Wow, AFA Losing Cadets!

[Christcorp]

Not sure if you're asking the pros and cons of both, or simply the experience difference. There's definitely a difference in the experience both have during their time prior to being commissioned. I'll let someone with more experience with ROTC give their perspective. Also, fwiw, there is a section in this forum, below the academies, for ROTC. You could probably get a more pro-side of ROTC vs asking the question in the academy side which is obviously more biased towards the academies.

As for some of the pros vs cons. The academy is 100% full ride for all intents and purposes of discussion. An ROTC endeavor depends on the scholarship. The academy is a guaranteed commission to 2lt. ROTC isn't a guarantee that you will be commissioned and go on to being an officer. The academy, you can major in just about anything you want, from engineering to being an English major. ROTC, is more difficult to get a scholarship if you aren't a tech type degree like engineering. Of course, ROTC allows you to be part time military and part time civilian student. The academy is 24/7 military. ROTC allows you to be in it, even without a scholarship. (Many schools are inexpensive and scholarships aren't needed). The academy you must receive an appointment. Because the academy is 24/7 military, there are a lot more opportunities while there, such as spending time at bases around the world. And while definitely available in ROTC to become a pilot, like Pima and bullets son, you have to work much harder at it. The academy is pretty much a guarantee to be a pilot if you want it, make it through the academy, and are medically qualified.

As I said in my previous post. I don't consider either to be better than the other. Simply different. And for some, the difference is significant. E.g. I was active duty Air Force. Nothing against the guard or reserves, but there's no way I could have done either of those. I needed and wanted a full time military. My son, only applied to the Air Force academy. He didn't want navy, army, cg, mm, or ROTC. He even commented that had he gone ROTC, knowing how he is, he never would have done as well academically in a civilian college. Part of the reason he excelled at the academy was because of the 24/7 structure. Again, not saying either is better or worse. Just different. And each person would adapt differently to the 2 different lifestyles.

There was a time when the career path of an academy grad was greater than an ROTC or OCS commissioned officer. I don't believe that is significant any longer. I do believe however that where you get your degree, what the degree is in, and how well you do in getting that degree, will have some impact on your career. Maybe working towards grad school. Maybe later on. Not saying ROTC is at a less advantage. Saying where you went to college and did ROTC could have some affect. E.g. ROTC at Rutgers, Princeton, USC, MIT, Duke, etc... Vs ROTC at the university of wyoming. Whereas, the academies are significant schools on their own. But again, I don't believe commissioning via the academy is significantly better for your career, vs ROTC. Not like it use to be. But with ROTC, being in a good school is important. As is the degree you are getting.
At the academy, the degree isn't as important.

I'll let others speak more about life as an ROTC cadet.

 

[raimius]

Other than "I got the ring and the degree from USAFA" what really is the "end difference" between an officer trained USAFA and ROTC?
(I have no military background, so while this might be obvious to the military experienced, it isn't to me)

The message I get as a parent from USAFA is that USAFA is the superior experience.
The message I get as a civilian from the AF is that they are equal as they come in at the same level (2nd Lt.)

There just seems to be so many mixed messages out there. I could very well not be reading the messages correctly.

That's the $64,000 question!

Academically, USAFA is certainly competitive with many well-regarded schools.
Militarily, USAFA cadets get a much greater quantity of military training.
In my little corner of the AF, I see poor, good, and great officers from pretty much all the commissioning sources. That leads me to believe that the AF manages to recruit a similar quality pool for each commissioning source.

Academy grads get a little boost at the start, simply by knowing the system better, and having a lot of AF connections. That said, it seems like the field evens out within a couple years.
Each commissioning source is different. I had a ROTC educated USAFA instructor comment that the AF needs both ROTC and USAFA for a capable force.
I'd argue that USAFA allows for a bit of a cultural baseline for the officer corps, although it is not produce a majority of the officer corps.

....I'm sure this could be answered by several books worth of arguments and debates...

 

[MN-Dad-2016]

30 basics started in Squadron 22. Weeks later, 28 made it out of BCT. Statistically speaking, I don't see any red flags.

So far we have only gotten one side of the story. If 1/2 of the basics dropped out, then we can give more validity to the subjective conclusions that have been drawn. I'd microwave another bag of popcorn to hear the other side.

when my DS went though BCT, I remember him telling us stories/examples of how some basics attracted well deserved extra attention. One didn't make it through BCT and the other dropped after the 1st semester.

 

[cadet15]

Pushups, running, repeated instruction to get it just perfect, even whispering.

As someone who had your "meaner" son as cadre, we got used to the yelling and the level of excellence he expected. What I never personally got used to was another member of cadre who insisted on whispering to us from behind. That was beyond what I was accustomed to and far worse than any amount of yelling or beatings. After any time that he came up behind us in Mitches or mini-Mitches out in Jacks and did that, I was done eating for that meal because I was so creeped out by being whispered at from behind so I couldn't even see it coming out of the corners of my eyes.

 

[fencersmother]

My twins had some real fun when they were cadre for their basics. In the "superman drills" where basics have to change from bdu's to blues quick as quick, one of my twins said he could do the change in (memory fades so it's a guestimate) 2 minutes. "No way!" shout his basics.

"Oh yeah? Bet's on!" said son, and I think the bet was probably fifty pushups or something like that.

So, Twin A goes into a room in bdu's and Twin B comes out, about 30 seconds later, all stracked in his blues, just perfect. These basics are dumbfounded. Amazed! Except one smart female who had true attention to detail.

"Sir, you might be a XXX, but you are not our XXX!"

Other twin pops out and there is a good laugh and handshakes and snickers bar for the observant female basic.

 

[Capt MJ]

Had to laugh at the twins story... We had twin sponsor daughters at USNA who were exact copies, down to facial moles. They pulled Uniform Race switches throughout Plebe Summer, and it finally took cross talk among plebes in two separate platoons to realize there were two of these blindingly fast detailers.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Obviously I'm not an Air Force Academy grad, but I'll share some of my experiences. I was a Coast Guard Academy swab in 2002 and a cadre in 2004.

During swab summer in 2002 I was in the Y-1 platoon. I don't think there were any "slacker" swab summer platoons. Our cadre weren't the most feared, but they weren't push overs either. Our first platoon commander was not effective. She was mean, but not in a productive way. We understood this as swabs (even at that early stage). It probably became clearer to us as the summer went on. Our second platoon commander was also mean, but in a far more productive way. Actually, she could be VERY scary, but we respected her.

As the school year started I joined Charlie Company. Charlie was rumored to have been tough a few years before but it was probably in the middle of the pack by the time I got there as a 4/c. The scary company was Bravo Company. The chill companies were Foxtrot and Hotel. We avoided Bravo like the plague, but honestly, as a 4/c I didn't wander far, running around in the pways of Chase Hall was a good way to attract extra attention, and extra attention was never appreciated during your 4/c year. I got yelled at a lot. I had a 2/c scream in my ear for so long that I could hear out of it for an hour or so. We were forced to do things through study hour (until our 1/c found out and told the 2/c "no more").

Well a rather miserable year in Charlie went by and I moved (as all 4/c were) to Bravo for my 3/c - 1/c years. Bravo was tough, but it was fair. Yes, we tried to keep Bravo tough. Our 1/c leadership controlled the company. As my class became 2/c we carried that "tradition"on. Our guidon and 2/c kept a tight watch over the 4/c. They were expected to do well. When they didn't, they'd hear about it. Other 4/c avoided Bravo. Even the 3/c were expected to do the right thing. To make things worse, Bravo was right next to Regimental Row, and we certainly didn't want our 4/c screwing around near Reg Row.

As swabs we say good leaders and bad. Those experiences shaped how we would one day lead. "I'll never do this when I'm a cadre." Well, sometimes we figured out there was a method to the madness, and sometimes we figured out that we just had some bad leadership.

I thought my cadre and the Battalion Staff (the 1/c who oversee Swab Summer) hated me. They didn't.

We often believe Swab Summer (or whatever USAFA calls it) is all about the swabs. It's not. Being a swab is easy. You do what your cadre say and while you'll fail at times, you'll get better at whatever skill you need to improve on. Being a cadre is hard. The weight of what you're doing, that you're not only leading people, but that when you mess up, you could really hurt others, is constantly on your mind. Before we took over as cadre in 2004, I felt physically ill. I felt better later, but the magnitude of what we were about to do just hit me. I wasn't alone. That experience, to be cadre, is far more indicative of the live of a junior officer than being a swab.

Do people go overboard? Sure. Sometimes they're punished, sometimes they're not. But as mistreated as some of us were, we all survived and we used those experiences to shape how we planned to lead in the future, and that's important. There will always be slack Hotel companies or hardcore Bravo companies…. at every academy. And there will always be cadet who can't take it, and cadets who make excuses to their parents because sometimes excuses are easier than telling the truth.

 

[MemberLG]

Other than "I got the ring and the degree from USAFA" what really is the "end difference" between an officer trained USAFA and ROTC? (I have no military background, so while this might be obvious to the military experienced, it isn't to me)

All depends on what you want to compare. I can't speak for Air Force, there was a master's thesis by a student in one of the Army schools comparing "difference" between officers from USMA and other commissioning sources. A conclusion from the paper was that up to Major (about 12 years of service) there was no difference, but starting MAJ and up USMA grads performed "better."

A better question to ask is if we just want to have one source of commissioning vs multiple sources. The same question can be asked of ROTC vs OCS. Or ROTC program at an expansive private university vs a ROTC at a cheaper larger state university.

 

[Christcorp]

The military is a "Diverse" environment. While I don't believe the military should be some kind of "Social Experiment", and that some things should be left alone, the fact is that it is made up of individuals from all walks of life. Especially the enlisted corp. The officer corp, being made up of individuals who were college bound anyway; as well as being much smaller in size vs the enlisted, is a little narrower on it's diversity.

But having officers commissioned from the academy, ROTC, and OCS, and also believes creates a diversity among the officer corp. The academy is obviously "More Military Minded" in their training. The ROTC grad has a background academically and socially from a primarily non-military school and environment. OCS, (Individuals who received their college degree on their own without any military involvement), are similar to the high school grad who "Enlists" in the military. Except these individuals will be commissioned because they received their college degree. So, there's 3 unique backgrounds that officers come from.

i can't speak for today's enlisted personnel, I've been retired for over 15 years, but in my time, there was a bit more respect for the "Academy" grad officer vs the ROTC and OCS officer. Not respect as in how they were treated or in their ability to do their job. Respect in regard to knowing that the academies were some top notch educational institutes, and selectivity is very difficult. Also, the fact that academy cadets were "Full Time" military, was more impressive. Sort of like comparing "Active Duty" 24/7/265 to the "Guard/Reserve - Weekend Warriors". Also, the fact that the majority of pilots came out of the academy, created a different impression among the enlisted personnel. This didn't affect how the enlisted treated officers or how they obeyed orders. Simply that there was a different level of respect. Similar to the respect or expectation you might have if your boss graduated from stanford vs the University of Wyoming. But it's also possible that the ROTC grad got their degree from USC or MIT, so that would compensate for the "Part Time Military" impression some may have.

But times have changed. That way of looking at officers may no longer exist. And we all know, that there are some great officers from all the different commissioning programs; and there's so real losers that come out of the academy. So nothing is totally black and white.

 

[Pima]

Mike,

You know I love you, but I have to rebut your respect aspect for USAFA vs ROTC vs OCS, I disagree when it comes to flying.

They couldn't care less your commissioning source, it is all about handling the stick. I might be wrong, but when your DS goes STO, they won't care at all about his USAFA education on RAND fellowship. It will be all about the mission. That is at least true for the flying world. Del Rio would not place any weight into the IPs score because he went to Rand.

As far as career wise, let's remember one person. Colin Powell. 30 or 40 years ago that ring knocker gave a big time edge, but now it is 50/50 between SA and ROTC/OCS for flag officers.

Now for me, I would say that AFROTC has a much higher attrition rate than USAFA, AFROTC scholarship is known as a 2+2. Sorry, Mike, but I think that your post read muddy. The way it works is as an AFROTC cadet (scholarship or not) you must compete nationally to attend summer field training. The board does not take into account if you are on scholarship. If not selected, chances are they will dis-enroll you and lose that scholarship for the last 2 years.

ROTC has a much higher attrition rate than USAFA. Overall, it is about 75%. Scholarship cadets are about 15-20% in any detachment.
~ DS started with 110 cadets. Commissioned with 28. His unit was considered large, and won the best unit 2 times over a 5 year period.

Do I believe in USAFA? Heck yes! However, I also believe that many look at it the wrong way. Be it the illusion of attending an Academy (boasting) or the free education.

Look at your own DS and decide as a family if they are a match for the next 4 years. There is nothing wrong to say you aren't. They still can have an amazing career. The guy that got a 22 out of my DSs UPT class was an OCS commission. The 2nd highest that got a 15E was AFROTC. The highest T1 (heavy track) was prior enlisted and commissioned also via OCS.
~ Just reiterating again, when you go ADAF, nobody cares about the commissioning source. They care about doing the job.

Bullet served 21 years. Retired as an O5. He was ROTC and flew the 15E as a WSO aka CSO. He works at the Pentagon on the 35, an airframe that has no CSO. Reason why? He worked his career on becoming a weapons specialist in the Strike Eagle.
~ Just saying it is more about what you make out of the doors that open when AD than your commissioning source.

 

[MombaBomba]

Other than "I got the ring and the degree from USAFA" what really is the "end difference" between an officer trained USAFA and ROTC?
(I have no military background, so while this might be obvious to the military experienced, it isn't to me)

The message I get as a parent from USAFA is that USAFA is the superior experience.
The message I get as a civilian from the AF is that they are equal as they come in at the same level (2nd Lt.)

There just seems to be so many mixed messages out there. I could very well not be reading the messages correctly.

That's the $64,000 question!

Academically, USAFA is certainly competitive with many well-regarded schools.
Militarily, USAFA cadets get a much greater quantity of military training.
In my little corner of the AF, I see poor, good, and great officers from pretty much all the commissioning sources. That leads me to believe that the AF manages to recruit a similar quality pool for each commissioning source.

Academy grads get a little boost at the start, simply by knowing the system better, and having a lot of AF connections. That said, it seems like the field evens out within a couple years.
Each commissioning source is different. I had a ROTC educated USAFA instructor comment that the AF needs both ROTC and USAFA for a capable force.
I'd argue that USAFA allows for a bit of a cultural baseline for the officer corps, although it is not produce a majority of the officer corps.

....I'm sure this could be answered by several books worth of arguments and debates...

So here is my personal thought process...
There are some who would label the kids who quit during basic/C4C year as "snowflakes" saying they couldn't handle the "USAFA environment" I don't think most of them are "snowflakes". I think most of them are not the right fit, wrong expectations, wrong reasons or had an above usual bad experience. I am sure there are some stereotypical "oh, my gawd! Can you believe he just actually raised his voice to me" types. But I suspect the majority of those who leave are not that way. I think the ALOs and Review boards are pretty good at spotting and weeding out most of the stereotypes.

Some of these same kids may have commissioned into the AF if they had chosen the ROTC/University route. Some of them may still choose to pursue that road while others would never consider the military ever again.

By creating a far more "challenging" experience at the USAFA than ROTC, does the AF risk losing some potentially good officers? Or is this not really an issue in this day and age (more candidates with potential than needed by the AF)?

BTW, up until my son started to look into attending the USAFA, I had always thought that academy grads commissioned at a higher level than ROTC. I have no idea where I got that impression, and I know I had that impression since high school (I grew up near USMA). I know of other non military people like myself who had that impression too, and they too have no idea why they have it or where it originated. So I was surprised when I found out they both commission as a 2nd Lt, especially when the academies are touted as the "elite experience." When I heard about the wash out rate and learned how much more difficult it is, I began to wonder whats the point when there is no difference upon entry into the military.

Thank you Raimius, MemberLG and Christcorp for your responses.

 

[MombaBomba]

ROTC has a much higher attrition rate than USAFA. Overall, it is about 75%. Scholarship cadets are about 15-20% in any detachment.

I do understand there are ROTC cutbacks which can effect the candidate pool. Those are "involuntary" ROTC losses (for the purposes of this discussion).
What is the percentage of kids who decide to quit ROTC because of the "challenge" presented by ROTC? They leave the program "voluntarily" because they decide the ROTC/military "culture" isn't right for them based upon their ROTC experiences/training. ("Voluntary" ROTC losses).

 

[Badge250]

ROTC has a much higher attrition rate than USAFA. Overall, it is about 75%. Scholarship cadets are about 15-20% in any detachment.

I do understand there are ROTC cutbacks which can effect the candidate pool. Those are "involuntary" ROTC losses (for the purposes of this discussion).
What is the percentage of kids who decide to quit ROTC because of the "challenge" presented by ROTC? They leave the program "voluntarily" because they decide the ROTC/military "culture" isn't right for them based upon their ROTC experiences/training. ("Voluntary" ROTC losses).

Another question along these lines: What percentage of ROTC college graduates actually commission? The commissioning rate at USAFA must be 99-100% upon graduation, right? What are the criteria they base commissioning out of ROTC on (how do they choose who will commission or not)? I'm sure if the student is a very good student there must be a good chance of he/she commissioning, but probably not 99-100% out of every university are going to commission, correct?

 

[MombaBomba]

ROTC has a much higher attrition rate than USAFA. Overall, it is about 75%. Scholarship cadets are about 15-20% in any detachment.

I do understand there are ROTC cutbacks which can effect the candidate pool. Those are "involuntary" ROTC losses (for the purposes of this discussion).
What is the percentage of kids who decide to quit ROTC because of the "challenge" presented by ROTC? They leave the program "voluntarily" because they decide the ROTC/military "culture" isn't right for them based upon their ROTC experiences/training. ("Voluntary" ROTC losses).

Another question along these lines: What percentage of ROTC college graduates actually commission? The commissioning rate at USAFA must be 99-100% upon graduation, right? What are the criteria they base commissioning out of ROTC on (how do they choose who will commission or not)? I'm sure if the student is a very good student there must be a good chance of he/she commissioning, but probably not 99-100% out of every university are going to commission, correct?

My understanding is SAs are 100 percent. ROTC seems a whole other kettle of fish when understanding the commissioning rate. My understanding is ROTC has a built in whittle down methodology. An ROTC candidates seems to have to continue to prove him or herself worthy.

Sometimes the USAFA message seems to be "if we don't break you, then you get to commission", and the ROTC message seems to be "if we don't cut you, then you get to commission." The ROTC cadet is trying to climb to the top of mountain and the USAFA cadet is trying to stay on top of the mountain.

 

[MemberLG]

BTW, up until my son started to look into attending the USAFA, I had always thought that academy grads commissioned at a higher level than ROTC.

There are some historical aspects to your beliefs. In old days, USMA grads got regular Army commission and ROTC grads got reserve commission. It really doesn't matter, as officers with the reserve commission converted to tjhe regular Army commission after so many years. However, given a choice, most folks will prefere regular Army commission. If there was a massive cut, officers with reserve commsission will get release first. Another historical practice was having the commissioning date of ROTC to be after USMA graduation to give USMA grads date of rank over ROTC grads. I believe both of these are discontinued.

 

[MemberLG]

They couldn't care less your commissioning source, it is all about handling the stick. I might be wrong, but when your DS goes STO, they won't care at all about his USAFA education on RAND fellowship. It will be all about the mission. That is at least true for the flying world. Del Rio would not place any weight into the IPs score because he went to Rand.

As far as career wise, let's remember one person. Colin Powell. 30 or 40 years ago that ring knocker gave a big time edge, but now it is 50/50 between SA and ROTC/OCS for flag officers.

Yes and no. It if was all about handling the stick, we don't need commissioned officers to be pilots, it could enlisted or someone of the street with right physical attributes and right academic attrbutes.

I should stay away for AFA discussion as I am not too familiar with AF.

I can't find a good reference, if we use "50/50 between SA and ROTC/OCS" for flag officers, it is statistically significant as SAs only commissions about 20 to 30% of 2LTs each year.

 

[Pima]

I am not disagreeing with you Momba, and I actually think that you have given a great analogy.

MemberLG,

That is still true for the AF. Our DS commissioned AFROTC May 25, 2012. He reported AD 9/30. For Date of Rank (DOR) purposes regarding promotion it is in July.
~ IE he got 2 year longetivity pay in May, but was not promoted to O2 until July.
~~ They avg out commission and report AD. Bullet commissioned also in May, reported in March, his DOR was Oct. For DS the avg was July.

Thus, USAFA grads in May got the 2 year and O2 on the same date. DS waited 2 more months to get that O2 pay increase.

That being said, the whole line number isn't really a factor until they hit O4.

Here is one more correction. AFROTC is 4 and door, not 5 and dive. It is typical that they are 5 and dive because they may wait 6-9 months before going ADAF, howver, if they commission in May, report in Aug, than they can leave sometime in June 4 years later.

Here is a little strange loophole for ROTC grads compared to SA. Bullet retired at 21 years according to the AF. However, he actually only served 20 years and 5 months ADAF. The AF went off of his commissioning date, not his report date. Had they gone off the report date, he would have been entitled to only 50% of his base pay for the rest of his life instead of the 52.5% we get.
~ Scary to me that nobody has yet to address this aspect from a cost saving perspective.
~~Same with the change the DOR. Our DS actually was AD for 22 months when he got the O2 pay raise, whereas, the USAFA grads were 24 months. My DS when he makes O3, will again be 2 months short of the 4 years. Yes, he had to wait for that pay raise, but he also served less time. When you start to realize that the military commissions the same or more via ROTC, you than start to realize how much money they are spending due to this system.
~~~ Assume 1000 commission ROTC, it is actually higher. Now for SA grads they are AD minute 1. Using my DS, that pay raise is huge. @800+ a month. Had they used the same process as SAs, he would not have been given not only the 2 yr longetivity increase, but also rank increase until he was ADAF. Think about it, my DS got lonegivity pay for 2 years and actually only served 20 months.

In the end, you go to USAFA because you want to live that lifestyle. Raimius is correct, there are crappy USAFA grads and crappy ROTC grads too. The idea that you use this education as a platform is BS in my eyes. What you do in the AF will be the big factor. Specializing in your field will matter. Getting a grad degree will matter. TS clearance will matter.

 

[Pima]

Yes and no. It if was all about handling the stick, we don't need commissioned officers to be pilots, it could enlisted or someone of the street with right physical attributes and right academic attrbutes.

You are right, but the AF has decided that they will only have officers as rated. I was only saying at UPT the IPs could not care 1 fig if they were #1 out of USAFA or the bottom out of OCS. Right or wrong, that is their decision.
~ The Army has decided to have WO. I actually think that the AF should have WOs especially regarding the RPA shortfall.
~~ The AF calls their pilots the million dollar man/woman. It costs that much to to train them.

The question comes back to why USAFA over other commissioning sources. I read the post as are they flying a line of BS....superior aspect.

Again, I think it is superior, but I don't think that if your kid decides to go ROTC or is not appointed that they will not be any less of a great officer. I am old school.... USAFA = Little Engineering School in the Rockies.
~ I am someone that believes even if they offer a Econ degree you are going to basically take engineering math/science classes for 4 years.

To me, the best leader understands that each person under their command is unique, they are not a cookie cutter. A cadet out of USAFA can be the worse leader due to being rigid. A cadet commissioned AFROTC or OCS can be horrible because they want to be everybody's friend.
~ Many times it can be more about the person and less about the commissioning source,

 

[Christcorp]

Pima. As I stated, "In my day", there WAS a different opinion by enlisted of Academy grads vs ROTC vs OCS. I also mentioned that times have changed, and it probably isn't nearly the same. But there was in fact, a different opinion.

And back then, academy grads/officers did have some advantages in their career over the ROTC and OCS. Again, not quite the same any longer, but it did in fact exist.

But as I mentioned, it's been 15 years since I retired. Many things are different. But as you rightfully pointed out, the ability to do the mission is #1 importance. Doesn't matter where you came from. Only where you're at, where you're going, and how you're going to get there. Also, in my day, maybe 20-25% of enlisted had college degrees. (That obviously changed over the 20+ years I was in). But today, probably close to 50+% of enlisted have some college degree. (I don't know the number, but I'd bet a paycheck it's higher than when I was in). As such, their view of officers have probably changed. The college side; e.g. academy vs University of Whereverthehell, probably doesn't mean as much.

But i do stand by my comment, that in my time, there was indeed a different/higher opinion/respect, and thus expectation, of academy grads by enlisted. That in most ways has changed.

 

[BlahuKahuna]

Just a quick note because it's killing me....the Air Force program is called OTS (Officer Training School), not OCS. It's equivalent to the other branches and their OCS programs, but I figured I'd clarify in case a reader here wanted to research the AF version.