A large number of scholarship offerees simply drop from the program because ROTC is not for them. In some cases they were pressured into it by mom or dad. It is difficult for a board to evaluate motivation. It is much easier to evaluate motivation when awarding the on campus scholarships.
True that scholarship offerees drop after they have experienced the program and find it is not for them. I would also expect that many who show up day one of their freshman year walking on to have the same experience and make the same decision.
As to the "they were pressured into it by mom or dad" issue, that is one that the interview is supposed to weed out. Granted it is only a couple of hours to size up a young kid (and perhaps his/her parents if they tag along), but in my experience dealing with boarding school admissions folks, they are actually very good at breaking down the thinking of both applicant and parent (in this case required) to identify any issues they think will keep the child from thriving in their program. And they typically get about the same amount of time (2 to 3 hours) to do the same task. This is an area that perhaps the Army could use some formal training in when assigning officers to ROTC units.
I do agree that it is easier to pick a winner when you have an entire year observing his/her behavior in the unit and would expect retention rates in excess of 90% (stuff happens).
Right now, the on-campus scholarship is a "no guarantee expressed or implied" kind of situation. Walk-ons know that there is a possibility of getting one, "if" the money is available "and" they are excelling in the program. Some may be playing the "I'll risk it for a year and drop if I don't get one" game, but even those are often easy to pick out and bypass. If all scholarships were handled as on-campus, I think the "reality TV show gamesmanship" would probably walk on campus in the form of lots of wanna-bees and I imagine distract from the more serious candidates experience.
No, what worried me about that original post was the fact that the ROO was pointing at his "scholarship" board which would imply that he is blaming the scholarship process for his lack of retention. If he were pointing at his "freshman" board and saying the same kind of thing, it could be interpreted as "this is a tough program and lots of kids underestimate it" message.
If he were pointing at the "scholarship" board and saying that the ones "he" interviewed are the ones primarily still on campus, that would be saying that he takes his job seriously and wishes for a stronger veto on scholarship awardees (where he can eliminate the offer based upon his impression of the candidate). I can respect that.
Point here is that lots of messages can be taken from the message in that post. Don't mean to be a hard case on you hard-working (as evidenced by your active participation here on SAF
) cadre, but I'm sure you know of some who don't do the job as well. I wouldn't expect you to call them out, but I know that we as parents (with a small stake in the situation) do have to understand that they exist.
I hope no offense was taken as it wasn't intended.
