Defense budget cuts for ROTC??

Don't let the deliberately-misleading lingo of our Congress and the flimsy reporting of our media give you a false impression. These so-called defense "cuts" are merely decreases in amount of planned increases...but spending will continue to rise.

Here's how Senator Rand Paul explained it:
“The interesting thing is there will be no cuts in military spending. This may surprise some people, but there will be no cuts in military spending because we’re only cutting proposed increases. If we do nothing, military spending goes up 23 percent over 10 years,” Paul told host Candy Crowley. “If we sequester the money, it will still go up 16 percent. So spending is still rising under any of these plans. In fact, if you look at both alternatives, spending is still going up. We’re only cutting proposed increases in spending.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/20/rand-paul-downplays-impact-automatic-cuts/
 
. . .

Now if you want to say reduce the amount of host colleges to cut costs, I am with you.

. . .

That's what I meant to say. As for your bad commander comment, I am was talking more about historic performance when evaluating an ROTC program . I would think it will be very easy to find out how many officers each ROTC school comissions each year.
 
Re: Host Colleges, reduction of

That is not as simiple as it might at first appear. The issue isn't just one of Host, you also have a "presence", if you will, at Affiliate campuses in a spoke around the Host.

Then the more fundamental issue: Does the presence of ROTC on a college campus serve critical purposes other than Officer Accession? What about advertising, marketing? Is there a political purpose achieved by having ROTC at Harvard that is far more important than the 3-4 officers that will commission out of Harvard annually in future years?

We need to appreciate that fact that *most* future leaders in business, politics, religion, non-profits, writers and philosophers, etc. will have very little exposure to the military in their High Schools and neighborhoods. 90% of the US population is not within 100 miles of a Military installation where they will have a chance to see a serviceman in their day to day lives. I had never met an officer, not once, in my childhood. The first exposure came by way of my older brother's freshman year roommate at UCLA, a certain Dave Bernard, who was in Air Force ROTC. I remember at the time -- "Military? must be an *******". Sorry, but that was the prevalent feeling in the mid 1970s. Military = evil tools of industry. Well, clearly my prejudice changed over time. But it takes exposure to real people who are different from you, or have ideals and ideas different from what you're used to, to become an open minded person. What if there had been no ROTC at UCLA, and that first exposure had not happened? There's always that FIRST exposure to an idea, and many, many future leaders' of our country's first exposure to the concept of serving one's country as an officer comes from meeting a person in ROTC. After the obvious first question "Why would you DO that??", comes a hopefully intelligent discussion about the role the military plays in a democratic society.

But you see, no ROTC presence, no first exposure, prejudice continues.
 
Last edited:
Two easy ways to cut costs within Cadet Command would be to shift cost from the Army to the colleges and promote community college enrollment.

Many colleges turn a profit on ROTC. The small budget provided by the college is more than offset by the revenue collected from MS Classes taught by AD personnel that are not on the college payroll. Many colleges could therefore easily pay for a larger percentage of the BN budget.

Creating a 2/2 contract for community college students would provide incredible savings for 4 yr scholarships:

Year 1: $5,000 (Community College)
Year 2: $5,000 (Community College)
Year 3: $30,000 (Private College)
Year 4: $30,000 (Private College)

Total Cost: $70,000
Contract is broken if the student gets hurt, drops out, or fails to get the grades needed to transfer to the private school. Cost of the drop out would be very little during the first 2 years.
 
Re: Host Colleges, reduction of

That is not as simiple as it might at first appear. The issue isn't just one of Host, you also have a "presence", if you will, at Affiliate campuses in a spoke around the Host.

Then the more fundamental issue: Does the presence of ROTC on a college campus serve critical purposes other than Officer Accession? What about advertising, marketing? Is there a political purpose achieved by having ROTC at Harvard that is far more important than the 3-4 officers that will commission out of Harvard annually in future years?

We need to appreciate that fact that *most* future leaders in business, politics, religion, non-profits, writers and philosophers, etc. will have very little exposure to the military in their High Schools and neighborhoods. 90% of the US population is not within 100 miles of a Military installation where they will have a chance to see a serviceman in their day to day lives. I had never met an officer, not once, in my childhood. The first exposure came by way of my older brother's freshman year roommate at UCLA, a certain Dave Bernard, who was in Air Force ROTC. I remember at the time -- "Military? must be an *******". Sorry, but that was the prevalent feeling in the mid 1970s. Military = evil tools of industry. Well, clearly my prejudice changed over time. But it takes exposure to real people who are different from you, or have ideals and ideas different from what you're used to, to become an open minded person. What if there had been no ROTC at UCLA, and that first exposure had not happened? There's always that FIRST exposure to an idea, and many, many future leaders' of our country's first exposure to the concept of serving one's country as an officer comes from meeting a person in ROTC. After the obvious first question "Why would you DO that??", comes a hopefully intelligent discussion about the role the military plays in a democratic society.

But you see, no ROTC presence, no first exposure, prejudice continues.

I take issue with your argument on two fronts...

For one, ROTC cadets are in general very poor ambassadors for the real military. Cadets, with the exception of green to gold, have no concept of the real services. They are much more taken with the "hooah" bravado of joining the military and have not experienced anything to temper such views. The result is a very skewed impression of the military, based on field problems and LDAC and stories of Airborne school.

Secondly, even if we want to pay for the political capital of exposing those future leaders to the military, we already do so through much more effective means. There are numerous post-secondary programs that funnel officers from all branches through those top-tier institutions. There, they bring a much more mature military personality to the academic arena and debate important issues with people even more likely to be important leaders than the greater undergraduate pool.

So, if your argument is that ROTC is important to fund at a place like Harvard for the purpose of exposing civilian Ivy League culture to the military, I say you're incorrect. There's much more economic and political benefit to exposing grad students to senior captains than there is in exposing undergrads to cadets. Fund a whole program or fund individual educations for commissioned officers? The math is simple.
 
I take issue with your argument on two fronts...

For one, ROTC cadets are in general very poor ambassadors for the real military. Cadets, with the exception of green to gold, have no concept of the real services. They are much more taken with the "hooah" bravado of joining the military and have not experienced anything to temper such views. The result is a very skewed impression of the military, based on field problems and LDAC and stories of Airborne school.

Secondly, even if we want to pay for the political capital of exposing those future leaders to the military, we already do so through much more effective means. There are numerous post-secondary programs that funnel officers from all branches through those top-tier institutions. There, they bring a much more mature military personality to the academic arena and debate important issues with people even more likely to be important leaders than the greater undergraduate pool.

So, if your argument is that ROTC is important to fund at a place like Harvard for the purpose of exposing civilian Ivy League culture to the military, I say you're incorrect. There's much more economic and political benefit to exposing grad students to senior captains than there is in exposing undergrads to cadets. Fund a whole program or fund individual educations for commissioned officers? The math is simple.

You clearly dislike ROTC, so this is probably a wasted effort.

It's great that Captains can mix with the grad students, but they're not all grad students. The chance for undergrads to meet other undergrads that happen to also be ROTC is just as important.

The math isn't always so simple.
 
Two easy ways to cut costs within Cadet Command would be to shift cost from the Army to the colleges and promote community college enrollment.

Many colleges turn a profit on ROTC. The small budget provided by the college is more than offset by the revenue collected from MS Classes taught by AD personnel that are not on the college payroll. Many colleges could therefore easily pay for a larger percentage of the BN budget.

Creating a 2/2 contract for community college students would provide incredible savings for 4 yr scholarships:

Year 1: $5,000 (Community College)
Year 2: $5,000 (Community College)
Year 3: $30,000 (Private College)
Year 4: $30,000 (Private College)

Total Cost: $70,000
Contract is broken if the student gets hurt, drops out, or fails to get the grades needed to transfer to the private school. Cost of the drop out would be very little during the first 2 years.

Marist, the "community college" component would definitely save money, but I'm not sure it would attract the best and brightest. I fear that it would also, over the long term, reduce the "prestige" factor that the military officer currently enjoys. I suspect that high school students would equate becoming an officer to being a "community college graduate."

That said, there is something to your thought about shifting the cost of military officer candidates onto the individual and private colleges. Virtually every other profession does this. For example, if a student wants to become a teacher, the school districts typically don't even look at applicants until they show up on the school district's doorstep with a resume and teaching certificate in hand. The same is true for lawyers. It's basically, "Send me a resume when you've completed law school." Just as colleges offer (at their own expense) "Pre-law" programs, colleges could offer "pre-military" programs. In the accounting field, students sign up for majors that set them up for accounting jobs. So do engineers. So do police officers (i.e., criminal justice majors). Why not do this for the military? After all, this is essentially how the military recruits enlisted folks from high school (the military does not get involved in the high school academic curriculum).

In this framework, the "ROTC Scholarships" would come from the college, not the federal government. Colleges would be encouraged to advertise a high placement in the military for their "pre-military" programs and would award scholarships to those who are likely to be the most attractive to the military officer corps (i.e., strong P.T. scores, academic concentrations desired by U.S. Army, etc.). Those schools with stronger "pre-military" programs, likely the SMCs at first, would likely receive the most applications.
 
Last edited:
You clearly dislike ROTC, so this is probably a wasted effort.

It's great that Captains can mix with the grad students, but they're not all grad students. The chance for undergrads to meet other undergrads that happen to also be ROTC is just as important.

The math isn't always so simple.

You are certainly free to believe that I have some hidden dislike of ROTC. That is completely untrue, though I won't bother with addressing baseless and ultimately meaningless accusations.I also realize that you have a son in AROTC, and are therefore unlikely to hold any position other than the supreme and overarching worth of ROTC. However, to dismiss this discussion as a "wasted effort" translates to a lack of rebuttal more than anything.


The problem we're dealing with here is one of lean budgets, or as economists put it, "unlimited wants in a world of scarcity." ROTC provides many valuable assets to the military. Granted, it is nice that some undergrads will be exposed to ROTC cadets in their time at college. However, as I pointed out, cadets are not (in a dollar-for-dollar sense) good ambassadors for the military. With a few notable exceptions, they bring almost no experience to bear in those settings where they might influence the average college student (who we clearly believe to be left-leaning and wary of the military, for the purpose of this discussion).

Consider if you will the following scenarios in terms of who is being influenced and what the influence might be:

A senior cadet at Harvard who's been to LDAC, or a senior captain at Harvard Kennedy School of Government who's been to Afghanistan and helped establish a police force?

A junior (MSIII) cadet at Princeton who's been to Airborne school or a junior Major who's commanded an infantry company in Baghdad and oversaw the reinvigoration of the markets on Haifa street?

A first-year cadet at Stanford or a first-year Captain at Stanford Law who's been a legislative liaison and served the first round of warrants issued by the high court with his Iraqi counterparts?


Does ROTC have value? Or course it has value. It produces a ton of highly qualified officers for the AD and Reserve/NG components. But this discussion is not about whether the ROTC system has value. It's about whether the military can justify the existence of an expensive ROTC program at a top-tier school which would produce a minute number of officers (3 or 4 per year, as the argument was initially framed) for the exposure it provides the greater rabble of Ivy League undergrads to the military.

When budgets get lean, we have to worry about bang-for-our-buck. The fact remains that ROTC cadets are not good military ambassadors by virtue of their almost total lack of knowledge (SA cadets aren't either, but they aren't applicable to this discussion). Believe it or not, we frequently see ROTC cadets on post and their conceptions (misconceptions) about how the Army works are legion. That is not to say they are dumb. They just don't know what they don't know. Whether it's pontificating on how Afghanistan does or doesn't work, or what a Special Forces Group does, or how to employ a SKT, or what role women play in a combat zone, that lack of understanding is what makes them of limited use as ambassadors for the armed forces. They represent a person who THINKS they want to be a military officer, and not much more.

Again, it goes back to what our dollar can get us. Post-secondary education at Ivy League schools and similar institutions provides a great concentration of determined future leaders. If one of our goals is to bridge that gap and influence the movers and shakers of our society in the next 25 years, that's where we find those people. We can influence them and show them who we, as a military, are by sending our best to study among them, share ideas and experiences, and be influenced by them as well.

ROTC cannot do that, and as a result we cannot hope to justify the expense of an entire ROTC program with the flimsy and narrow exposure cadets can provide to a vaguely interested audience. Talk to a 20-year-old college student and then talk to a 30-year-old grad student. Which one is less dogmatic, open to more ideas, and more keenly aware of the complexities of the larger world? I'll give you a hint: it's not the 20-year-old who has mom's health insurance, no kids, and no income.

You're right, the math isn't always that simple. But in this case it is.
 
Last edited:
You are certainly free to believe that I have some hidden dislike of ROTC. That is completely untrue, though I won't bother with addressing baseless and ultimately meaningless accusations.I also realize that you have a son in AROTC, and are therefore unlikely to hold any position other than the supreme and overarching worth of ROTC. However, to dismiss this discussion as a "wasted effort" translates to a lack of rebuttal more than anything.


The problem we're dealing with here is one of lean budgets, or as economists put it, "unlimited wants in a world of scarcity." ROTC provides many valuable assets to the military. Granted, it is nice that some undergrads will be exposed to ROTC cadets in their time at college. However, as I pointed out, cadets are not (in a dollar-for-dollar sense) good ambassadors for the military. With a few notable exceptions, they bring almost no experience to bear in those settings where they might influence the average college student (who we clearly believe to be left-leaning and wary of the military, for the purpose of this discussion).

Consider if you will the following scenarios in terms of who is being influenced and what the influence might be:

A senior cadet at Harvard who's been to LDAC, or a senior captain at Harvard Kennedy School of Government who's been to Afghanistan and helped establish a police?

A junior (MSIII) cadet at Princeton who's been to Airborne school or a junior Major who's commanded an infantry company in Baghdad and oversaw the reinvigoration of the markets on Haifa street?

A first-year cadet at Stanford or a first-year Captain at Stanford Law who's been a legislative liaison and served the first round of warrants issued by the high court with his Iraqi counterparts?


Does ROTC have value? Or course it has value. It produces a ton of highly qualified officers for the AD and Reserve/NG components. But this discussion is not about whether the ROTC system has value. It's about whether the military can justify the existence of an expensive ROTC program at a top-tier school which would produce a minute number of officers (3 or 4 per year, as the argument was initially framed) for the exposure it provides the greater rabble of Ivy League undergrads to the military.

When budgets get lean, we have to worry about bang-for-our-buck. The fact remains that ROTC cadets are not good military ambassadors by virtue of their almost total lack of knowledge (SA cadets aren't either, but they aren't applicable to this discussion). Believe it or not, we frequently see ROTC cadets on post and their conceptions (misconceptions) about how the Army works are legion. That is not to say they are dumb. They just don't know what they don't know. Whether it's pontificating on how Afghanistan does or doesn't work, or what a Special Forces Group does, or how to employ a SKT, or what role women play in a combat zone, that lack of understanding is what makes them of limited use as ambassadors for the armed forces. They represent a person who THINKS they want to be a military officer, and not much more.

Again, it goes back to what our dollar can get us. Post-secondary education at Ivy League schools and similar institutions provides a great concentration of determined future leaders. If one of our goals is to bridge that gap and influence the movers and shakers of our society in the next 25 years, that's where we find those people. We can influence them and show them who we, as a military, are by sending our best to study among them, share ideas and experiences, and be influenced by them as well.

ROTC cannot do that, and as a result we cannot hope to justify the expense of an entire ROTC program with the flimsy and narrow exposure cadets can provide to a vaguely interested audience. Talk to a 20-year-old college student and then talk to a 30-year-old grad student. Which one is less dogmatic, open to more ideas, and more keenly aware of the complexities of the larger world? I'll give you a hint: it's not the 20-year-old who has mom's health insurance, no kids, and no income.

You're right, the math isn't always that simple. But in this case it is.

Baseless and meaningless accusations? You must mean like saying I have tunnel vision to the merits of ROTC, please. I can agree with you on many area that ROTC falls short. Having sons in the program makes no difference.

Believe it or not in some ways I agree, ROTC does not give a good window into the complex world of AD military, they try but really how much can they do within a college environment. The Academies suffer from the same problem, at least neither is OCS straight out of college.

I also agree that experienced officers will be the best ambassadors for the military, of course it depends on the officers, some...well not so much.

My only point is that these experienced officers will be older, they will not ever interact with the younger college student. While undergrad ROTC cadets may have a skewed view of the military, the undergrad college student has the same skewed view of the real world. Maybe getting a chance to interact together at this early stage of their education will have some positive effect.

Do they need to cut back on funding for ROTC, of course they do, they are starting now. Should they eliminate programs, no, I don't think that to be wise.

On more thing, you can't become a 30 year old Grad student without first being a 20 year old college student.
That's math that does work.
 
Baseless and meaningless accusations? You must mean like saying I have tunnel vision to the merits of ROTC, please. I can agree with you on many area that ROTC falls short. Having sons in the program makes no difference.

Believe it or not in some ways I agree, ROTC does not give a good window into the complex world of AD military, they try but really how much can they do within a college environment. The Academies suffer from the same problem, at least neither is OCS straight out of college.

I also agree that experienced officers will be the best ambassadors for the military, of course it depends on the officers, some...well not so much.

My only point is that these experienced officers will be older, they will not ever interact with the younger college student. While undergrad ROTC cadets may have a skewed view of the military, the undergrad college student has the same skewed view of the real world. Maybe getting a chance to interact together at this early stage of their education will have some positive effect.

Do they need to cut back on funding for ROTC, of course they do, they are starting now. Should they eliminate programs, no, I don't think that to be wise.

On more thing, you can't become a 30 year old Grad student without first being a 20 year old college student.
That's math that does work.

You're not listening to the argument. No one here has said there is NO value in ROTC students interacting with their fellow undergrads. What has been said is that the admittedly minor benefit that interaction provides is NOT justification for funding programs which do not produce a meaningful cohort of graduates per year (e.g. the idea of funding a tiny program at Harvard).

In lean times we need to shift our focus toward efficiency. Marist suggested revamping the entire system. Probably not a bad idea, but unlikely to happen. The next smartest step is to reduce the overhead. I would prefer to see this happen by nixing or realigning smaller programs and focusing on more robust battalions which provide more & better training opportunities for large numbers of cadets, rather than by cutting scholarships.
 
You're not listening to the argument. No one here has said there is NO value in ROTC students interacting with their fellow undergrads. What has been said is that the admittedly minor benefit that interaction provides is NOT justification for funding programs which do not produce a meaningful cohort of graduates per year (e.g. the idea of funding a tiny program at Harvard).

In lean times we need to shift our focus toward efficiency. Marist suggested revamping the entire system. Probably not a bad idea, but unlikely to happen. The next smartest step is to reduce the overhead. I would prefer to see this happen by nixing or realigning smaller programs and focusing on more robust battalions which provide more & better training opportunities for large numbers of cadets, rather than by cutting scholarships.

I was listening just fine, Explained as you just did I would have to completely agree with you.
 
greetings from Newport, RI

If you want to become a career officer, you have no choice to go through the commissioning path to get there. And if you decide instead to enter civilian life after your service commitment is complete, you will be light-years ahead of your peers (more important, as an officer you are forced to learn how to lead) and this translates directly greater financial opportunities over the span of whatever career you pursue. You also will have the bonus of having served your country -- something that is truly priceless.

Should candidates pursue scholarship money? Of course! And they should pursue it very aggressively. But the award of a scholarship should NOT be the primary reason for going down this path. Just know that timing is everything and if many of you were born only a few years earlier, most would be on full scholarship next year.

So don't let any news about reductions in scholarship money be a factor at all in your decision to become an officer.




Very well said, and great advice I will pass on to my son.

I've got a 13 year old who has been a outstanding boy scout for years and has recently signed up with the US Navy Sea Cadets. His CO's son is a Senior at Norwich in the US Marines ROTC program.

My son says he wants to go to USNA and become a Naval Aviator some day. I always encourage him to follow his dreams but I know how slim the odds are to achieve this with the level of competition and very limited slots for these most sought after positions. He is one of the most patriotic people you'll meet, he is active in sports and community service and he's always on the honor roll (but not high honors). His best quality is his leadership abilities which seem to just comes naturally for him, we see it mostly in scouts and when he is officiating hockey games (he's registered as a Referee with USA Hockey).

Any advice you could share with us would be much appreciated,

newbee,
Sean Malcolm, Rhode Island
 
Encourage your son to keep doing what he is doing. It sounds like he is on the right track. Work on leadership roles, such as Chief Petty Officer in Sea Cadets and Eagle Scout/Order of the Arrow in Boy Scouts. Take all the most challenging classes you can. Excel in sports, and try to be ome a team captain.

My four kids have all done Sea Cadets, and we found it to be an excellent source of leadership experience, particularly through Petty Officer Leadership Academy and by staffing Recruit Training. My two sons were Eagle Scouts and Order of the Arrow Vigil Honor recipients as well. They were both on national staff for O/A. The opportunities are there if you take advantage of them! One son is a special forces corpsman and one is at Kings Point, and they definitely used what they learned in the two programs to get where they are.

Also, do not worry about what the odds are for your son achieving his dream. If he doesn't go for it, the odds are zero. Being well-rounded is the most important factor for a successful future. Have him continue to do what he likes to do and to have fun along the way! And for you parents, enjoy these years because they fly by.
 
When we talk about "consolidating" the battalions, meaning, reducing the total number of battalions by shutting down smaller programs (economy of scale applies everywhere), we need to take additional factors into consideration.

What I am going to say below may be challenged by fact checking police since I don't have hard data: just hearsay. But I will posit it anyway.

US armed forces will continue to want to be representative of the civilian society it is serving and protecting. Currently, the armed forces are not really representative of the general population. It's especially more problematic among the elite segment of the society. For instance, in any top 20 universities and colleges, Jewish and Asian populations are grossly over-represented. Yet, they are grossly under represented in the armed forces. (e.g., Harvard: 30-35% Jewish, 15% Asian;; University of Chicago: ~25% Jewish, 22% Asian;;;;; USMA: about 2% Jewish, don't know about Asian: pretty low, I guess: just not part of the "parental" value system in that community - they all want their kids to go to top 20 colleges and become lawyers, doctors, and engineers). Note that both Jewish and Asian populations respectively comprise of low single digits % of US general population.

If next generation of civilian leaders who will determine the national priorities and resource allocation are disproportionately coming from these groups, well, then US armed forces had better have a few of these also in their hatcheries (service academies and ROTC battalions)

Geographically distribution of where the military officers are coming from is also not representative of the general population. Northeast is under represented while South is over represented. Ditto with socio economic background. We don't have enough kids from highest 10% of socio economic groups joining military or even service academies.

If my way of thinking has any merit, then I believe that when the CC is thinking about how to pare down the ROTC program, it won't be just about efficiency of producing X amount of officers with the lowest $$$. If that were so, they should fund the mega ROTC programs in places like Texas A&M, and shut down many smaller programs in the Northeast. They should also forget about pricey private schools.

However, I believe CC will think about much longer term goals of the armed forces, rather than just immediate need to pare down the program. It's easy enough to shut down "less efficient" programs in, let's say, North East private schools. However, when/if they need them for whatever reason, it will take a long time to reestablish them, and they will have lost a valuable traction in the said geographical area. They need robust representation of cadets from mega feeder schools, but they will also want cadets from elite private schools too.

I believe the selection of who gets the scholarship will have to reflect those longer term goals. I waited very long time for my S2 to grow out of his childhood fantasy. Finally, I realized that he is dead serious, and I decided to help him. So, when I was playing the role of a consultant for my S2 in his ROTC scholarship application process, I advised him to position himself as a member of a group that is currently grossly under represented in the armed forces. He is half Asian and half Jewish by birth and was raised as a Jew with relatives in three different continents. He background is that of privilege (not to brag, it is what it is by available statistics). He is top 1-2% academically (if we were to use a simple SAT distribution as a blunt yardstick). His athletic membership part was rather weak - in top physical form, but not an athlete by any formal membership anywhere. So, you see, he was not a perfect candidate, not a well rounded Scholar-Athlete-Leader. Yet, he ended up getting a four year scholarship to one of the top 5 most expensive schools in the nation. I don't know whether this positioning help him or not, but I won't be surprised at all if it actually helped.

An institution is just like living organism. It wants to survive and prosper more than anything else. So, when we talk about what CC will do near term to meet their budget goals, it will also be helpful to think about what CC will and will not sacrifice for the long term imperatives of the armed forces as an institution and a living organism.

(by the way, a funny story: he told me that when his fellow students learn about his scholarship status, there is particularly interesting strain of reactions. Some kids respond by looking at him from top to bottom and bottom to top and saying "Oh, you mean you are on scholarship" as in "you are one of those kids who couldn't afford the tuition here...." These are the same kind of kids who treat cafeteria workers as they would a domestic servants. I am gratified to no end that tax dollars of those parents who managed to instill this kind of value system in their kids are funding my son's education!!!!! (my kids grew up knowing that disrespecting anybody who provides services to us, be they restaurant waiters, janitors, etc etc is a capital crime in this household)
 
Last edited:
Currently, the armed forces are not really representative of the general population.
The public univerities are probably the best representation of the general population. Cadet Command is attempting to address this issue by allocating 80% of all scholarships to public universities.
 
You know folks- the purpose of the forum is to steer kids in fundamental facts about ROTC. This thread is 100% conjecture leavened with opinions- none of which are based on facts, and more importantly they do nothing to help prepare the target audience about what they will have to do to get a scholarship and or a commission via ROTC.

IMO this subject has been beaten to death- I would suggest letting this thread go so that the forum can actually be returned to its intended purposes, and if you feel the desperate need to speculate on the best method of saving DoD money from the commissioning budget- then do so in the off-topic forum.
 
Bruno,

I concur if you want to argue about whether ROTC should be cut regarding the 600 BN that the DOD will have to cut over the next 10 yrs than it is probably best to go over to the off topic since ROTC is just a small amount of the financial aspect for each and every branch.

However, if you want to discuss will this impact my cadet/mid at school or my hs student applying, the thread needs to remain here and alive.

Yesterday on the news regarding these cuts, a spokesperson stated that AD bennies, including combat pay may be realigned. If they realign the AD world, they may turn back and say no more book stipend or even harder cap on tuition reimbursement regardless of private or public.

It is important to understand that as I always have said the devil is in the details. The details for an ROTC student is to understand you have yet to raise your right hand and taken the oath of office as an AD member, until that point the contract will have wiggle room.

Read it carefully, there are a lot of escape clauses for the military to drop the scholarship, not so much for the ROTC cadet.

It was written in this way to protect the DOD.

Marist,

I get what you were trying to say, but 5K for a CC is insane. CC's don't cost 5K a yr. They also typically don't have ROTC, so where would they train for the 1st 2 yrs.
Creating a 2/2 contract for community college students would provide incredible savings for 4 yr scholarships:

Year 1: $5,000 (Community College)
Year 2: $5,000 (Community College)
Year 3: $30,000 (Private College)
Year 4: $30,000 (Private College)

Additionally, for the AFROTC system it is not only broken down for intended majors, but Type.

Type 7 will only pay IS tuition, which usually runs around 9K for expensive IS, you cannot make up the cost between the scholarship and tuition, if they school charges 9500 you are SOL. They make up @75% of scholarships.

Type 2 4 yr only pays 18K, but the cadet can pay the difference, they make up 20%. The cadet that gets a Type 7 can convert to Type 2 3 yr, but tops at 18K a yr, yet it allows them to attend their college knowing that if it is 20K they will pay out of pocket 2 K

Type 1, 5% of all scholarships, says go and be free, we will cover the entire tuition. 95% of them are STEM.

In essence, the AF using your model of 70K is still cheaper. Type 7 that converts tops out at 54K. 75% are type 7.

Type 2, 20% of cadets, get 18K for 4 yrs. 72K total.

Type 1, 5% may get 25K a yr in tuition for 4 yrs. 100K.

However, when you avg 75% with 54K max if all convert to Type 2 3 yr, 20% 72K, and 5% 100 K. The cost is going to be lower than the 70K on the worst day.

AFROTC also does the no SFT, scholarship yanked and no points are awarded for scholarship. Hence, that number may be reduced even further. SFT occurs at the Army's MSII yr or LDAC. There is no 100% guarantee.

dunninla
Re: Host Colleges, reduction of

That is not as simiple as it might at first appear. The issue isn't just one of Host, you also have a "presence", if you will, at Affiliate campuses in a spoke around the Host.

Then the more fundamental issue: Does the presence of ROTC on a college campus serve critical purposes other than Officer Accession? What about advertising, marketing? Is there a political purpose achieved by having ROTC at Harvard that is far more important than the 3-4 officers that will commission out of Harvard annually in future years?

Yes you are correct it is a marketing tool. However, it is a manpower issue too. Host ROTC units pay fees (leasing) to the colleges for their command space. It is easier to break that lease than a BRAC.

In the end the cadets/mids would still be walking advertisement on campus, but the branch has saved money.

They may determine that the return is not worth it. If you believe Harvard students will change their mind about their military perceptions, great, BUT IMPO, it is a waste of money. Money we no longer have to spend.

ROTC is going to have to take a hit. It really is the bridge between SA commissioned, and OCS/OTS commissioned. It is cheaper than an SA, more expensive than OCS.

Most importantly, before we all deem ROTC DOA, look at each branch.

As I illustrated, Army has not utilized to this point the tier/type system, nor STEM. Navy and Army send 100% for what the AF calls SFT (55% acceptance). AF does not utilize SMP. There are alot of shades of gray that each branch can use to cut costs.

I would not be shocked if after these cuts, the ROTC selection process becomes more unified, taking the best from each system.
 
However, if you want to discuss will this impact my cadet/mid at school or my hs student applying, the thread needs to remain here and alive.

I totally agree with Pima on this point. DoD budget cuts are a fact of life in the ROTC Scholarship application process and discussions on that issue should NOT be squelched. Everyone understands that no one -- not even the President, the SECDEF, or Congress -- knows how things will ultimately pan out. In that sense, any educated guess is speculation.

But there is no reason why folks should not be permitted to forecast what they think might happen in the coming months in view of the very real budget cuts and drawdown we are facing and how candidates can best navigate through such a changed system. After all, that's precisely what financial websites like Bloomberg and CNBC do ALL the time. Is it speculation when no one knows for sure what the future will bring? Sure. But do educated guesses on that score have value? Absolutely.
 
When there is a fact to report- then by all means - go ahead and open a new thread in the ROTC forum. In the mean time this is all speculation with nothing other than " what do you think the most likely impact is" type of gassing- I'm moving this to the off topic forum.
 
I know it's impossible to get a real look into prospective cadet's motives. But, would kids be in ROTC without the scholarship, book money or stipend? My DS has wanted to be in the AF since he was 5 years old-the scholarship is great for our family and him, but not the reason he is in AFROTC.

It's much like the pilot bonus (at least in the F16 community that my DH was in), the majority of the time, it pays extra $ to people who were planning on staying in anyway...and doesn't keep people in that want out.
 
Back
Top