ROTC vs SA Difference?

Elaborate on point three please

bereavement, askew, plethora, erroneous
those are a lot of SAT words right there :smile:

OK, I think I know what you meant, but the fact is there is a lot of debate about whether the SAs or ROTC produce the best officers in the field, over the long run.

I have read Army Staffing studies, reports, etc. and here are the conclusions I recall:

- SAs produce better O1s and possible O2s than ROTC-Scholarship does in the first year or two of active duty service. This is attributed to the more intense military focus of the SA vs. ROTC, rather than the inate capability of the officer.
- By the time both sources of commission reach O3, there is no perceptible difference in military bearing, military skill, culture, effectiveness, staff management, or by any other measure between a SA produce O3s and ROTC - Scholarship produced O3s.
- There is a large difference in perceived quality of Officer between Scholarship and Non-Scholarship cadets at all levels.

So, having addressed what I think you meant in your question, you have to ask yourself whether you would more apprecate the environment of the SA vs. an equally academically rigorous college or University... say anything ranked in the top 75 in US News.

It's the end of a crazy week, could you elaborate on point three please as my brain isn't processing too well.
 
- There is a large difference in perceived quality of Officer between Scholarship and Non-Scholarship cadets at all levels.

Never heard that one before.
 
Never heard that one before.

Me either, if anything I would think the non scholarship guys gave and sacrificed more to become an officer. Their dedication in spite of no tuition being funded is something I find admirable.

But even so I don't see how scholarship or not has to do with leadership or maybe I just misunderstood the post.
 
to all 3 posters regarding Scholarship vs. Non-Scholarship ROTC commissioned officer --

I thought I might find the study from which this information was drawn, and which now resided in my memory, in one of the six of this series:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=912 and the five associated articles listed at the bottom of that page, but I so far coul not find it.

Sometimes I print out studies, and read them at the beach or while attening a ballgame, and I've read all six of those, but the data don't seem to be in these six. Wherever it was, it was an official study of at least 50 pages in length, addressing retention rates by category, officer quality by category, etc. with several pages of charts comparing the personnel evaluation results and retention of officers commissioned thourgh USMA, ROTC-Scholarship 4 yr., ROTC Scholarship 3 Yr, ROTC non-Scholarship.
 
Last edited:
to all 3 posters regarding Scholarship vs. Non-Scholarship ROTC commissioned officer --

I thought I might find the study from which this information was drawn, and which now resided in my memory, in one of the six of this series:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=912 and the five associated articles listed at the bottom of that page, but I so far coul not find it.

Sometimes I print out studies, and read them at the beach or while attening a ballgame, and I've read all six of those, but the data don't seem to be in these six. Wherever it was, it was an official study of at least 50 pages in length, addressing retention rates by category, officer quality by category, etc. with several pages of charts comparing the personnel evaluation results and retention of officers commissioned thourgh USMA, ROTC-Scholarship 4 yr., ROTC Scholarship 3 Yr, ROTC non-Scholarship.
I believe I have read what you are referring too. In a nutshell they were saying that their SA and ROTC scholarship selection process was very good at picking those people that would develop into good officers. Therefore those sources produced better officers on average than non-scholarship. They also had a retention problem in keeping those same officers. Good officers had good opportunities on the civilian side that lured them away.
 
^ right, that's how I remember it.

To me, it is common sense. Why would the Army have a competition for ROTC scholarships based on Scholar - Athlete - Leader, and award scholarships to the top placements of that competition, if it didn't matter six years later in the Field of Battle? If a non-scholarship winner, ON AVERAGE would turn out to be just as good an Officer, then why have the competition and pay scholarships at all?

The ARmy is buying who they think will make the best future officers, and isn't buying who they think won't. If they are wrong, then they need to either:

1) stop paying out scholarship money, or
2) stop using SAL as the criteria, and find criteria that are more predictive of who will be a great officer.

That is not to say that, say 25% of the Non-Scholarship commissioned cadets do not turn out to be better Officers than a lot of the Scholarship cadets, which is probably true.
 
Last edited:
As a WP grad do you have a better shot at making general over some ROTC grad? Ya probably, but the fact of the matter is all officers receive the same commission and are expected to fulfill their duties and branch assignments according to the regulations set forth as well as pay heed to the commands above them.

I've also heard it being said (here and other places) that the higher you rise in rank, the greater the chance that you'll be saluting a SA grad, and by a wide margin at that.

Is it because WP is producing a betting "quality" officer who "has what it takes" to make General? Does the WP grad tend to stay in longer than the ROTC grad? If so, why?

Does it have to do with "networking" via other ring knockers deciding those promotions?

Or is this premise patently false?
 
^ One of those articles I referenced above has a chart showing longevity within the officer ranks. See .pdf page 5, chart, from this link: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=912

From worst, to best persistence within the Army at year 8:

- ROTC 4 Yr. Scholarship Awardee
- West Point
- 3 Yr. Scholarship Awardee
- 2 Yr. Scholarship Awardee
- Non-scholarship ROTC
- OCS In-Service

As to what is the % of Generals commissioned by Source (WP, ROTC-4 Yr, ROTC-3Yr, ROTC 2 Yr., ROTC no scholarship, OCS, and Field Commission) that is a good question whose answer I have not yet read. In one sense the answer actually only reflects realities as they existed at a minimum 20 years ago, and at maximum 40 years ago, as that is the age range of current Generals.

One day for fun I check on how many Joint Chiefs of Staff came out of ROTCs vs. Academies vs. Field Commission. I don't have it in front of me, but about 40% were ROTC. Just one Field Commission, and the rest Academies.
 
Last edited:
Further, the question: What is the % of Generals commissioned via WP vs. ROTC, vs. OCS, vs. Field Commission, does not really answer the question about which commissioning source makes "better officers".

What if 2% of WP graduates make General, but only 1% of ROTC do. Does this mean that the WP graduates are more qualified to be a General, or does it mean that the ROTC grads don't, on AVERAGE, want to be a General as much as WP grads do? In other words perhaps something happens regarding the cadet's aspirations because of the environment at WP that is different from what happens regarding a cadet's aspirations in ROTC at Vanderbilt, or U of Florida, or Texas A&M. Maybe the ROTC cadets are actually MORE prepared to function as generals because of their civilian education, but opt out a O3, O4, O5 because they are more open to civilian or government jobs outside the Military, and pursue those opportunities at a greater rate than WP commissioned Officers do.

All that to say, the % of Generals by commissioning source doesn't actually answer the question about which source produces a better general .. it doesn't take into account desire.
 
Don't quote me on this, but junior year for AP US History a required reading book was The Long Gray Line, about the lives and experiences of members of WP's Class of 1967. In that book, it stated that there was no real difference in likelihood of becoming a general when comparing WP to ROTC.
 
There was a long standing joke among the officers when I was in the service.

"It is not always the best officer that makes Admiral or General, but it is always the best Politician"

Once you make 06, everything above that is much more about Politics.

It will be interesting to see how things shape up over the next 10 to 15 years.

The current group of Generals came from a time when ROTC commissioned very few officers to Active Duty, Those that were lucky enough to get AD were not Regular Army, only WP grads were RA. Officers from ROTC had to apply for Regular Army status and many did not get it and were shown the door. Back then there just weren't that many ROTC officers that made it to the RA that would be considered for higher rank. Now that Congress changed the rules every officer commissioned to AD is now RA. Add to this the number of ROTC officers far out number the WP grads. Last year ROTC commissioned 3 times the number of AD officers then did WP and then add in the OCS commissions and the number grows. ROTC and OCS has added far more AD officers to the army over the last 10 years, WP grads are outnumbered by nearly 4 to 1.

As the years go on it will be interesting to see if there is a shift in 06 and above that represents the current commissioning sources.

For any applicant to make their decision on where to go to school and how to commission based on their chances of making General is missing the whole point of joining the military, I've rarely read a bio, or met of a General or Admiral that says that was their goal when joining the service. I'm pretty confident that none of the applicants on this board have that as their main goal.....They all want to be Seals or Green Beret...Just joking.
 
For any applicant to make their decision on where to go to school and how to commission based on their chances of making General is missing the whole point of joining the military, I've rarely read a bio, or met of a General or Admiral that says that was their goal when joining the service. I

Wow! This is exactly what I have been thinking in this thread. Maybe the focus should be on your first PT test or first semester grades. If you don't worry about that then you will never need to worry about the stars on your uniform.

I'm pretty confident that none of the applicants on this board have that as their main goal.....They all want to be Seals or Green Beret...Just joking.

Aint that the truth, Interesting how things change in between being 18 Years old and 30 years old. Different priorities.
 
They all want to be Seals or Green Beret...Just joking.

It's funny you say this, during my MoC interview for USNA last year, they asked me, if I was accepted what would I want to do upon graduation? I replied Marine Ground and one of the members of the panel stopped the interview to shake my hand. Apparently I was the first person he had interviewed that day that hadn't said SEAL or fighter pilot.
 
I have to say this was a WOW thread for me from the OP's position.

I wish the best for them, but I worry what if they get a TWE from the SAs and ROTC. Will they walk away because of their misguided notion?

I wonder if they realize that one of the most respected 4 stars in our recent history was an AROTC grad. Gen. Colin Powell.

I just realized Dlee is a rising jr., applying for SLS in Dec 2012, I think this may be why their perception exists. Not trying to offend, trying to explain why they see ROTC and OTS officers are not on par with SA grads.
 
Last edited:
Promotions are not based on where you went to school...it's based on your accomplishments, merits and political wits once you are in. The Army's problem is not who gets promoted, it's who decides to get out of the Army. (More than 70 percent of officers have left by 19 years of service, more than 80 percent have left by 22 years of service.)
Completing a graduate degree is far more important to making senior officer than where your BA/BS is from.

For what it's worth, USMA grads rank between 0-5% "above center of mass"
as compared to ROTC Grads, not enough to get worked up about, especially considering that is comparing graduates from everywhere (think open admission community colleges) w/the USMA (Ivy league caliber)

If you look through all the research papers, SA's are rarely distinguished from ROTC programs, the Army seems to view them as to similar to distinguish between.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1734594_code1025352.pdf?abstractid=1734594&mirid=1

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/G...-our-best-officers-are-leaving-early/(page)/2

http://www.informs-sim.org/wsc10papers/130.pdf

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB965.pdf
 
The current group of Generals came from a time when ROTC commissioned very few officers to Active Duty, Those that were lucky enough to get AD were not Regular Army, only WP grads were RA. Officers from ROTC had to apply for Regular Army status and many did not get it and were shown the door. Back then there just weren't that many ROTC officers that made it to the RA that would be considered for higher rank. Now that Congress changed the rules every officer commissioned to AD is now RA. Add to this the number of ROTC officers far out number the WP grads.
Not that it has any bearing on this conversation but prior to all officers being commissioned Regular Army, all officers, includingf WP grads, were commisioned into the Reserves, and then had to apply for augmentation. This happened in the early '90s when Senator Glenn, a very vocal critic of the SAs, pushed it through as part of the appropriations bill.
 
Not that it has any bearing on this conversation but prior to all officers being commissioned Regular Army, all officers, includingf WP grads, were commisioned into the Reserves, and then had to apply for augmentation. This happened in the early '90s when Senator Glenn, a very vocal critic of the SAs, pushed it through as part of the appropriations bill.

But his point is correct. Those who are generals now were commissioned well prior to the early '90s. Most were commissioned in the late '70s through late '80s.
 
Took a while to re-find this study of Marine officer promotions (Major, LTC, COL.)

It shows USNA graduates have about a 5% edge on promotions over ROTC
...The same as 29 points higher on the 300 point Marine PT test. (CPT>MAJ)

Note: A graduate degree gives a 60.0% boost, and a combat tour a 54.0% boost to a LTC>Colonel

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/090423_promotion_thesis.pdf
 
Last edited:
West Point is an excellent place. I'd argue the best school in the nation. I'm named after a WP grad. 4 of my good friends are cadets. I've got family that are professors there. I'm no expert (by far) on WP, but have a general understanding. This thread should not turn into a pissing match. Both programs are different for a reason and ultimately because of the different cultures between the programs, the Army benefits.

Perhaps the best school to produce Army officers. I think most would judge schools like MIT and Stanford as better schools in the non-military sense.
 
Back
Top