ROTC SCHOLORSHIP vs ACADEMY SLOT

waiting4ever

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
18
If I applied for the Academy's & an ROTC Scholarships, will the ROTC wait to decide if I have not been selected for an Academy slot yet but am still a competitive candidate? In other words, do they communicate to make the final decision???
 
If I applied for the Academy's & an ROTC Scholarships, will the ROTC wait to decide if I have not been selected for an Academy slot yet but am still a competitive candidate? In other words, do they communicate to make the final decision???
They do not coordinate.
 
No, they do not communicate. If you happen to be awarded an ROTC scholarship prior to an appointment you should accept it and can always decline it later it on.
 
Anyone know what the percentage of overlap is between ROTC scholarship recipients and Academy appointment appointees?
 
No idea about percentage, but I would assume those who are good candidates for the academy will probably get a scholarhsip. Those who qualify for a scholarship arent necessarily good candidates for the academy
 
No idea about percentage, but I would assume those who are good candidates for the academy will probably get a scholarhsip. Those who qualify for a scholarship arent necessarily good candidates for the academy

Actually it is usually the opposite. AFROTC boards are national, and they do not care if certain states are not represented. They have X amount of scholarships and where you live does not matter. Whereas, USAFA or any SA starts from a state level and than go to the national pool. IOWS Cadet Smith from Congressmen Williams (District 2) in Arkansas may get an appointment, but no scholarship, because although he was number 1 for the congressmen, he did not make the cut for AFROTC from a national aspect.

Additionally, AFROTC does best sitting, not superscore. If you look at the scholarship recipients, their numbers are the same as USAFA, but the biggie is the USAFA number is superscore, not best sitting.

No flaming me. Just saying there is a lot of little unique factors for both commissioning sources.
 
No idea about percentage, but I would assume those who are good candidates for the academy will probably get a scholarhsip. Those who qualify for a scholarship arent necessarily good candidates for the academy

Actually it is usually the opposite. AFROTC boards are national, and they do not care if certain states are not represented. They have X amount of scholarships and where you live does not matter. Whereas, USAFA or any SA starts from a state level and than go to the national pool. IOWS Cadet Smith from Congressmen Williams (District 2) in Arkansas may get an appointment, but no scholarship, because although he was number 1 for the congressmen, he did not make the cut for AFROTC from a national aspect.

Additionally, AFROTC does best sitting, not superscore. If you look at the scholarship recipients, their numbers are the same as USAFA, but the biggie is the USAFA number is superscore, not best sitting.

No flaming me. Just saying there is a lot of little unique factors for both commissioning sources.
I get why you are saying but it would seem that in order to go to the academy there are so many requirement like leadership, sports, and academics while it would seem that getting a scholarship is more about the academics. I say this however without having any idea what it takes to get a scholarship. I would also add that you should include those who get scholarship while in college and there I have to imagine academics must be a big part of it. No reason to flame you. I have no idea if what you said is true or not, but it makes a lot of sense. Are you basically saying that since each candidate competes against other candidates in his district, that the competition can be less fierce because he isnt competing against everyone else in the country? If so you have a point
 
I think it also can really depend on the type of ROTC scholarship, and factoring in the physical requirements. For example, based on everything I've read here, I can see a great majority of candidates doing sufficiently for the Naval Academy CFA, but not being up to the rigorous standards of the NROTC Marine Option PFT. We're sitting here hoping four years of varsity sports and other factors can help overcome a less than stellar (one day) shot at the Marine PFT; will know in a couple of weeks but not encouraged. (did fine on the CFA at NASS)
 
No idea about percentage, but I would assume those who are good candidates for the academy will probably get a scholarhsip. Those who qualify for a scholarship arent necessarily good candidates for the academy

Actually it is usually the opposite. AFROTC boards are national, and they do not care if certain states are not represented. They have X amount of scholarships and where you live does not matter. Whereas, USAFA or any SA starts from a state level and than go to the national pool. IOWS Cadet Smith from Congressmen Williams (District 2) in Arkansas may get an appointment, but no scholarship, because although he was number 1 for the congressmen, he did not make the cut for AFROTC from a national aspect.

Additionally, AFROTC does best sitting, not superscore. If you look at the scholarship recipients, their numbers are the same as USAFA, but the biggie is the USAFA number is superscore, not best sitting.

No flaming me. Just saying there is a lot of little unique factors for both commissioning sources.
I get why you are saying but it would seem that in order to go to the academy there are so many requirement like leadership, sports, and academics while it would seem that getting a scholarship is more about the academics. I say this however without having any idea what it takes to get a scholarship. I would also add that you should include those who get scholarship while in college and there I have to imagine academics must be a big part of it. No reason to flame you. I have no idea if what you said is true or not, but it makes a lot of sense. Are you basically saying that since each candidate competes against other candidates in his district, that the competition can be less fierce because he isnt competing against everyone else in the country? If so you have a point
Speaking specifically to NROTC, but I believe this applies to all the ROTC programs, it is not just about academics. Either at the initial 4 year scholarship level or scholarships earned while in college. It is about the Scholar, Athlete, Leader, just like the academies. Competition is stiff for either an ROTC scholarship or academy admission and anyone who earns an appointment to an academy or an ROTC scholarship should be extremely proud of their accomplishment. (And also be prepared to work their butts off to become the best officer they can be.)
 
I get why you are saying but it would seem that in order to go to the academy there are so many requirement like leadership, sports, and academics while it would seem that getting a scholarship is more about the academics.
Hardly. In total agreement with ProudDad17. DS had sufficient academics and athletics but lacked leadership - and did not get a 4 year scholarship. He did win a scholarship during sophomore year when he had an opportunity to demonstrate his leadership for 2+ semesters.
 
DD is an NROTC SS recipient. Her application was just as thorough as her USNA application. The biggest difference I can see is USNA required a nomination whereas NROTC did not.
 
I believe the SAT average scores were higher for NROTC than for the USNA last year...
 
I get why you are saying but it would seem that in order to go to the academy there are so many requirement like leadership, sports, and academics while it would seem that getting a scholarship is more about the academics. I say this however without having any idea what it takes to get a scholarship. I would also add that you should include those who get scholarship while in college and there I have to imagine academics must be a big part of it. No reason to flame you. I have no idea if what you said is true or not, but it makes a lot of sense. Are you basically saying that since each candidate competes against other candidates in his district, that the competition can be less fierce because he isnt competing against everyone else in the country? If so you have a point

Humey -- what PIMA said is true . . . she does have experience on this issue . . .

People are sometimes under the incorrect impression that those selected to go to an SA are "superior" to those that earn a 4 yr (or 3 yr) national ROTC scholarship. To get a 4 yr (or 3 yr) national ROTC scholarship today , it typically takes a "SA-quality" record with all the same varsity letter sports achievements, team captain, club officer, other leadership, physical fitness, good grades and high SAT/ACT test scores. In some cases it is harder to get the ROTC scholarship than the SA appointment. In recent years, the AF was only awarding 300 AFROTC scholarships each year (a mix of 3 and 4 year) while USAFA was still making 1200 appointments each year. For the Army, they usually only award about 600 4 yr scholarships each year while USMA still makes 1200 appointments each year. (Total Army ROTC national scholarships has been around 2500 each year with 600 being 4 yr and 1900 being 3 yr.) I don't have any experience with the Navy.

An SA candidate from a very competitive area like NoVa will earn only one of the 10 nominations from a MOC, but be ranked low on the MOC's slate because of all the great candidates (NoVa will have 200-300 applicants to each senator and each NoVa Representative -- typically 50 get interviews and 10 are seletected by each MOC usually with no duplication). A candidate from a not-so-competive region will get one or more nominations and be ranked high on the MOC's slate. The candidate that is ranked low from the very competitive region will have a record that is way better than the candidate from the not-so-competitive region. In the end, the candiate from the not-so-competitive region will get the SA appointment, and the candidate from the very competitive region will not get an SA appointment, even though they have a better record. Every year there are SA candidates that get an SA appointment, but don't qualify for a national ROTC scholarship -- nationally, they were not competitive -- they "won their MOC slate" for the SA appointment, but compared to the national pool, they didn't make the cut -- and every year there are great SA candidates that don't get the SA appointment (because they didn't win their MOC's slate in a very competitive region) but do earn a 4 yr (or 3 yr) national ROTC scholarship because they did compete well within the national pool.
 
I get why you are saying but it would seem that in order to go to the academy there are so many requirement like leadership, sports, and academics while it would seem that getting a scholarship is more about the academics. I say this however without having any idea what it takes to get a scholarship. I would also add that you should include those who get scholarship while in college and there I have to imagine academics must be a big part of it. No reason to flame you. I have no idea if what you said is true or not, but it makes a lot of sense. Are you basically saying that since each candidate competes against other candidates in his district, that the competition can be less fierce because he isnt competing against everyone else in the country? If so you have a point

Humey -- what PIMA said is true . . . she does have experience on this issue . . .

People are sometimes under the incorrect impression that those selected to go to an SA are "superior" to those that earn a 4 yr (or 3 yr) national ROTC scholarship. To get a 4 yr (or 3 yr) national ROTC scholarship today , it typically takes a "SA-quality" record with all the same varsity letter sports achievements, team captain, club officer, other leadership, physical fitness, good grades and high SAT/ACT test scores. In some cases it is harder to get the ROTC scholarship than the SA appointment. In recent years, the AF was only awarding 300 AFROTC scholarships each year (a mix of 3 and 4 year) while USAFA was still making 1200 appointments each year. For the Army, they usually only award about 600 4 yr scholarships each year while USMA still makes 1200 appointments each year. (Total Army ROTC national scholarships has been around 2500 each year with 600 being 4 yr and 1900 being 3 yr.) I don't have any experience with the Navy.

An SA candidate from a very competitive area like NoVa will earn only one of the 10 nominations from a MOC, but be ranked low on the MOC's slate because of all the great candidates (NoVa will have 200-300 applicants to each senator and each NoVa Representative -- typically 50 get interviews and 10 are seletected by each MOC usually with no duplication). A candidate from a not-so-competive region will get one or more nominations and be ranked high on the MOC's slate. The candidate that is ranked low from the very competitive region will have a record that is way better than the candidate from the not-so-competitive region. In the end, the candiate from the not-so-competitive region will get the SA appointment, and the candidate from the very competitive region will not get an SA appointment, even though they have a better record. Every year there are SA candidates that get an SA appointment, but don't qualify for a national ROTC scholarship -- nationally, they were not competitive -- they "won their MOC slate" for the SA appointment, but compared to the national pool, they didn't make the cut -- and every year there are great SA candidates that don't get the SA appointment (because they didn't win their MOC's slate in a very competitive region) but do earn a 4 yr (or 3 yr) national ROTC scholarship because they did compete well within the national pool.
i stand corrected. The interesting thing than about the academy is that they dont necessarily take the best in the nation, they take the best in the specific district. So the #2 guy from the Los Angeles district who doesnt get in may completely outshine #1 from district in Wyoming who did get in. However when competing for Rotc scholarhsips, they all compete against each other.
 
Last edited:
So forgive my ignorance, but I have to ask....WHY is a nomination required to gain a SA appointment? My DD has 2 nominations, but I am baffled why they are needed?
 
Uhhh... It's the law and Congress never like to relinquish their prerogatives.
 
So forgive my ignorance, but I have to ask....WHY is a nomination required to gain a SA appointment? My DD has 2 nominations, but I am baffled why they are needed?

The law ensures geographic diversity, which builds an officer corps that represents the whole of the country.
Elimination of the law could skew the military leadership toward the most populous, or more wealthy regions.

The Constitution was written to create representation from the entire country. I believe that our military benefits similarly from the congressional nomination requirement.
 
Ok, I understand the need for geographic diversity. I'm not contesting that at all. But the SA admissions department can't figure out on their own (without the help of a congressman/senator/etc) how to adhere to the geographic diversity? Again, just really trying to understand the process.
 
Ok, I understand the need for geographic diversity. I'm not contesting that at all. But the SA admissions department can't figure out on their own (without the help of a congressman/senator/etc) how to adhere to the geographic diversity? Again, just really trying to understand the process.
i see your point. The academy could handle the district issue, making sure they each district is represented. Why have congressman decide who can go or not. However as it has been written before, it is the law
 
Ok, I understand the need for geographic diversity. I'm not contesting that at all. But the SA admissions department can't figure out on their own (without the help of a congressman/senator/etc) how to adhere to the geographic diversity? Again, just really trying to understand the process.

I would say yes, the Admissions department CAN do this. But the law goes back over a hundred years.

The current nomination system has its roots at West Point, the oldest of the four service academies.

In 1843, Congress increased the size of each cadet class to match the number of representatives in the House — then 223. That led President John Tyler, who made the appointments, to delegate the task to his secretary of war, who in turn sought nominations from members of Congress.

"And it seemed to work. There were a lot of reasons why this was a good system. This federal institution had representation from every corner of the country and that was a good thing. And also it meant that both parties were represented," said Betros, the provost of the Army War College and author of Carved from Granite: The History of West Point since 1902. "It's the age of Jackson, the age of democracy, and that was touted as one of the great advantages of this system." *
So here in 2018, why not change the law? Probably due to tradition (and congressional authority) more than anything!

Also, the system helps admissions deal with only the cream of the crop from each congressional district; in a sense pre-screening the field. That helps save time.

* Source:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...s-congressional-nominations-history/15660721/
 
Back
Top