I do want to clarify one point. A vast majority of recruiters are doing nothing wrong. More often than not, they accurately present their information and potential benefits for the audience. Where they sometimes fall short, in my opinion, is the presentation of ALL possible options, and the perceived prioritization of the Army's needs over the individuals. (I've argued that the Army, specifically USAREC and ARNG, would be better served if recruiters earned partial enlistment credit for completed ROTC applications, but that's a different discussion.)
Technically, you CAN participate in ROTC and serve in the ARNG/USAR, simultaneously...contracted or not. Even if every single ROTC applicant enlisted in a reserve component prior to college, only about 20% would run into the administrative challenges that I described above. Also, since the timeline for receiving the GI Bill and FTA is now one year AFTER completion of AIT, enlistment could potentially put someone on a faster track to some form of financial aid. Enlistment is certainly not detrimental to any of our non-scholarship applicants, either. They can still compete for campus based Line or GRFD scholarships, or elect to contract non-scholarship and compete for Active Duty.
Bottom line, there are many options out there, and the reason things are so convoluted is that (if we're being honest) Big Army does a TERRIBLE job of ensuring national awareness of the available options and the differences between them. It's critical that people are proactive in their research and ask lots of questions to ensure they find the right fit.