First Assignments from West Point
- Thread starter NavyUMO
- Start date
GardenStateOfMind
Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2022
- Messages
- 27
When you say specialty, I assume you mean branch. Picking a branch is a process that occurs throughout a cadet's tenure at USMA and is influenced by "the needs of the Army". USMA will occasionally post aggregate branch selection on the west point.edu site.
If by "specialty" and "first assignments," you are referring to "branching," then the best source seems to be the website belonging to West Point Association of Old Grads. The class of 2023 information is not listed yet. But, information for several prior classes is posted.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2017
- Messages
- 782
They will not be releasing the percentages of cadets who got their top choices this year. Many of my classmates suspect the numbers aren't so pretty this iteration.
LOTS of cadets were force-branched this year. Many females force branched into Infantry despite ranking it last. We always knew “the needs of the Army” would override personal preference. We just wish higher would can the fakey fake “rank your most preferred branch” exercises, delete the “People Always” PR.
Impulsive
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2019
- Messages
- 1,024
I would like to see the source of your data? The "New" branching model allows for much more Branch input. I would like to see the numbers re: bradso vs no bradso and the Branches involved?
Hard to believe in this generation that so many females were "Forced Branched". can you give us the official numbers?
Walman888
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2018
- Messages
- 872
"Lots" is open to interpretation by different people. But Cadets of both sexes were Force Branched this year. Numbers are not readily available. To be fair, it was a spike in numbers from previous years Branch models.
VasilyZaytsev
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2021
- Messages
- 32
Curious, forced branch into combat arms? if that's true, that doesn't bode well for infantry morale. Ugh. I wonder if USMA will refocus its admissions if they are not getting enough CA candidates??
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2010
- Messages
- 895
USMA has a congressional requirement that at least 70% of the class branches combat arms. Getting force branched into combat arms is not new as a result. FA in particular comes to mind as a branch that gets folks that way regularly. This would be the first that I’ve heard infantry taking female cadets force branched though so that’ll be interesting to see how plays out but also not surprised it eventually happened. Hope those ladies get their minds right and kick butt. We don’t always get to choose how we serve
Walman888
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2018
- Messages
- 872
Agreed. And yes, Infantry. Needs of the Army.... Most seem to be settling into the idea and beginning to prepare and focus. A bit of research shows very low numbers of Females in Infantry. So, it stands to reason.
Thanks to all for your info. Sorry about Service selection (USNA verbiage) versus "Branch selection". So if I can summarize to best understand the comments posted... The upcoming grads put in a "wishlist" of branches they desire to serve which is then bounced against the needs of the Army and then assignments are made with at least 70% going into the combat arms by congressional mandate. Is my summary correct?
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2014
- Messages
- 1,121
Yes, although when our son was at USMA, we were told the federal requirement was 69%, but close enough. USMA branched 81% of the class of 2019 into combat arms*, but that class had a high percentage of cadets mostly getting one of their top three branches.
*Cyber is considered a combat arms branch.
Last edited:
CA candidates?
Walman888
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2018
- Messages
- 872
Combat Arms
Question to those who attended or are attending WP. Why do you think interest is dropping in CA, with the exception of possible exception of Cyber?
I have thoughts based on the experience of my AROTC O-3 DS, those who commissioned with him in 2015 and those he now serves with. Mostly they have to do with the reordering of US national security priorities, the Army's institutional inertia and an almost universal political reluctance to commit US troops to a foreign battlefield..
I have thoughts based on the experience of my AROTC O-3 DS, those who commissioned with him in 2015 and those he now serves with. Mostly they have to do with the reordering of US national security priorities, the Army's institutional inertia and an almost universal political reluctance to commit US troops to a foreign battlefield..
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2010
- Messages
- 895
I don’t know if it’s an overall drop of interest in combined arms within the current population. There’s no definition of what forced branching really means and it could mean something different to different people. Does it mean the cadet received anything but their top pick or something that wasn’t anywhere in the top three or five of their list? If a cadet received something that wasn’t their top pick but still in the upper choices, it’s not what they wanted but they still had some preference to put it up there.
To me, getting force branched is having to go something that was at the bottom of your list. I’d be interested to see the stats of those getting something outside their top 3 before I would jump to the conclusion that there isn’t as strong of a desire to go combined arms at the Academy. This particular institution generally does a great job of brain washing cadets (in a good way) by immersing them into an environment saturated with combined arms officers and training.
But to get at what you’re hinting at, yea I think I would agree that more people are interested than previously in branches that will transfer soft skills applicable to the outside. It ties into the broader recruitment struggles. Without a tangible mission to point to after graduation, it’s hard to expect people to want to do this lifestyle.
The 10 year ADSO tied to Aviation (also considered a combat arms branch for whatever reason - we should not be) doesn’t help either. I know they were basically begging cadets to go Aviation this past cycle…
To me, getting force branched is having to go something that was at the bottom of your list. I’d be interested to see the stats of those getting something outside their top 3 before I would jump to the conclusion that there isn’t as strong of a desire to go combined arms at the Academy. This particular institution generally does a great job of brain washing cadets (in a good way) by immersing them into an environment saturated with combined arms officers and training.
But to get at what you’re hinting at, yea I think I would agree that more people are interested than previously in branches that will transfer soft skills applicable to the outside. It ties into the broader recruitment struggles. Without a tangible mission to point to after graduation, it’s hard to expect people to want to do this lifestyle.
The 10 year ADSO tied to Aviation (also considered a combat arms branch for whatever reason - we should not be) doesn’t help either. I know they were basically begging cadets to go Aviation this past cycle…
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2017
- Messages
- 782
There are no official numbers published. My roommate was "force branched" infantry, #17/17 on her list. There are ~20 women going Infantry (as far as she is aware) which is significantly higher than the five-ish of years past. She wanted logistics and BRADSO'd for all of the logistics branches.
I do not see this as being true--if you go around a classroom and ask what everyone wants/wanted to branch, the vast majority will still say AR/IN/FA. Current events and the culture of the Army have shown the increasing value of logistics support while there is a massive push on Cyber here. The Engineer branch is extremely competitive now, as well, especially after the 10yr AV ADSO. At a technical institution it is a no-brainer that technical roles would hold strong appeal, but there is still a massive population that wants to go combat arms.
I believe my class was the first that could not "opt-out" of combat arms in our branch preferences. They went dead last in my preferences, as if I ordered them truthfully, as a woman near the top of the class with a decent PT score, I would not have gotten Aviation.
While accurate, there were still a good amount of cadets ranked "most preferred" for Aviation who did not receive the branch. The cadets who still wanted Aviation after the ADSO extension REALLY wanted Aviation. Didn't have to ask me twice, but I've also wanted Army Aviation since I was a kid.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,332
CA generally with be viewed as the Civil Affairs (CA) branch, just an FYI
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,332
Interesting to see the difference in being forced branched with ROTC vs USMA. Traditionally in ROTC you are either forced NG/USAR (honestly not a bad thing IMO) or pushed to a branch like CM, TC, OD, QM, etc. LG, however, is SUPER popular in the Army world right now with a TON of opportunities at O3. CY is obviously up there as well.
Combat arms has always been competitive at the ROTC level, even in a garrison Army.
Combat arms has always been competitive at the ROTC level, even in a garrison Army.
My original thought.