. The fact remains that some schools attract better cadets than others.

So its not the institutions but the caliber of people they attract. So by that logic OP, who was attracted to WP and was evidently accepted, could do as well by going to ROTC as WP? Frankly I think he could if he felt he would thrive in the selected environment. Can leadership and command be taught? Absolutely. Are there innate abilities that can make an officer more effective? Absolutely.

If ROTC doesn't turn out effective officers then I might submit its because you elite warriors are incapable of establishing an effective program.

I actually think that at this point no one's comments are serving the OP unless its to demonstrate which path might yield the stronger allegiance to a school (yes, I'm going out of my way to express what I think kindly). Its time to quit pissing in each others shoes.

 

[scoutpilot]

If you're competing for a "Major" slot, as I stated earlier, wouldn't your body of work be immensely more important than where you went to school 15 years prior?

I am not disputing the numbers, but rather the rationale for dismissing years of performance from which to rate their leadership and performance capability because the outstanding officer just happened to go to Colorado State or Illinois.

That doesn't compute, therefore it is probably sound reasoning in today's world.

You are missing my point, I think. The point is not where those degrees came from. It's what type of MBA student gets into Harvard and what type of MBA student gets into Southern Miss. Again, we're speaking about averages, but the fact remains that the guy who comes out of Harvard will by and large be brighter, more driven, and better prepared than his Southern Miss counterpart.

As far as competing for BZ selection to major, that happens at the 8 or 9 year mark, not 15 years. Secondly, the point is not that Guy X went to USMA and Guy Y went to UNLV. The point is that Guy X got into USMA because he's smart, driven, and dedicated. Then USMA honed him into the best officer they could make him in the four years they had to work with him. He then took those skills (both innate and learned) and produced that 8 or 9 year body of work to which you refer. The body of work that got him selected early to major is a result of the skills and training he received. Some ROTC folks obviously get selected. Some OCS folks do too.

The point that was being made, and I think it's a fair one, is that if we want to judge outcomes we have to determine an intelligent starting point. In a system where your body of work is a direct reflection of your intelligence, drive, and skills, it only makes sense to compare those young men and women who were academically and physically the equal of their SA counterparts...i.e. the scholarship AROTC cadets at top tier universities. Comparing an uncontracted cadet from SUNY Nowhere to a USMA cadet is likely to be a poor comparison to begin with, and thus the difference in their career outcomes doesn't tell us much.

Or to put it simply, the finish line is meaningless if the starting lines are too different.

 

[scoutpilot]

So its not the institutions but the caliber of people they attract. So by that logic OP, who was attracted to WP and was evidently accepted, could do as well by going to ROTC as WP? Frankly I think he could if he felt he would thrive in the selected environment. Can leadership and command be taught? Absolutely. Are there innate abilities that can make an officer more effective? Absolutely.

If ROTC doesn't turn out effective officers then I might submit its because you elite warriors are incapable of establishing an effective program.

I actually think that at this point no one's comments are serving the OP unless its to demonstrate which path might yield the stronger allegiance to a school (yes, I'm going out of my way to express what I think kindly). Its time to quit pissing in each others shoes.

I think now you're simply being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse, or you think that I am somehow disparaging your son for not being on scholarship or at SA. The latter is not the case, so I suppose that only leaves the former.

ROTC turns out many effective officers. They probably turn out a greater number of effective officers than USMA, though a lesser percentage of effective officers (ROTC commissionees are about 3 times the size of USMA, so even if they only manage a 50% success rate they'll turn out a larger cadre of effective officers than what USMA turns out with its generally high success rate, though I am sure ROTC's success rate is quite a bit higher than 50%)

The question of raw material is important. As I stated, this other school is pursuing this young man hard, trying to sell themselves as somehow being better than West Point. For that school, attracting him is an aspiration. They know he can go to a more rigorous and (in their view) "desirable" place like USMA. They want him to come there because he's obviously top-tier talent and they want to attract the same kind of talent USMA does...they just know that when USMA is in the discussion, they have far less chance of actually landing him.

So the question for the OP is...do you want to be in an environment that challenges you? Or do you want to be in an environment where you'll have to find ways to be challenged? Do you want to be a big fish in a smaller pond, or a small fish in a bigger pond?

Remember...fish grow, ponds don't.

 

[cb7893]

And so what if that makes those institutions elite? This is the world's best military. Elite is what we do.

Scout, sometimes you can be a xxxx (I say this with great affection), but you are usually pithy and always worth reading. When I asked those questions before, my goal was to provoke the exact discussion we just got.

I think that the military is a reflection of the country itself. The basic ethos of this country is based on wide open opportunities. That may be a myth, but it's a myth we have to keep believing, and myth we need to constantly strive to make real.

I remember back in the 90's. My mother-in-law was visiting from Poland. There was piece on the news about the appointment of John Shalikashvili to Chairman of the JCS. She could not understand how a country with the greatest military in the world could choose a non-native born person with a funny accent to the highest position in that military. (By the way, he did not go to an elite school and was OCS.)

My answer was simple. That's precisely why it is the greatest military. The best can rise to the top. A Pole built West Point for crying out loud.

You are correct. We can generally extrapolate end results based on the uneven starting lines but the race is too long to adequately predict the outcome. It would be a shame if our institutions, military or otherwise, were to take the easy route of pushing folks through the system based on the starting lines. Read the Malcolm Gladwell books.

 

[kinnem]

The question of raw material is important. As I stated, this other school is pursuing this young man hard, trying to sell themselves as somehow being better than West Point. For that school, attracting him is an aspiration. They know he can go to a more rigorous and (in their view) "desirable" place like USMA. They want him to come there because he's obviously top-tier talent and they want to attract the same kind of talent USMA does...they just know that when USMA is in the discussion, they have far less chance of actually landing him

Well I can certainly agree with that statement at least.

 

[MemberLG]

. . .
I think that the military is a reflection of the country itself. The basic ethos of this country is based on wide open opportunities. That may be a myth, but it's a myth we have to keep believing, and myth we need to constantly strive to make real.
. . .

A side discussion, the military is not a reflection of the country itself. It's a volunteer force and I don't buy the argument that some folks are forced to join the military. There was a study done by a think tank sevearl years ago and I believe that the number showed that the middle class had the highest precentage of military volunteers relative to its population.

 

[scoutpilot]

Scout, sometimes you can be a xxxx (I say this with great affection), but you are usually pithy and always worth reading. When I asked those questions before, my goal was to provoke the exact discussion we just got.

I think that the military is a reflection of the country itself. The basic ethos of this country is based on wide open opportunities. That may be a myth, but it's a myth we have to keep believing, and myth we need to constantly strive to make real.

Thank you for your kind words.

As a counter, I would say that this country is also largely adherent to the idea that the key to success in the long term is education. In that vein, we should expect that the best institutions will accept only the best talent and seek to produce the best product, in the form of folks who will by and large be more successful than those who were trained and educated in less rigorous and demanding institutions (with notable exceptions from both camps, as Mr. Gladwell would point out).

 

[BigNick]

Interesting and emotional discussion.
I think views are coming from people with greatly differenty backgrounds - some like Scoutpilot and me are WP graduates and experienced Army officers. Others are candidates, parents, and people with other backgrounds. All opinions are welcomed and many good points are being made by a variety of people. However, I agree for the most part with Scoutpilot. To have real insight into WP and the Army you must have lived that life. That does not mean that others can not express their opinions, but future Cadets should pay close attention to the people who have actual experience in this area.
Of course, there are very successful officers from ALL sources of commission. Of course there are poor officers from ALL sources of commission. The point is however, in my view, that the best place to prepare for a career in the Army is West Point. ROTC training is MUCH LESS INTENSE AND COMPREHENSIVE than the training at West Point. I believe that if you took two people of exactly equal abilities, inteligence, dedication etc, that the one that went to West Point would amost surely be a more successful Army officer than the ROTC officer. Again, that does not mean that every WP officer is better than every ROTC officer.

 

[FlyBoy1993]

I too appreciate the exchange of different POV's.

I don't mind stepping out there to ask a question, even when the answer may seem obvious.

I also value the experience of so many on here, specifically Scoutpilot in this thread. Discussing it objectively and honestly, helps others make better informed decisions.

 

[kinnem]

Interesting and emotional discussion.
I think views are coming from people with greatly differenty backgrounds - some like Scoutpilot and me are WP graduates and experienced Army officers. Others are candidates, parents, and people with other backgrounds. All opinions are welcomed and many good points are being made by a variety of people. However, I agree for the most part with Scoutpilot. To have real insight into WP and the Army you must have lived that life. That does not mean that others can not express their opinions, but future Cadets should pay close attention to the people who have actual experience in this area.
Of course, there are very successful officers from ALL sources of commission. Of course there are poor officers from ALL sources of commission. The point is however, in my view, that the best place to prepare for a career in the Army is West Point. ROTC training is MUCH LESS INTENSE AND COMPREHENSIVE than the training at West Point. I believe that if you took two people of exactly equal abilities, inteligence, dedication etc, that the one that went to West Point would amost surely be a more successful Army officer than the ROTC officer. Again, that does not mean that every WP officer is better than every ROTC officer.

I agree with all that BigNick. I agree that on average WP produces a better officer. If I go back to my original point, not everyone who might make a good officer will thrive at WP. Some will even fail for no other reason than its not an environment where they will perform well academically, physically, etc etc. Some people who do ROTC will be successful in part because they are in a less regimented or intense environment. Others in ROTC will fail exactly because they need a more ordered environment. The only point I was trying to make, evidently not very well, is that in addition to all the other good points made by posters, OP should also consider which environment would suit him best. If the environment is not a factor for OP then by all means go to WP. Peace.

 

[patentesq]

jwilkes101, I don't think there is a single USMA grad who has both the ROTC and the USMA experience to render any definitive advice for you. By the same token, there is not a single ROTC grad who also has the USMA experience to render any definitive advice for you. Neither has any greater knowledge than the other about which is the better path for you, and anyone who professes to "know more" is probably not giving good advice. All we can do is provide advice based on our own individual experiences. You, of course, should remain free to accept or reject that advice.

What I think you should definitely do is visit all of the schools in which you have an interest and attend FRESHMAN-level classes. As you do so, ask yourself the following questions:

1. Is it better to learn from a grad student in a classroom of 150-200 in a civilian school than a small class of 15-20 at USMA? Is it better to take a Calculus class from a Nobel Prize Winner than an Army Medical Service Corps member?

2. Are you able to handle the required academic courses at USMA? Or are you science/math averse?

3. Do you prefer a structured environment to keep you motivated? Will you be lost in a non-structured environment and potentially form bad habits, which can potentially lead to a lower GPA?

4. Is ROTC at a civilian school considered an "extracurricular activity" or "varsity sport" such that you are at a competitive disadvantage (time-wise) when compared to, say, your classmates who will be studying all weekend while you are playing around in the woods?

5. Comparing the military training among the two, is it better to train basically 24/7? Or is leadership lab enough?

6. If you plan to make the military a career, which would likely give you a preference on branch selection, USMA or ROTC? Which is the more definite route to obtaining an active duty slot, USMA or ROTC?

7. When push comes to shove in the military downsizing effort, which has a higher chance of losing program funding, USMA or ROTC? In this regard, the advice of the past few years can be entirely unreliabile, because both commissioning sources provided equal opportunities while our nation was at war. The situation is MUCH different now.

8. If you don't plan to make the military a career, is a four-year commitment better than a five-year commitment? You might think that four is better than five, but also learn about what impact that will have on things like the GI Bill eligibility, etc.

Different individuals willl reach different conclusions about each of these issues. Keep in mind, though, that the ROTC cadre you meet will try to explain how great their program is, because the viability of their program rests on whether they can successfully recruit quality people. USMA, on the other hand, doesn't have that pressure (there is a mile-long line of candidates waiting to occupy your slot, many of whom frankly likely have HIGHER academic credentials than you do).

Finally, folks can cite examples where USMA grads have done better just as easily as examples where ROTC grads have done better. In my own experience, the SMC grads were the top of my Infantry battalion. But I think that was an unusual circumstance. In other situations, the USMA grads were better. In still other situations, the ROTC folks came out on top. Many SMC grads will also say that the plebe training at an SMC is more difficult than the plebe training at USMA. But I frankly think it all equals out in the end. The one thing I can say is that my DS has had MANY more experiences for internships at USMA than I ever did at my SMC. I expect that a USMA cadet, coming from a federal institution, will have many more opportunities than students from some of the largest civilian universities.

Take all the viewpoints you can find on this and other threads and form your own judgment about which path suits your ultimate goals. Once you make your decision, move forward with that decision and never look back.

Once you graduate, though, just know that you are at the SAME level as any other 2LT. You will be tested virtually every day. Do not think for a minute that being a Harvard or USMA grad means you are better than the gal/guy from Podunk State. The odds will be that you are not. The reason I say this is that, in the coming years, the 2LT coming from Podunk State will have had to overcome many more obstacles and levels of "pruning" in order to reach his/her dream of 2LT than you did at USMA or Harvard. The 2LT from Podunk State is often, frankly, "hungrier" and feels "less entitled" than most you have ever encountered. Do not underestimate that. This is what usually happens during a downturn.

Good luck to you. Thank you for your willingness to serve.

 

[cb7893]

Once you graduate, though, just know that you are at the SAME level as any other 2LT. You will be tested virtually every day. Do not think for a minute that being a Harvard or USMA grad means you are better than the gal/guy from Podunk State. The odds will be that you are not. The reason I say this is that, in the coming years, the 2LT coming from Podunk State will have had to overcome many more obstacles and levels of "pruning" in order to reach his/her dream of 2LT than you did at USMA or Harvard. The 2LT from Podunk State is often, frankly, "hungrier" and feels "less entitled" than most you have ever encountered. Do not underestimate that.

Nicely put counselor. Sage advice to graduates of all elite institutions who believe they can outperform the dairy farmer's kid, who graduated from Podunk State.

 

[Jcleppe]

Patentesq touched on this in his post.

One of the lergest considerations you need to think about is Active Duty. If you are only interested in Active Duty then the choice is clear.

West Point is guaranteed Active Duty, ROTC is not.

At West Point you can graduate at the bottom of the class, min. GPA, min. APFT, and mid to low leadership skills, you will still graduate a 2nd LT and you will be on Active Duty.

Graduate at the bottom of the class in ROTC and you will be forced Reserves, if you commission at all. As the Army tightens it's belt in the future it will not be unreasonable to see only those that graduate in the top 50% plus get Active Duty. Cadet Command will not care if you went to Harvard, MIT, UW, or as Scout put it "West Idaho Tech" if your below that cutoff mark you will not get AD. Get a 3.0 GPA, a 250 APFT in ROTC and you will see yourself in the reserves.

It doesn't matter how poorly you do at the Academies as long as you reamin within standards you will get Active Duty as a 2nd LT.

So if Active Duty is what you want above all else, and you don't want to risk having to be in the top half of cadets in the nation to get Active Duty then go to West Point, it's the safe choice.

Patentesq,
For this past year ROTC Branch selection had a high level of satisfaction. A large percentage received one of their top 3 choices. 333 cadets were guaranteed their top choice. Every branch available to West Point was available to ROTC Cadets.

 

[patentesq]

Thanks to you both, cb7893 and jcleppe.

Jcleppe, you made the active duty argument more effectively than I did. I agree that if a cadet really wants an active duty slot in the U.S. Army, attending USMA should be a no-brainer in the current environment. Although the SMCs that you and I attended now have a statutory guarantee of active duty (which wasn't the case in our day), we haven't seen yet how that statute will play out in the coming years yet when push comes to shove (so there is uncertainty about it). Of course, for the civilian ROTC school, there is NO guarantee.

As an aside, it sure is amazing to think that the likes of George A. Custer and George S. Patton, given their lower rankings among their peers during their day, may have had a challenging time of gaining an active duty slot in this day and age if they had gone the ROTC route. But they eventually worked out okay in the finest traditions of USMA (I expect to get flamed here from scoutpilot about Custer's less-than-stellar reliance on his scouts, though). I suppose different folks blossom at different stages in their careers, and OML ranking as a cadet may not always be an accurate predictor of one's performance as an active duty officer (what counts is the grad's performance on active duty).

On the branch selection issue, I understand that the Army is currently making changes to that process, both at USMA and at ROTC. But I don't have the current information about this, so I can't say how this will impact the "USMA vs. AROTC" debate. Your numbers for the Class of 2012 are encouraging, though!

I do want to add one more point about civilian schools that bears on the point made earlier that the average of smart kids attending the so-called "elite" schools.

From my perspective as a parent this past year, it seems that the cost of education is playing a prominent role here that we haven't really seen in the past. As the cost of tuition at private colleges continues to increase at a staggering rate, I have seen more and more very smart kids making the choice to attend a local school than opt for the ivy league experience. At my son's high school last year, for example, I think there were 1 or 2 kids who were admitted to an ivy league school but ultimately decided to attend a local state school because the cost of attendance was substantially lower. I expect that this is happening around the country.

What this means is that we may be seeing a demographic shift here, making it even more prominent as fewer parents of "star" students can afford the cost of private schools (symptomatic of an increasingly strained middle class in our country). Unlike in the past, those students who think that they will necessarily receive top grades if they attend a local school (under the fallacy that the top high school grads attend the so-called "elite" schools) may, in fact, be in for a surprise because I expect that the quality of students at local schools will go up as the cost of attendance at the so-called "elite" schools goes up.

We are also seeing the phenomenon that Army ROTC is actively pushing aspiring Army officers into lower-priced schools (for federal budgetary reasons), leaving smart kids with the choice of incurring $200,000 in debt for attending a so-called "elite" school or gaining a "free ride" at the local state school. In that regard, scoutpilot's "average" argument (while quite accurate based on historical data) may not prove to be true in the coming years. Of course, we are seeing this shift in real time, and your guess is as good as mine how this will ultimately play out.

cb7893, your point about the dairy farmer's kid is a very good one and made the point more succinctly than I did above.

 

[cb7893]

Patent, that is a nice bow on this package.

 

[dunninla]

Do you really believe that or was that a tongue in cheek comment.

You want people to believe that only cadets that graduate from some self perceived elite university can compete on a level playing field for advancement. You might want to let the number of cadets from those elite schools that didn't make the cut for Active Duty or missed the top 10% let alone the 20% that because of their school choice they will be sent to the head of the line.

It's a given that the old boy's network will live on, no one can argue that. The fact that people believe that only certain universities and ROTC programs can produce officers worthy of advancement gives the term elite a whole new meaning.

I'm not sure which part you disagree with, so I'm going to guess it is the part I have bolded. No, I don't agree with your bolded statement. What I believe, as has been stated by other posters after you asked the question, is that on AVERAGE cadets from elite universities are stronger in S-A-L than those from universities that are ranked below where West Point is ranked... which is somewhere in the top 100 Universities and Liberal Arts Colleges in the country. Exactly where WP can be ranked is not at issue... it is a top 100.

So, in response to ScoutPilot noting that WP grads are fast tracked into O4 much quicker than ROTC or OCS commissionees, I responded that the comparison was not fair. You have to compare WP grads with ROTC grads who COULD HAVE QUALIFIED FOR APPOINTED TO WP but instead went ROTC... for many reasons -- familial responsibilities, desire to balance military preparation with civilian environment, or other good reasons to go ROTC vs. Academy.

Since you asked, my feeling is that the top half of the ROTC class from any top 100 University/College will track equally with Ring Knockers. Then the top 25% from the 100-200 ranked Universities, etc. That is on AVERAGE. My daughter turned down a top 25, Berkeley, for a University barely in the top 100, and I don't believe it will have any effect on her ultimate progression through the ranks. It's all on her. But on AVERAGE, the cadets from the top 25 University she turned down will probably do slightly better as a group than those in her much lower ranked University. But who cares about GROUPS and AVERAGES? I don't think they are relevant to her choice, or to OPs. She is not an average cadet at her school, nor would she be at Berkeley. It's all on her individual performance. Her cousin, who dreamed of designing or flying jets, had the same choice... Berkeley NROTC or AFROTC, USNA, or USAFA, and chose USNA. Who knows how he would have done at Berkeley vs. USNA? It is an unanswerable question. He did just fine at USNA and got his community first choice (Aviator) but took a side trip to MIT to get his Engineering Masters prior to reporting to Pensacola.

The reason generally that I say this is that top colleges and WP generally use similar selection criteria -- Scholar, Athlete, Leader. WP has more of a balance, whereas civilian colleges put much more weight on the Scholar aspect. But they're close enough.

I do believe the LEADERSHIP training at the Academy will be superior. The SCHOLARSHIP preparation part is probably superior at a Top 25 University than at USMA, about the same at a 25-75 ranked University, and a little better at USMA than at a school ranked 75 and higher. I haven't given it too much thought but my gut impression is that ROTC at a quality school *CAN* better prepare an officer for levels O4 and above in those posts where interaction with the civilian world, with civilian culture and the tricky problems of maneuvering within civilian authority structures, is critical. I think O1 and O2 are much in the favor of the Academy grad since they will have received much more training in the military mental and especially psychological skills needed at O1 and O2 than the ROTC (and especially OCS) commissioned officer will have.

A cadet at a #132 ranked university in the top 20% (DMG) of his/her ROTC Battalion is probably on par with the #480 on the OML at WP. My position is that they will track equally, ON AVERAGE, through their career in the Army. There are some in this #132 ranked University Battalion that will rise faster than the #50 graduate at WP, and there are some in the #900s at WP that will rise faster than the #1 ranked cadet at a quality ROTC program. I agree JCleppe that it all depends on the individual, but we're talking AVERAGES.

Now, back to OP's dilemma. If OP decides to go ROTC, I do not believe it will impair his chances of fast tracking to O4 vs. attending WP. ScoutPilot and BigNick I think disagree with that. That's fine. My point is that to find the answer to that question, you'd have to have identical twins, one who went WP and the other who went ROTC at Cornell, or Bucknell, or Berkeley.

jwilkes101, I don't think there is a single USMA grad who has both the ROTC and the USMA experience to render any definitive advice for you. By the same token, there is not a single ROTC grad who also has the USMA experience to render any definitive advice for you. .

actually we DID have a poster on this thread who did 1 year of ROTC at a highly ranked school, and transferred into WP... it is post #27 on page 3. The problem is this poster said he's make the same choice again, but did not say why or give any specifics that may or may not pertain to OP. Still, you are correct we don't have a poster who did the full program at both, nor is it even possible. I still think we would need twins as described above to better understand how each program differently affected the similar raw material.

 

[dunninla]

I'm going to try to summarize the points made in favor of WP vs. ROTC or OCS that I recall from this thread:

- 1. consistent military environment
- 2. guaranteed Active Duty
- 3. more consistent quality of officer b/c of more consistent Appointee
- 4. better summer training opportunities (Airborne, etc.)
- 5. Ring Knocker network
- 6. close bonds formed with dozens, perhaps 100+ alums
- 7. prized by civilian employers post-Army career

- one that I will add: 8. the Professorial interaction is superb.

Response from ROTC from an elite college (let's just say top 100)

- 1. consistent challenge to integrate military and civilian culture, which ability becomes critical in the new Army where solving civilian problems (e.g. in Iraq) is part of the Mission (more on this in the penultimate paragraph below)
- 2. while only 15% were "forced" reserve or Guard in 2011, the number is expected to rise. Still, if a cadet can't make top 70% to avoid forced reserves/guard, perhaps the desire to serve has been exposed more than the S-A-L qualities, or the fit just isn't there and it is better for the cadet not to be put, despite their dreams and desires, into an ill fitted environment. Nothing to fear here for the motivated, well fitted future officer.
- 3. I don't know if you can say the quality of officer is better via USMA than via ROTC at a top ranked college, so moot point
- 4. point given
- 5. point given except to reiterate many posters noting that some Universities and Colleges have very strong alumni networks as well (VMI, A&M, Ivy, Stanford, MIT, Notre Dame, and a few more)
- 6. point given.
- 7. this is a tossup. Civilian employers would view a degree from top 10 universities as more desirable/impressive than WP, from the next tier, say Notre Dame, or Cornell, pretty much any other top 25 university with equal esteem as one from WP, and WP would be favored by post Army career employers for the balance of the top 100.
- 8. as to faculty interaction, the smaller schools offering ROTC such as Villanova, Fordham, Boston College, Notre Dame, all the Ivies, etc. will have as good an opportunity for a small classroom experience and collaboration with Professors in research -- actually much higher level of research at the smaller "research Universities" like Harvard, MIT, Stanford, etc. However, for the majority of ROTC host Battalions at top 100 ranked colleges/Universities, USMA will offer a more proactive faculty involvement with the student.

And in the favor of ROTC:

1. Cultural Interaction: The ability to successfully navigate among non pro-military members of society, a large % of whom, at least on the college campus, think the entire military culture is neanderthalic and infantile, and at the service of Big Oil and Big Business. Once a cadet has navigated these conversations, looks, quizzical stares while wearing the uniform on campus, he/she is better prepared than the more militarily focused and insulated WP officer to interact, understand, negotiate within, and successfully achieve objectives where the military mission set intersects with civilian authority. In this narrow aspect, ROTC at top colleges isn't simply an overflow alternate channel of officer development, but a superior one.

2. Breadth of Academic Offerings: The freedom of schedule to pursue academic interests outside the mainstream. For example, a major in Linguistics is not offered at any of the Academies, but that was my area of study at Stanford and UCLA. Had I been interested in a career as an officer back in my time, ROTC at either school would have allowed me to pursue that degree, whereas no Academy would have. There are dozens of such majors, some of great value to the Military, that would be better pursued at a research University rather than at an Academy.

The one thing that's worried me about West Point is the lack of time for additional studying and learning outside of the core material/cadet duties. For example, I'd very much like to learn Farsi, or Dari, or Urdu, or a language of that nature in addition to Arabic. Would I have time to even attempt this at West Point?

OP's original post touched on point 2 directly above. However, since OP has not told us which University/College is his/her alternative to WP, it's hard to know how to comment other than the general points above.

The reason I want to go is that I've always felt that the Academy will prepare me to be a stronger officer and a better leader than ROTC would...

The balance of the eight points should give good food for thought to OP. My position is that this will be true for the ROTC experience at most Battalions, not true but a tossup as some ROTC Battalions, and possibly not true at all for a few ROTC Battalions. Unlike BigNick, who I believe is a Plebe at USMA this year, and as such would not be expected to have any basis of comparison, I don't think this is CLEAR at all.

 

[kinnem]

^^^ I think you posted some good summaries of the sometimes emotional discussion on this thread. I'm not sure all will agree with it in toto but I would think OP and others will find it useful. Thanks for doing that.

 

[Jcleppe]

I'm going to try to summarize the points made in favor of WP vs. ROTC or OCS that I recall from this thread:

- 1. consistent military environment
- 2. guaranteed Active Duty
- 3. more consistent quality of officer b/c of more consistent Appointee
- 4. better summer training opportunities (Airborne, etc.)
- 5. Ring Knocker network
- 6. close bonds formed with dozens, perhaps 100+ alums
- 7. prized by civilian employers post-Army career

- one that I will add: 8. the Professorial interaction is superb.

Response from ROTC from an elite college (let's just say top 100)

- 1. consistent challenge to integrate military and civilian culture, which ability becomes critical in the new Army where solving civilian problems (e.g. in Iraq) is part of the Mission (more on this in the last paragraph)
- 2. while only 15% were "forced" reserve or Guard in 2011, the number is expected to rise. Still, if you can't make top 70% to avoid forced reserves/guard, perhaps the desire to serve has been exposed more than the S-A-L qualities.
- 3. I don't know if you can say the quality of officer is better via USMA than via ROTC at a top ranked college, so moot point
- 4. point given
- 5. point given except to reiterate many posters noting that some Universities and Colleges have very strong alumni networks as well (VMI, A&M, Ivy, Stanford, MIT, Notre Dame, and a few more)
- 6. point given.
- 7. this is a tossup. Civilian employers would view a degree from top 10 universities as more impressive than WP, from the next tier, say Notre Dame, or Cornell, pretty much any other top 25 university with equal esteem as one from WP, and WP would be favored by post Army career employers for the balance of the top 100.
- 8. as to faculty interaction, the smaller schools offering ROTC such as Villanova, Fordham, Boston College, Notre Dame, all the Ivies, etc. will have as good an opportunity for a small classroom experience and collaboration with Professors in research -- actually much higher level of research at the smaller "research Universities" like Harvard, MIT, Stanford, etc. However, for the majority of ROTC host Battalions at top 100 ranked colleges/Universities, USMA will offer a more proactive faculty involvement with the student.

And in the favor of ROTC: The ability to successfully navigate among non pro-military members of society, a large % of whom, at least on the college campus, think the entire military culture is neanderthalic and infantile, and at the service of Big Oil and Big Business. Once a cadet has navigated these conversations, looks, quizzical stares while wearing the uniform on campus, he/she is better prepared than the more militarily focused and insulated WP officer to interact, understand, negotiate within, and be successfully solve problems where the military mission set intersects with civilian authority. In this narrow aspect, ROTC at top colleges isn't simply an overflow alternate channel of officer development, but a superior one.

I don't disagree with the bulk of your conclusions. The only one might be the summer training opportunities. West Point is going through the same cuts in spending that ROTC is going through, there have been threads that discuss the cut in the number of slots such as Airborne and the need to get that type of requirement for West Point through other opportunities. ROTC will most likely see a decrease in summer training as well but it seems to be a decrease that will be equal on all sides.

I do think it is impossible to compare the quality of graduates from ROTC to the USMA due to the way ROTC are ranked. Since ROTC puts such a high percentage on the GPA and does not as of yet distinguish between Majors to a level that it would become equitable it will be hard to compare the two.

ROTC has LDAC which is designed to asses each cadet on their leadership and overall tactical skills. When you put all these factors together the cadet gets their ranking. A cadet from a very competitive school with a degree in engineering may graduate with a GPA of 3.0, when they go to LDAC they could finish with an E and Top 5, this will still not be enough to put them in the top 20%, the same can be said in reverse.

All of the cadets in the country no matter where they go to school will attend LDAC and be graded the same with no points given for the ranking of their school. For this reason it would be difficult to determine whether the ranking of the school has a lot to do with the cadets leadership ability. A cadet from a small state school may excel at LDAC while a cadet from an "Elite" school barely passes and vise versa.

I don't pretend to know the statistics on this but from what I have seen on their school's ROTC websites while my younger son was selecting schools it seemed that the top 20% in ROTC is spread pretty evenly throughout the schools with no real advantage to Elite or non Elite schools.

I would think a better way of gauging the success of ROTC cadets would be to track those that finished with high marks at LDAC. Not all cadets that finish LDAC with an E will be in the top 20%, but I would guess that most all cadets that finish in the top 20% did receive an E, and all that finished in the top 10% did receive an E. Getting the E at LDAC will of course not guarantee success as an Army officer but you are talking AVERAGES.

Since West Point does not attend LDAC the closest comparison would be the SMC's. The PMS at every ROTC battalion that is not a SMC will admit that the SMC cadets have an upper hand on the Garrison portion of LDAC, simply because they do live a much more structured military life at school not unlike the USMA. My son fell victim to this at LDAC, he received a S in most everything related to garrison life, he did however have the top scores in the regiment in tactical, leadership, and field training, all E's across the board, this was enough to give him an overall E for LDAC. In his final evaluation it was written that the only need for improvement was in garrison. This is where West Point has the advantage since they live the garrison life 24/7.

Once these cadets graduate they will all go to their branch BOLC, these BOLC's will consist of West Point grads, ROTC, and OCS, they will all train together on the same field. The TAC's will not care where they came from or what school they attended, they will all be evaluated equally. I believe a better gauge of how a new officer will perform will be how they do at BOLC. It would be interesting to see how these new LT's rank at BOLC graduation, do the USMA grads finish higher or the ROTC or even OCS grads?, maybe, maybe not. I would imagine that there are at least twice the number of ROTC grads at any given BOLC then USMA grads.

My son's Training will be different since a large number will be Warrants, for them you throw out the entire debate on schools since some never graduated college so the point becomes moot.

There are anecdotes for all sides of the equation and I know we are talking averages. A recent grad from my son's school finished #1 at Infantry BOLC and #1 at Ranger School, he also graduated in the top 1% of ROTC, there will always be those exceptions to any rule.

It just think that while a school choice is important, there is life after the military, the success of a military officer has so many variables that even the averages when talking school selections can be off a bit.

There has been a lot of discussion about how the school choice can effect promotion rates, branch selection, and provide a boost in civilian life. While all these factors play into the equation these cadets should not forget the most important point:

It's not about promotions, it's not about medals, it's not about how you are perceived by your peers. It is about being the best officer you can be for the men and women under your command. They don't care what the diploma reads hanging on your wall, they care about how you will lead them, back them up, and respect their work. It's really that simple.

Dunninla, good summery to a long thread by the way.

Just a side note on your last edit,

I don't think it is fair to say that this will be true for most battalions, a toss up at some and not true at a few. I don't think all cadets at a certain battalion will be lacking in training, I believe it comes down to the fact that there will be cadets that excel at every battalion and some that don't and that will change from year to year depending on the class, some may have a higher percentage of top grads then others but to say that only a few battalions will produce a higher level officer is not fair the the cadets. This again is where I agree with you on ROTC vs USMA, an applicant that is trying to select a school should not look at the graduating class that year and make their decision base entirely on that. A ROTC battalion may have a above average class that year, it does not mean that your class will be the same and the same can be said in reverse. Place on top of that the PMS will most likely change while you are at the school which can have a big impact. In todays ROTC environment they may even take away the host status of the school you attend. West Point is much more of a constant which is a large factor in making a decision.

 

[NavyHoops]

JWilkes,

I am not a USMA grad, but am a USNA grad and former Marine, so here is my perspective and some food for thought on a SA versus ROTC:

- At West Point it is a 24/7 environment. If that is not your thing, then go ROTC. But, if exposure to constant training, followership. leadership, debate, and thought are something that appeal to you then you will love West Point. Budget cuts are a reality. By reading the boards here active duty Army is not a guarantee in ROTC so there is risk going that route. Training will be cut at all levels of the Army. Yes, some of the more "fun" things like jump school will probably not be options going forward or very limited, but summer training will always exist at West Point. In ROTC what are your chances for selected for it?
- My two room mates at TBS were ROTC grads. A few of the biggest differences I noticed is their training was very geared towards surviving OCS, not necessarily for the long haul of being a Marine officer. OCS was the closest fire so the focus was there. Now I am not familiar with Army ROTC, so not sure what ROTC Cadets in their training pipeline, but USNA focused on molding us for the fleet, not the next training event. The other difference is exposure. At a Service Academy you are exposed in the classroom, training, in the barracks, at practice, at church, and any other activity you can name to officers and senior enlisted. They are there to train, teach, mentor, and challenge you in every aspect to become a top notch officer. In an ROTC unit you may not even interact with an officer or your unit daily. At West Point you will be surrounded by those who have a vested interest in you becoming a great officer, because you will a part of the Army that they are a part of. That cannot be said for your physics professor at State U. There is enormous focus on the ethics and morality of being officer, that you do not get nearly as much as at a regular university. And remember at West Point you are all living by the same rules, regulations and honor system unlike ROTC. Like I said, the environment is all consuming, but it is not for everyone.
- Academics are obviously a huge part of West Point and your desire to have flexibility in academics is great. But that shouldn't be the decision point about West Point or not. Academcis are a part of the greater training environment to becoming an Army officer. Once you graduate and become a Platoon Leader, no one will care that you majored in Electrical Engineering or Basket Weaving to be honest with you. My Marines could of cared less if I was rocket scientist or art major, they wanted a great leader who got them home from war alive. Now what you major in does have an effect down the road for follow on billets, but that is after you finished your first operational tour.
- Classroom size at the Service Academies is amazing. I had classes senior year that had literally 6-8 students in them. Regular universities cannot do that. Freshman chemistry at most schools would be taught by a TA with a room of 200 people. At USNA we had about 25 students and TAs do not exist there. The lab size was half of that! The academic prep and attention from instructors is first rate and cannot be duplicated anywhere.
- Sports - If you like sports and want to try and play at the Varsity or Club level this is difficult at a regular university and possibly even with your ROTC program. For the size of that they are, Service Academies have amazing athletic programs and more options than most schools 3 times their size.
- Alumni Network - Now that I am in the civilian work force I can attest to this. There is nothing in comparison to a Service Academy Alumni Network. The SMAs have great networks, but tend to be more regionally or state focused, where SA networks are truly national organizations. I have run into alumni on elevators and been handed a business card from a fellow alumni and told to call if I wanted a new job. This has happened at least a half dozen times. The camraderie regardless of year is always there. The alumni networks truly do take care of their own and if you reach out to them the opportunities are amazing. Alumni know the quality and caliber of each graduate and their is an inherit trust between all alumni. As to post-Army employment, the opportunities are endless. SA graduates generally have more offers then they know what to do with. They are in high demand and the sky is the limit. I had not looked for work for nearly 6 years. I posted by resume the other day and within 8 hours I had 6 interview offers. Whether you stay in the Army for 5 years or 30, we all eventually end up back in the civilian work force so this is something to consider!

I understand this is an emotionally charged issue for some and that is great. We are all passionate about the choices we made. I hope I provided some food for thought. Just remember only you can make this choice. Best of luck.