Thoughts on the selection process for ROTC

Centurion

New Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2019
Messages
1
As another school year looms to a close & selections for all branches.

Its been very interesting reading triumphs & disappointments.

What are your thoughts in the selection process? In my personal opinion, I think the criteria is too academic heavy or academic focused.

After binge watching all of Netflix’s Episodes of “Empire Games” & “WWII in colour”, it had me thinking of past & present militaries/battles. Almost all episodes had certain things in common; innovative strategies, critical thinking, and a great leader or leaders with the loyalty of their men.

They highlighted Military Greats such as Julius Ceaser, Marcus Aurelius, Alexander the Great, Cleopatra, Boudica, Winston Churchill, Patton, MacArthur. Really not so much scholars, but rather tested individuals that were either born into a setting or family, and were raised in a particular culture of walking the walk.

We all know the U.S. Military is the mightiest of the world’s militaries. Officers are leaders. What attributes make up a great officer to lead our military?

I wanted to gain a little insight into the mindset of those of the board, the roo, and pms when it comes to selection/recruiting of young high-schoolers for University ROTC. Especially when it comes to selection of winners for National/Campus based scholarships.

I know each Battalion & Branch may differ slightly from University to University but I am sure all decision makers have received similar training as to what to look for as far as recruiting, interviews, portfolios, accolades, etc from their respective branches.

Using this website forum as an example, we have seen countless student criteria’s, chances, & portfolios of potential and previous award winners, and the majorities’ trend very similar. It’s very academic heavy, 3.5 gpa & above, ACT 25-32, most participate in individual sports such as track, swimming, cross country, tennis, etc, and a few extracurricular activities such as debate or council, or boy scout.

What I don’t see as far as many criterions are top level athletes such as 3-5 star football players, basketball players, or high level wrestlers/martial art combatants. I have seen some students on these forums that have participated in these sports, but I am talking about high level/above average participants. Those who have competed or won something nationally/internationally or at a very high level. This is probably the closest we can get to a battle tested person.

Wouldn’t an elite athlete even with gpa 2.5-3.5, Act 19-25, stronger pft scores make a more effective military leader?

Here is how I see in which some of these athletes translate well into military leaders. We know football players practice regularly in harsh climate; the blistering cold, sometimes sweltering humidity, and at times rain. This translates well to any battlefield terrain & climate. Practices are very physical. They form natural leadership and camaraderie traits. Work as a team. This is years into the making.

We know that the sport of wrestling is probably the most grueling and hardest sport there is. Wrestling practices probably make basic boot camp seem like a walk in the park. They endure adversity, weight cuts, pressure in front of large crowds, mindset training, discipline, handling wins/loses. Spartan like.

These sports are like chess with physicality and situational mental pressures.

One would think these types of individuals can handle more effectively the rigors of war, or completing a mission? Less likely to be stressed, or homesick, or less hesitant to give the command to terminate the enemy or a group of enemies.

I understand these sports are not available in all Universities, but for the one that do. Is it just the interest is not there? Athletic Scholarships are so hard to come by; one would think they would embrace potential funding via ROTC.

Do the PMS feel safer with the academic heavy student? Perhaps they have to be more cognizant about their metrics such as recruiting quotas, retention stats and graduation stats?

Just respectful & friendly banter to maybe diversify.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevec...estlers-make-the-best-employees/#20e180785f88

“I swear it upon Zeus an outstanding runner cannot be the equal of an average wrestler.” - Socrates
 
Last edited:
I don’t think there is an emphasis to select academic achievers over athletic achievers. DS received AFROTC and NROTC scholarships (also USNA), and he was a varsity wrestler, football player and track participant. Those things added to his package. They liked that in him I suspect for the reasons you stated.

I dont think an athlete has to be elite at the D1 level to reap the benefits of sports. And I believe the sports do add to the leadership (physically and mentally) of an individual. And that’s why they DO look for these activities. DS ended up going to USNA, and something like 88pct of candidates (if I’m remembering correctly...could be off) participated in varsity sports. And being a team captain adds even more to the candidates score. One doesn’t have to be the best on the team (ie elite D1 level athlete) to be a captain. A captain is a leader on the team. At least at our school.

Both programs (ROTC and SA’s) assign value to sports, varsity, and team captains. They are very highly valued.

Another thing to consider, if I’m understanding you point correctly, is that a D1 athlete would probably have several options available to them. They may not be interested in serving. Or find the 5 yrs of AD appealing. They have choices.

Editing to add, that hands down wrestling is THE toughest sport physically and mentally, IMO. No way would I want my kids wrestling in college. Just for the cutting weight alone. Last season my junior barely made it through the season, at a weight the team needed him at that made it hard for him to concentrate or function. I cannot imagine doing that during college. I have mad respect for wrestle student athletes!!
 
The longest 6 minutes of my life were spent wrestling. Grueling.

And then do that 3 or 4 more times at a tournament. Without eating or drinking for days. Grueling is an understatement. BTW, NCAA wrestling, the OTHER March Madness going on presently!
 
My DS is a wrestler- just finished his last varsity season. It is a grueling grind and requires unbelievable dedication and self-discipline. Tournaments are 5:30 am to 9:00 pm every Saturday and 3:00 pm - 9:00 every Thursday. Diet is baby food. A 3 round match absolutely spends you but you need to get ready to do it again in a half-hour. Wrestlers deserve a special place in this world.
 
ROTC — and SAs, for that matter — has been training commissioned officers for a very, very long time. The military is quite adept at debriefing its efforts and learning from the past. (Even if it means, as often criticized, that they’re always preparing for the last war fought.) So I’m quite confident that they’ve figured out what characteristics and attributes of high school students result in the most effective commissioned officers. It’s a balance of academics and athletics and leadership. Which doesn’t mean equal parts, but instead the blend that translates into the best active-duty leaders.

Your examples, by the way, are a bit mixed. Churchill was a diligent student, well-learned and well-read — perhaps to a fault. He was an incredible writer and orator, largely the product of his high-end education. Patton, for all his gruffness and aloofness, was an absolutely brilliant student of history, politics and leadership, and by all accounts also a well-learned man.

Very difficult to say whether Caesar, Aurelius or Alexander were academically inclined because academics didn’t exist back then the way it does today.

And perhaps the most notable military leaders of this generation, David Petraeus and James Mattis, are well known for their very scholarly approach to leadership. Both are incredibly well-read and highly intelligent men who implored their troops to read deeply about topics both military and non-military.
 
I agree that the process is academic focused. The reason is that you must have a bachelors in order to commission. So the Services first want to make sure that a student can be successful in college. That drives the academic emphasis IMHO.

Robert Kirkland, LTC (Ret)
"The Insider's Guide to the Army ROTC Scholarship for High School Students and their Parents" (Amazon)
 
ROTC — and SAs, for that matter — has been training commissioned officers for a very, very long time. The military is quite adept at debriefing its efforts and learning from the past. (Even if it means, as often criticized, that they’re always preparing for the last war fought.) So I’m quite confident that they’ve figured out what characteristics and attributes of high school students result in the most effective commissioned officers. It’s a balance of academics and athletics and leadership. Which doesn’t mean equal parts, but instead the blend that translates into the best active-duty leaders.

Your examples, by the way, are a bit mixed. Churchill was a diligent student, well-learned and well-read — perhaps to a fault. He was an incredible writer and orator, largely the product of his high-end education. Patton, for all his gruffness and aloofness, was an absolutely brilliant student of history, politics and leadership, and by all accounts also a well-learned man.

Very difficult to say whether Caesar, Aurelius or Alexander were academically inclined because academics didn’t exist back then the way it does today.

And perhaps the most notable military leaders of this generation, David Petraeus and James Mattis, are well known for their very scholarly approach to leadership. Both are incredibly well-read and highly intelligent men who implored their troops to read deeply about topics both military and non-military.

I agree that Winston Churchill has many admirable qualities, including saving Western democracy in 1940-1941, holding out against Nazi Germany after the Fall of France to Barbarosa & Pearl Harbor. But that was mostly political skills. But was he a military great? Or even that good?

The Dardanelles Campaign of 1915 & the whole"soft underbelly" theory regarding Italy in 1943 certainly count negatively against the former Sea Lord. The decision to intervene in Greece in 1941, diverting British forces (who were on the verge of kicking Italy out of North Africa altogether) almost directly in German POW camps, was a disaster. Singapore 1942.
 
Something that is not being considered in this discussion is the survey, at least for Army. As @MidCakePa says, they have been building officers for a very long time. Just remember, this forum is just a small slice of applicants and scholarship winners. Points are gathered in three areas, scholar, athlete, leader. I have definitely seen winners on here with lower GPA and test scores but lots of other things that round out the file. But the survey is a big chunk of points and is based on the qualities of a successful officer. I read the study that the Army did to see the effectiveness of that survey for predicting successful officers and it was really interesting, and is the reason it weighs heavily in the OML for scholarship winners. And I agree that the academics is important to a point because being successful in college is part of what the applicants are signing up for. At the end of the day, the OML score derived from all of these items is what determines winners, not the GPA or test score. For my DD she had a 3.50 on her application and a super score of 26 on her ACT, so not top scholar material at all. But very well rounded in all three areas.

I do think each year they tweak the weighting - but looking at how the OML is created in the Golden Knight Batallion Blog, it looks pretty balanced to me, taking in the whole person score to make the Order of Merit List.
 
Ahhhh,,, another member who reads from the font of knowledge that is the Golden Knight Battalion Blog.
 
A more interesting study that would be applicable to this discussion would be looking at who became leaders (not necessarily Generals) during WWII. Since that war was probably the last time we had an army that represented all aspects of American society (except African Americans who were segregated although technically speaking it did respresent American society) it would be interesting to know who as a group or type of person excelled as a leader from those who were enlisted and those who commissioned as an officer. If you just look at Band Brothers, Lt Winters who I presume had no major military training prior to the war, wound up leading an attack on a german position that according to the show is still studied at West Point. My point being that those who wind up leading during a war and are sucessful at it, arent neccesarily the same people who would lead during peace time. During peace time, those who advance may do so because they know how to play politics while those in war advance by winning and not getting killed. My guess is if you play the odds, you will probably get more sucessful leaders based on the academies critieria. That doesnt however mean that there arent plenty of good or great leaders who wouldnt arise from another criteria. The other issue of course is while the US has a large pool of potential soldiers and leaders in terms of number of people, it has a extremely small pool in terms of percentage of population.
 
Such an interesting topic...

Of the three (academics, sports, and leadership) I’m betting leadership is hardest to assess in candidates w/o personal observation. We’ve all had team captains who were meh, but they got the title and experience. And what parts of Boys State translates to practice in life? I’m betting there’s a lot of case by case results.

I don’t envy the job of reading applications, I’ve done it at work. What I’m certain the committees are looking for is the person who will go that extra step to get it done, whether it’s overcoming an enemy position, mastering the engineering of a highly technical piece of equipment, or leaving no man behind. Who is an A+ and understands how to get there in whatever it is they exceed at. And to do so without being a [ahem] so that others will follow seems to be preferred.

The academically skilled will say there’s too much emphasis on athletics and vice versa. Understanding how these both can fit with leadership (and the job description), I start to get an inkling of how leadership skill is assessed.

BTW, not many females are wrestling or playing football. Lotsa sports have complex strategy and tactics.

And for what it’s worth, Aristotle was Alexander’s tutor. (I think a Philosophy major somewhere just dropped the mic).
 
And not all rotc or SA people need to be equal. My guess is they are looking for a mix. I few super intellectuals and a few super athletes and a few XYZ that all come together to form a good team. Just a guess though
 
We want a military leader to be a balanced person, not just physically stronger who can transform to just be a battlefield warrior. With the current era of inflated GPA, 2.5-3.0 GPA simply would not cut it. It is well well below median. I am fully understood that GPA does not equate to intelligence, 1 to 1, but it shows dedication and time management, at least. My point is being balanced. (BTW, I am only addressing a portion of original post)
 
A little off topic but if anything needs to change it's the whole congressional nomination system -

If the world made sense there would be one web site where all candidates put all their 'stuff' into and indicate where they'd like to go - academies and rotc pull candidates from there and make offers
 
A little off topic but if anything needs to change it's the whole congressional nomination system -

If the world made sense there would be one web site where all candidates put all their 'stuff' into and indicate where they'd like to go - academies and rotc pull candidates from there and make offers

ROTC already works this way with It's national application process.

The Academies have always tried to attract cadets and mids from all across the country, the nomination process helps in this goal.
 
A little off topic but if anything needs to change it's the whole congressional nomination system -

If the world made sense there would be one web site where all candidates put all their 'stuff' into and indicate where they'd like to go - academies and rotc pull candidates from there and make offers

ROTC already works this way with It's national application process.

The Academies have always tried to attract cadets and mids from all across the country, the nomination process helps in this goal.

I suspect the nomination process came from an attempt to prevent one state to become more powerful than the others. Up until what ww1 units were mostly locally raised and trained. Now it's at best a huge waste of time and effort on everyone's part at worst it allows a politician to spread some sugar

Not that anyone is asking me.
 
Back
Top