What do you all think of U.S.M.A and R.O.T.C officers?

[Silent Storm151]

Hello everyone, the topic is pretty self explanatory, the reason I ask is because I am currently a candidate for West Point, as well as a 4 year A.R.O.T.C scholarship winner, my main goal is to be the best officer possible. It should be noted that this topic is open to anybody with any sort of military experience. While I have been researching what makes a good officer, I want to know what you all think.

Thanks.

[longrange1947]

The man NOT the school makes the officer.

Go the route that you feel comfortable with and don't worry about which will make you a better officer. All will give you the basic tools. If you go the route you think others want then you will not be comfortable and you will not learn properly.

The one thing to do though, is look at yourself and see if you need discipline, if you need the discipline then go West Point. IF you can discipline yourself, then go whatever route is your choice.

The old ring knocker, you must be a Point Grad to be any good and make General is no longer even close to true. There are West Point Grads that do not make it to LTC and there are OCS grads that were former enlisted that wear two and three stars.

My two cents, I am sure more will stop by and add to this, just remember that it is your life and we can only point the different routes and give advise based on OUR experience and life.

You have to live your life and gain your experiences. Otherwise the trip is not worth it.

[PSYOP Rob]

The man NOT the school makes the officer.

That right there is the gospel truth! In the big world nobody cares how you got your commission, they will care about what you do with it once its yours. You want to go to West Point because of its storied tradition and start living a military life right now, have at it. If you want to go to San Diego State because they have hot chicks and its near the beach, rock on. Once they pin your bars on, then you are officially on the clock and you get judged by what you bring to the party, and it better be good.

[Kyobanim]

FWIW,

I've been out a long while but with keeping in mind; what I remember of the officers I served under, I will offer this piece of advice: Just because you went to college and are an officer doesn't mean you know everything. Listen to your troops. They will help make you a better officer.

[Penn]

Long term, 10 years out, the credentials of a top tier school opens many doors. As an employer, if I have the pleasure of choosing btw two remarkable individuals, the one from a service academy has the opportunity enhanced. While the other school may be important, West Point instills a unique set of skills that in comparison are not matched by other school's ROTC programs.

[PSYOP Rob]

Long term, 10 years out, the credentials of a top tier school opens many doors. As an employer, if I have the pleasure of choosing btw two remarkable individuals, the one from a service academy has the opportunity enhanced. While the other school may be important, West Point instills a unique set of skills that in comparison are not matched by other school's ROTC programs.

And that may be one of the true benefits of going to an Academy, employers like the sound of it.
But if you are as stated earlier only concerned with being the best officer possible, its what you do after school is out that matters. Me, I'd go for a school with excellent academics, a kickass sports program, and hot chicks, somewhere warm, but thats just me. Enjoy your time in college, once its over big green will send you someplace where ticks and red cockaded woodpeckers will outnumber the sorority girls 1,000,000 to 1
:D

[jwt5]

Much like LongRange said, it's not the school.

That being said, there is a noticeable difference between those who went to the Academy and those who went the ROTC route. In my limited experience, most of the ROTC grads I met only went through ROTC for the scholarship and are just there because they have to be. Some where more concerned about getting out and getting a good job then they were about taking care of their soldiers. (Not all)

Where as the two Academy grads I served under WANTED to be there and it showed.

Like posted previously, take a look at yourself and see where you think you need to be.

Good luck.

[JGarcia]

You really have to ask yourself what you want to do with your education. Officers don't wear signs that say USMA, ROTC, VMI, etc. As it was said earlier it just depends on the man, not the education.

I had a PL once, West Point Grad that couldnt write checks at the PX anymore, I had a CO - also West Point that wasnt allowed to drive a vehicle on post anymore, he had to ride a bicycle to work. But I've also had PL's from West Point that were awe inspiring, and the best officer I ever had the priviledge of working for was a former enlisted ranger - now that man I would follow to hell and back - he was an ROTC guy.

So it really does depend on the man. If you become an officer indentify the NCO's that other NCO's respect, admire, or try to emulate. Keep them in mind when you need to learn something or ask questions, solicit their advice and suggestions. If you're lucky one of these types of NCO's will be your PSG. The bad thing about being an officer is that as soon as you get good at being a PL or a CO you get re-assigned somewhere else, there are always those few that seem to know what they are doing from day one.

[Silent Storm151]

First I would like to thank everyone for posting and sharing their opinions and knowledge. In all likeliness I will probably end up going the route of ROTC because lets be realistic, getting into a service Academy is incredibly hard. However, should I make it into a service academy you can bet that's where I will be. Like I said my goal is to become the best officer possible and not to seem full of myself, but when I set my mind to something I find that I always accomplish it. On a more final note, I should be hearing from U.S.M.A soon, so time will tell.

Opinions, stories, and experiences are still very welcome, thanks everyone!

[Aequitas]

I went to WP and if you have any questions feel free to PM me. Also, just b/c it is hard to get in don't sell yourself short. You need to try b/c the worst thing they can tell you is no. Good luck with your journey!

[Silent Storm151]

Thanks sir!, PM inbound.

Stay Safe,
TJ

[Remington Raidr]

West Point. I recommend "A Soldier's Heart" by Elizabeth Samet. She is a professor who came to the Point to teach, and the book is an excellent read, and will really go a long way toward explaining the difference in ROTC and USMA.

[Razor]

Both commissioning sources (as well as the unmentioned OCS) produce their share of outstanding officers and oxygen thieves alike. There is a slight advantage to service academies over ROTC for those with no Army experience in that you leave with four years of experience in dealing with leadership, accountability, service ettiquette, responsibility and fitness as a lifestyle. This advantage is only temporary, however. Once you're commissioned and enter the "real" Army, personal ambition and drive to become a better leader will even the playing field between commissioning sources in short order, in many cases, less than a year.

I qualified for a 4 year ROTC scholarship and was appointed to USMA. I chose USMA because of their strong engineering program, the school's reputation, and the "full immersion" into a military lifestyle. I don't regret it at all, but I also realize that I missed out on a great deal of the more enjoyable aspects of going to college. Instead, I have lifelong friendships and bonds with many of my classmates that were created in an environment of demanding standards and pressure to perform, and those kinds of bonds tend to have longevity.

[RTK]

I'm an ROTC product, which, coupled with a quarter, will get me a refill at 7-11. After you raise your right hand the first time, it doesn't matter.

COL Moroney put it best a while back, IMHO:

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=180380&highlight=Soldier+happened+officer#post180380

"I was a soldier that happened to be an officer"

I think once you step outside of that mindset, then you're destined for failure. We officers are appointed because of the path we took - that's it.

This isn't a "me," "I," or "my" industry. This is all about the team. Words like "we" and "us" should surround any accomplishments.

I remember a quote from football coach Paul "Bear" Bryant that epitomizes leadership in my mind:

"If anything goes bad, I did it. If anything goes semi-good, then we did it. If anything goes really good, then you did it. That's all it takes to get people to win football games."

We do nothing by ourselves and accomplish nothing without our NCOs and Soldiers. Those that remember that fact do quite well. Those that believe their commissioning paperwork was a gift from God that gave them this mysterious "greater-than-everyone" leadership ability fail quickly. Just because an "O" precedes your paygrade does not entitle you to respect, honor, or extraordinary ability.

All that is earned and learned through the close interactions with stellar non-commissioned officers who teach you what right looks like.

If you remember that, it doesn't matter where you go to school.

[swpa19]

Every previous post pretty much covers it. Ive worked with officers from all three avenues. Good, Bad and Indifferent. The consensus of the board is correct. Its the individual. The CG of SF Command is an R.O.T.C. grad of a small college (then) University(now). A very, very large 5th Gp. Major (retired as a Ltc) told me once. "Some commanders DEMAND respect, Others COMMAND it". Its strictly up to you and your efforts to decide which category you will fall under. Good Luck.

[Silent Storm151]

Thanks again everyone, I have some serious thinking to do regarding the next four years. Both options have their pro's and con's. no matter what path I chose, I will always respect and listen to those under me. I have learned much today

Thanks and Stay Safe,
TJ

[warrottjr]

Sign over a 5th Group ODA Team Leader's desk, welcoming the new captain:

"Shut up, Sir! We'll throw you a pen when we want you to sign something."

I am an ROTC product with prior enlisted service, which is the only way to go in my book, but it does have it's unique challenges.

First of all, you skip college for a few years until you get some experience and the G.I. Bill under your belt.

Screw the scholarship, because you won't be majoring in military science; you'll be learning how to make a living as a civilian.

Why? Because only the top X% of ROTC grads get offered an RA career appointment. The rest only get an introductory tour, mostly taken up by OBC and then you're on your own to hold down a job, raise a family, and spend every spare moment at the reserve center reminding yourself why you didn't want a full time job in a peacetime Army.

I know that particular glamour is lost due to 9/11, but some day, this war will be over, because they always come to an end, if we all do our jobs right.

Which brings me to an important point wrapped back into my introductory quote: You don't have to do too much besides what your senior NCO and your immedate CO tell you.

America has the finest NCO corps in the world. What makes them unique is that they are trained to take command, which they will do, and all you have to do is stay out of their way.

It's "Sergeant's Business," and if you want in: Earn your spurs.

[Silent Storm151]

Thanks Sir, that is another approach I suppose.

Stay Safe,

TJ

[warrottjr]

I've got just a few more words about ROTC: SMP & CTLT.

These are awesome programs.

The Simultaneous Membership Program places ROTC cadets in an officer slot in a real reserve unit. Mine was XO of an OSUT Armored Cavalry troop. Your PMOS is still 09R20 and you still get paid as an E-5, but you get to work a real officer job (if that's not an oxymoron!)

The Cadet Leadership Training Program is a similar experience, but it only lasts for two weeks during the summer before you graduate. Mine was as an assistant leader in a Combat Engineer platoon. The things I saw these men do kept me in awe.

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is: Don't get hung up on the scholarship.

[Silent Storm151]

I hear what your saying sir and I thank you for your input, the only issue is that the scholarship is the only way i can go to college being that the school is 40K a year, so I have to take it, I will look into the ROTC SMP program however, because that sounds like it could be the best of both worlds.

Stay Safe,
TJ

[sleepyhead4]

Sign over a 5th Group ODA Team Leader's desk, welcoming the new captain:

"Shut up, Sir! We'll throw you a pen when we want you to sign something."

I am an ROTC product with prior enlisted service, which is the only way to go in my book, but it does have it's unique challenges.

First of all, you skip college for a few years until you get some experience and the G.I. Bill under your belt.

Screw the scholarship, because you won't be majoring in military science; you'll be learning how to make a living as a civilian.

Why? Because only the top X% of ROTC grads get offered an RA career appointment. The rest only get an introductory tour, mostly taken up by OBC and then you're on your own to hold down a job, raise a family, and spend every spare moment at the reserve center reminding yourself why you didn't want a full time job in a peacetime Army.

I know that particular glamour is lost due to 9/11, but some day, this war will be over, because they always come to an end, if we all do our jobs right.

Which brings me to an important point wrapped back into my introductory quote: You don't have to do too much besides what your senior NCO and your immedate CO tell you.

America has the finest NCO corps in the world. What makes them unique is that they are trained to take command, which they will do, and all you have to do is stay out of their way.

It's "Sergeant's Business," and if you want in: Earn your spurs.

With all due respect, I disagree with this statement as a whole, and you shouldn't perpetuate the whole "we don't need you" attitude. It's counterproductive to team cohesion as well as mentoring a young leader. Yes, NCO's are the backbones of our army because they are, by far, the finest in the world. They can definitely run the army if they were given the responsibilities. However, an NCO telling an officer (whether he is a PL, a CO, or an SF TL) to get out of his way is not helping to develop that young leader or helping the unit. That's the type of attitude that disheartens a young officer and makes him a micromanaging BN CDR in the future.

I am speaking from personal experience from having been an infantry PL and currently an SF TL. My first PSG did not tell me to get out of "his" office because I wasn't needed. He did not tell me to "shut up" and just sign paperwork for the PLT. From day one, my PSG mentored me to be a leader. He put me in positions where I had to learn by making decisions, sometimes the wrong decisions. But at no point during our service together did he ever make me feel like I wasn't part of the PLT. Fast forward 3+ years. My current Team Sergeant did not tell me to wait out in the hall or to get out of his way. From day one, I was his team member, his Team Leader. Like my infantry PSG, my team sergeant took the role as my mentor while still allowing me to lead. My past and present relationships with my NCO's have continuously affirmed my belief that NCO's are the best things to ever happen to our military. So by telling this impressionable cadet-to-be that it's "sergeant's business," you're actually hindering him from having the productive relationship with his NCO's and soldiers that he deserves and needs for his own development.

Warrottjr, I respect your opinion, but I couldn't just standby and let him believe that NCO's don't appreciate, need, or want officers around.

[warrottjr]

...my PSG mentored me...

...my team sergeant took the role as my mentor...

Warrottjr, I respect your opinion, but I couldn't just standby and let him believe that NCO's don't appreciate, need, or want officers around.

Very well said, Sir!

[warrottjr]

Forgive me for continuing, but there's just one more thing:

Don't get into a power struggle with your immediate subordinates and always be prepared to defend them against your immediate supervisor.

[Silent Storm151]

There's nothing to forgive warrottjr, I welcome all opinions and information

Stay Safe,
TJ

[CPTAUSRET]

Long term, 10 years out, the credentials of a top tier school opens many doors. As an employer, if I have the pleasure of choosing btw two remarkable individuals, the one from a service academy has the opportunity enhanced. While the other school may be important, West Point instills a unique set of skills that in comparison are not matched by other school's ROTC programs.



Penn:

So, I guess I am out of luck if I need a job at your establishment.;)

I turned down USMAPS because we had a war going on, and I didn't want to wait 4 years to get into it!

[Silent Storm151]

Sir, if that works for you than that's awesome, may I ask what type of rig you fly? (as per your avatar) becoming a pilot has always been my secondary option in the event that becoming an officer in an Infantry or Airborne unit doesn't work out for some reason.

Thanks and Stay Safe,
TJ

[Remington Raidr]

Sir, if that works for you than that's awesome, may I ask what type of rig you fly? (as per your avatar) becoming a pilot has always been my secondary option in the event that becoming an officer in an Infantry or Airborne unit doesn't work out for some reason.

Thanks and Stay Safe,
TJ

That there avatar is a Snake, a.k.a. Cobra gunship, primary pilot flies from the back, gunner in the front, you can mount rocket pods on the stubwings, and the nosegun is 7.62mm, and this model IIRC, also sported a gernade launcher. The Army now has a new gunship now, but the Marines still fly the AH-1T? (I'm old) which sports a three barrel 20mm gatling gun and TWO engines. The Marines are just BIGGER.:D

[Razor]

Sir, if that works for you than that's awesome, may I ask what type of rig you fly? (as per your avatar) becoming a pilot has always been my secondary option in the event that becoming an officer in an Infantry or Airborne unit doesn't work out for some reason.

If you're considering trying to become an Army aviator, you'd best make that your one, single purpose in life. Aviation branch choices tend to "go out" (all slots are taken) very early in the branch choice process, and unless they've changed things, you need to take the required eyesight and pre-aviation tests about a year or so prior to choosing. Making aviation a fall-back choice probably won't turn out well for you.

[The Reaper]

Sign over a 5th Group ODA Team Leader's desk, welcoming the new captain:

"Shut up, Sir! We'll throw you a pen when we want you to sign something."


I must have missed that one Chief.

My Team Sergeants would not have tolerated that for an instant. The Detachment Commander is a CO, not a PBO.

I guess your team time must have been with a different crowd.

C'est la vie.

TR

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Over the years that I have worked with, for, rated, been rated by, and dealt with officers of virtually every branch I can say that source of commission has absolutely nothing to do with what kind of an officer you are going to be or how well prepared you are for accepting your first and subsequent assignments. A commission is nothing more than your enterance ticket into the officer corps, what you do with it depends entirely on you. You are going to have two basic funtions as an officer: accomplish the mission and take care of you troops. You do that by enabling your soldiers to succeed. That has more to do with leadership skills, personal assessment and correction, self-development, and education and neither the service academies, nor ROTC, nor OCS have a lock on the best way to do that. As leadership depends a lot on what makes you tick as a person the old adage of making a chicken salad out of chicken shit doesn't wash if the basic ingredients are not there in the first place. All have their good points and weak points, but when you walk into your first commander's office you are just another 2LT that has yet to prove himself and your alma mater carries no weight what-so-ever.

[brownapple]

As always, Colonel Moroney is on target.

I'm an ROTC graduate. I worked with, served under and supervised other ROTC graduates, OCS graduates, USMA and USNA graduates. All sources produce a wide quality range of Officers. No source has a strangle hold on producing good officers.

As for post-military, I disagree with the comment on USMA being looked at more positively by employers. Top schools are noted, whether USMA, Harvard, UCLA or Michigan... but unless you are seeking employment in a technical field in which USMA is clearly considered a top school (such as engineering), USMA doesn't have any advantage over any other well-known top school.

[Silent Storm151]

Thanks everyone. As per my Army Aviator comment, what I meant and what I wrote are two different things, I currently have the flu and am all drugged up, so if my post read a little odd than I apologize, sometimes medication gets in the way of clear thought.

Again thank you all for sharing your knowledge with me, I now have a much clearer picture when it comes to what a leader and an officer should be.

Thanks and Stay Safe,
TJ

[inPersonOUT]

I was a former ROTC scholarship cadet...and currently I am staying enlisted in the guard.... life happens, and then it happens again, and I decided to join the guard to help pay for school and possibly come back as an smp cadet...smp because of the higher opportunities for schools like airbourne, air assault, etc...you can see your time in the guard as an internship, and also, the extra pay... the extra pay is GOOD...having been a poor college student for the past few years... it has made a difference in my everyday life... it'll be a part time job that you'll like.
at this point I'm staying enlisted for my own personal reasons... ...and I do plan to eventually become an officer, after my first deployment coming up.


...i've been sitting here for the past couple of hours reading this forum and thinking about the past few years of my life (i'm 21y.o.)...thank you for asking this question. some of the replies i read had significant meaning to me.
honestly, i haven't been exactly a role model and i've made a lot of big mistakes...and i've done some hard growing up.
psychologists say that between the ages of 18-22 a person's brain begins to really solidify it's beliefs and thinking processes (which can directly correlate to your character or personality)
and so, especially at this age, i've been scrambling to figure out who or what type of person I want to be. and I can't help but to think that the reason you really ask this question is because you are in the same shoes as I'm in right now.
don't you think you've been looking for something beyond just being a "good officer[job title]" when you get into the core of the reason???
some of the replies were great... i'll remember them.
I may be talking more about myself than SStorm...maybe more of a self-observation than anything else.
I can see that how finding a good mentor or a living breathing role model you might meet on your way to becoming an officer can be profound...
-------------
just a few sayings that many wise and virtuous jedi have said a long long time ago....

"I never let school get in the way of my education" -Mark Twain

"a life not examined is a life not worth living" - Benjamin Franklin

"always choose the harder right over the easier wrong"...the more easier wrongs you make, the harder the rights will get...(my personal experience)

"you're headed where you're going, until you change your direction"

"...Do your best"
----------
my apologies for ending up somewhere completely different...got lost in my own thoughts, and I've been thinking a lot about life lately

[Red Flag 1]

Agree with Greenhat. Since you are considering options, take a good look at VMI. Smaller corps, smaller classes, and pretty hard nosed. Plus W&L is right next door.

"Give me an Army of Citadel Graduates and I'll win a battle. Give me a handful of VMI graduates and I'll win a war".--General George S Patton.

Best of luck in your search.

RF 1

[Go For Broke]

Agree with Greenhat. Since you are considering options, take a good look at VMI. Smaller corps, smaller classes, and pretty hard nosed. Plus W&L is right next door.

"Give me an Army of Citadel Graduates and I'll win a battle. Give me a handful of VMI graduates and I'll win a war".--General George S Patton.

Best of luck in your search.

RF 1

RF 1 brings up a good point, albeit misguided - what he really means is that you need to look at schooling in the People's Democratic Republik of Vermont :D. One way to enjoy the pleasures of college and the USMA is to attend one of the four Senior Military Colleges (Norwich, VMI, The Citadel, North Georgia) or Texas A&M / Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets (OK, ATM and Tech are probably the best of both worlds, and the SMCs are probably the worst of both :munchin )

IMHO, it is the individual not the institution that determines your ability as an officer (besides, does it really matter anymore? Since USMA grads and ROTC DMGs no longer receive regular commisions and Date of Rank privilages pretty much went out the window with centralized reservations :D)

V/R,

P.S. I would avoid Norwich...the graduates are just not right in the head :p

[jsragman]

I am a current ROTC student, about to commission in less then 3 months (finally). If you have questions particular to the current ROTC environment, I'd be more than happy to help you out. And I branched Infantry, if that matters.

Regarding the comments about Aviation - it's still the same as it was in the past. The slots fill up for that before Infantry does, so it's a poor fallback choice. However- Infantry is still difficult to get if you are not in the top 10%-15% in the Nation. Wherever you go, your grades will be one of the most important factors, so make sure you start off on the right foot.

-Derek

[RTK]

Wherever you go, your grades will be one of the most important factors, so make sure you start off on the right foot.

-Derek

I have issues with this metric. I've trained over 700 lieutenants in the past 15 months as a senior trainer and the final evaluator in their BOLC III journey and booksmarts have very seldom translated to tactical success. I've found (not as a rule, but a generalization) that those with a 4.0 have a hell of a time making a decision under stress. Why?

Because colleges have transitioned to teaching people what to think, not how to think.

We get a good deal of them back on the path to success, but some are beyond hope. We eliminate them from service.

Remember this: You're Soldiers are going to give two s#!ts whether you passed Calculus 2 with an A+. They want to know that you can make the decision in contact to keep them alive or not.

8 or 9 years ago HRC decided that gradepoint was the most important factor behind (for ROTC students) MSIII Advanced training and your evaluation from your Professor of Military Science. I had a 2.6 (I was a Criminal Justice major and had too much fun partying), was not well liked by my PMS (because I was on academic probation twice), but did very well at camp. I got my second choice: Corps of Engineers. My first choice : Infantry.

After three years as a very successful combat engineer, I branched transfered to Armor and became a very successful cavalryman. I may not have been a Rhodes Scholar, but I am good at what I do.

I'll leave you with this, and it's something I tell my armor lieutenant students right before they graduate. Somewhere on this earth there are 15-30 souls who have no idea who you are, nor do you know who they are. Long ago your paths set out on azimuths that intersect in the future. Soon your paths will cross and everything you do or do not do will contribute to their success or demise. They will be your Soldiers and you will be their platoon leader. Before you rack out for the night think of them. Always keep them in the front of your mind because they are the ONLY reason you have a job. Take care of them and they will take care of you. The deserve the best. Offer them nothing short of the best.

[Team Sergeant]

Because colleges have transitioned to teaching people what to think, not how to think.
[/COLOR]

IMO this is the single biggest problem in America today! This very issue has been the center of discussion on this board also.

TS

[lksteve]

I have issues with this metric. I've trained over 700 lieutenants in the past 15 months as a senior trainer and the final evaluator in their BOLC III journey and booksmarts have very seldom translated to tactical success. This is the same experience I had as a senior trainer for the same period 24 years ago...GPA is not a predictor of success in the practical applications required in the field...there are the rare few that probably are both academically astute and good in the field, I will not deny their existence...but they never wound up in my platoon...

Maybe it's me...:eek:

[sleepyhead4]

I have issues with this metric. I've trained over 700 lieutenants in the past 15 months as a senior trainer and the final evaluator in their BOLC III journey and booksmarts have very seldom translated to tactical success. I've found (not as a rule, but a generalization) that those with a 4.0 have a hell of a time making a decision under stress. Why?

Because colleges have transitioned to teaching people what to think, not how to think.

We get a good deal of them back on the path to success, but some are beyond hope. We eliminate them from service.

Remember this: You're Soldiers are going to give two s#!ts whether you passed Calculus 2 with an A+. They want to know that you can make the decision in contact to keep them alive or not.

8 or 9 years ago HRC decided that gradepoint was the most important factor behind (for ROTC students) MSIII Advanced training and your evaluation from your Professor of Military Science. I had a 2.6 (I was a Criminal Justice major and had too much fun partying), was not well liked by my PMS (because I was on academic probation twice), but did very well at camp. I got my second choice: Corps of Engineers. My first choice : Infantry.

After three years as a very successful combat engineer, I branched transfered to Armor and became a very successful cavalryman. I may not have been a Rhodes Scholar, but I am good at what I do.

I'll leave you with this, and it's something I tell my armor lieutenant students right before they graduate. Somewhere on this earth there are 15-30 souls who have no idea who you are, nor do you know who they are. Long ago your paths set out on azimuths that intersect in the future. Soon your paths will cross and everything you do or do not do will contribute to their success or demise. They will be your Soldiers and you will be their platoon leader. Before you rack out for the night think of them. Always keep them in the front of your mind because they are the ONLY reason you have a job. Take care of them and they will take care of you. The deserve the best. Offer them nothing short of the best.

RTK,

I think what jsragman was implying was that your grade is the single most important factor in getting your choice of branch and post, thus starting you off on the right foot. It's the same at USMA. Your grades determine your class ranking. Your class ranking determine your OML in getting your branch and choosing your post. So I would agree with jsragman in both ROTC and USMA settings.

As for your comments about good grades not being indicative of a good leader, I half agree. You're right that not all Rhodes Scholars are or make great leaders. Some great leaders are the goat in your class. However, good grades generally mean that the student is a hard worker and serious about his future. Of course there are exceptions, but this generally holds true. In my graduating class at USMA, not all the smart kids ended up doing well in the army. However, majority of them did very well and are still serving and doing very well. My classmates who were ranked lower in the class didn't fare so well. Some of them were "pushed" out of the army when their obligation ended and some of those who are still in are doing pretty poorly. Of course there are many from the lower class rank who are doing well. Bottom line, from what I've seen in my class, graduates who did well at school continue to do well after school while those who didn't do so well continued to do poorly.

This is the same argument as "he might be a sh!tbag in garrison but he's a damn good leader in the field." IMHO, there shouldn't be a difference in the field and in garrison. A good leader sets and follows the standard wherever he is, whether it's writing a report or leading his team to shoot fu34ers in the face.

[RTK]

This is the same argument as "he might be a sh!tbag in garrison but he's a damn good leader in the field." IMHO, there shouldn't be a difference in the field and in garrison. A good leader sets and follows the standard wherever he is, whether it's writing a report or leading his team to shoot fu34ers in the face.


I 100% agree with this statement. I've never been one to use that argument. You're either a good Soldier or you're not. It's all encompassing, not just in a few key commodity areas.

I wasn't saying smart people make poor leaders. What I'm saying is that in 15 months training new LTs there is very little correlation between their GPA or even their institutional grades versus their abilities in fieldcraft.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

A good leader sets and follows the standard wherever he is, whether it's writing a report or leading his team to shoot fu34ers in the face.

While I agree with the sentiment of this remark, what causes a "leader" to be good in the field and a marginal officer in garrison is often who sets "the standards" "acceptable for garrison". Garrison standards can often be at odds with what is needed in the field and while I would expect a good leader to meet , or exceed, reasonable standards I would expect him to use common sense in making necessary adjustments to those that don't when it comes to taking care of his folks and preping for his raison d' etre-enabling his men to succeed. It is often those "roques" who take a couple of shots or eat a little crow when necessary that make the best officers where often they tend to "survive" in garrison but excell in the field. Academics are a good indicator of brain housing group functioning, but application under other than classroom environs is the key and I do not care what the source of your commission might be everyone going through a school knows it has a start point and and end point and can muster their resources within those confines to do their best. It is not, as you all know, the same when you are no longer in a controlled environment.

[sleepyhead4]

While I agree with the sentiment of this remark, what causes a "leader" to be good in the field and a marginal officer in garrison is often who sets "the standards" "acceptable for garrison". Garrison standards can often be at odds with what is needed in the field and while I would expect a good leader to meet , or exceed, reasonable standards I would expect him to use common sense in making necessary adjustments to those that don't when it comes to taking care of his folks and preping for his raison d' etre-enabling his men to succeed. It is often those "roques" who take a couple of shots or eat a little crow when necessary that make the best officers where often they tend to "survive" in garrison but excell in the field. Academics are a good indicator of brain housing group functioning, but application under other than classroom environs is the key and I do not care what the source of your commission might be everyone going through a school knows it has a start point and and end point and can muster their resources within those confines to do their best. It is not, as you all know, the same when you are no longer in a controlled environment.

Sir,

I agree with you whole heartedly that any good leader, officers or NCO's, must use common sense in making the necessary adjustments for the mission and his soldiers when the standards are unreasonable or just plain idiotic.

Colonel Moroney & RTK

My opinion on academics as an indicator had less to do with getting an "A" in physics because the student was naturally smart than it had to do with getting good grades through hard work and dedication. You are always going to have those geniuses who never have to do any work in their whole lives for their grades or whatever else. However, majority of those who do well in school, or any institution for that matter, have good work ethics and dedication that you'd want in your leadership. I've seen classmates almost flunk out because they would rather party and waste time than improve themselves. And these are the same individuals who run wild once they are commissioned rather than studying their trade, PTing, or spending time developing their soldiers.

[jsragman]

I don't necessarily agree with the metric either, but the system is what it is. ROTC needed a way to establish a national OML and it was the easiest way to go about it. It's difficult to compare people who attend different schools with different cadre with different access to training.

And for the most part, the system seems to work. While I can't say anything for their future abilities to lead a PL yet, I can speak to the character, values, and dedication of my classmates, and the OML generally put them where they belonged. I'm slightly biased, I think you get screwed if you have a difficult major, but I'm an engineer so... :rolleyes:

You're told what you need to do to be considered successful by ROTC. Whether or not you agree with the system, if you want to get to be a soldier in the branch you desire, you follow the rules and drive on. Maybe theres something to be said for that.

From the 4 years I've spent in college, the personal development I've derived from the less important things (as far as the ranking system goes) like competing in Ranger Challenge, starting from a failing score and moving up to maxing the PT test, being the Cadet BC, preparing for the Bataan Memorial Death March this semester, professional reading on SF and IN - all that has been far more useful to me because I've had to focus on keeping my grades up as well. If I had been allowed to get away with my grades being lower, I wouldn't have had to deal with the time management aspect nearly as much.

It's all about being able to balance all the aspects of ROTC so you fulfill the whole "scholar-athlete-leader" profile.. and have some fun while your in college.

-Derek

[brownapple]

I find it unfortunate that the Army has taken the easiest route to rate cadets by using GPA.

By far, my greatest area of expertise is in the corporate world, not the military. And today, the tools that the best corporations use to assess potential candidates (especially those looking at their first employment out of University) are far more in-depth than the old "Good school, high GPA" approach.

Keeping your GPA up may demonstrate a certain discipline and work ethic (unfortunately, whether that is true can vary dramatically from school to school or even within the same school from discipline to discipline).

There are better metrics (although they aren't cheap to administer), and there are better ways to look at the total package (studies, work, other activities, etc.). Big Business has actively worked at finding those better ways because it is to their advantage financially to find the best candidates for specific positions, regardless of their GPA, because of the competitiveness of the global business world... and because of the cost of putting the wrong person in a position.

I would hope that the military would be willing to learn some lessons in this regard from corporate America (and I'm not suggesting that the same solutions necessarilly apply, but that the lessons should be assessed and used or modified to fit the military's needs). Corporate America has certainly learned a number of lessons from the military.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

I do not have your level of expertise, actually I have no expertise, in the corporate world, but let me share an observation or two. Unless things have changed drastically, GPA is not, nor was it ever, the sole determinant of where you stood on an OML in ROTC. It was a basic indicator for further recommendations that were factored in to other aspects of your performance both within and outside of the ROTC program.

As for the corporate world having the greatest area of expertise, that may or may not be true depending on the particular professions you are addressing. Let me elaborate. When I retired from the military and did my manadatory processing through the VA, the VA informed me that my skill sets were not really applicable to obtaining a position in the civilian world and that my previous BS and MS degrees were so old that anyone reading my thesis as a point of reference would recognize that fact because dinosaurs no longer roamed the earth. So, they figured, I needed to get another MS, but this time in business and they packed me off to St Michaels University. What I found was that many models used by business were those used by the military and the only thing that really changed were the acronyms. I also found that what corporate America called "leadership" was for the most part "management" and that "teamwork" was more of a feel good phrase of where you fit in the big picture. Because businesses operated against the bottom line the metric used was that of how best to enhance the bottom line and not how best to ensure that your subordinates succeeded-unless of course it contributed to the bottom line. Business seemed to hire to fit "jobs" and not necessarily to "develop professionals". They expected loyalty to the company but the company mistook pay and benefits as motivators to maintain loyatly. We had many folks that had worked as corporate and business employees in this program for various corporations and we had corporate respresentatives teach portions of the course. No one seemed committed to anything other than amassing wealth and moving to the next "job" (either within or outside of the same "profession" and teamwork was limited to "getting along" and "playing nice" with others on site). Now this is not true of all organizations within corporate America, but it seems more and more to me that corporate America is apersonal and statistic driven where personal are viewed more as resources to be consummed and replaced than as assets whose commitment to the corporate goals (which by the way is flawed from the outset because for anyone to be committed to any goals they would have to embrace everything that organization represented) would maximize both performance and the bottom line. So, I think it is a hell of a lot easier to fill the slots in corporate America than it is to find the right metrics to assess and fill the leadership slots in the military. Frankly we do not know who is going to succeed or not because we have yet to define what a good leader is in the military-traits like audacity are great for combat arms but not so great for CSS and while we have "templates" that allow us to define "leaders" in general a good leader in SF is not the same as a good leader in a CSS unit because we need certain traits to be more dominant than others. I think the Army is finding that out with their MiTTs. Unlike corporate America, where you have defined expectations for a particular job and where the variables are better defined and under more control than in the "military workplace", it becomes a difficult task to replicate those situations where a military leader will be placed. There are just too many variables that fluctuate day to day, season to season, hour to hour, etc. So while I can hire joe-s..t the rag man off the street and teach him to play nice and work well in a controlled setting where he can remain for his entire career, I cannot do that in the military very well. It is the very reason why we have SFAS and even that is not a fail safe. It is also the very reason why their are good staff officers and good commanders, but many times some not suited well for both or either. So the best that the military can do is let them in the door if they show the minimum potential needed and let the leveling begin in their basic courses-those that don't fit leave and get hired by the corporate world-dispite their inability to perform in the military as a leader or ability to make a commitment to what the military leader is all about. That does not make him a bad person, but it does provide a fertile ground for recruits for the corporate world because inspite of the officer's failings or lack of commitment he is now more mature, has shed a lot of his baggage that the corporate world will not have to cull, and will go on to do great things outside the military-or not. Just my observation.

[jsragman]

COL Moroney:

Since you mentioned it, and in case anyone was curious, I dug up the stats on the current system used by ROTC to evaluate cadets.

GPA isn't the sole determinant, just the primary factor thats separating most people. In general, the scores in the other categories are pretty centralized around the average or aren't worth enough points to make a significant difference.

-Derek

[Razor]

I don't know if the ratios are the same now, but the old USMA OML ratios were (IIRC) 50% Academic, 35% Leadership, 15% Physical.

[wet dog]

Hello everyone, the topic is pretty self explanatory, the reason I ask is because I am currently a candidate for West Point, as well as a 4 year A.R.O.T.C scholarship winner, my main goal is to be the best officer possible. It should be noted that this topic is open to anybody with any sort of military experience. While I have been researching what makes a good officer, I want to know what you all think.

Thanks.

It took a while, but reading the entire thread this morning, I noticed a few things that jumped out at me.

After a 3 year break in thread activity, another four years of news, world events, corporate, wall street, and politics, I wanted to ask, "what makes a leader?" vs. 'What makes a good officer?" Are the two related? I think they are, but I know of several leaders who are not officers, and many good officers who are terrible leaders, despite the fact they keep getting promoted.

Leadership is more than simple Army codes and Values and/or Academy. Genghis Khan ruled by fear, Alexander the Great by compromise, Hitler yelled and promoted loyalty, his values also driven by a low self esteme and insecurity. Mussolini by greed.

So the question is, what makes a good leader vs just a successful officer?

[Jack Dale]

It took a while, but reading the entire thread this morning, I noticed a few things that jumped out at me.

After a 3 year break in thread activity, another four years of news, world events, corporate, wall street, and politics, I wanted to ask, "what makes a leader?" vs. 'What makes a good officer?" Are the two related? I think they are, but I know of several leaders who are not officers, and many good officers who are terrible leaders, despite the fact they keep getting promoted.

Leadership is more than simple Army codes and Values and/or Academy. Genghis Khan ruled by fear, Alexander the Great by compromise, Hitler yelled and promoted loyalty, his values also driven by a low self esteme and insecurity. Mussolini by greed.

So the question is, what makes a good leader vs just a successful officer?
Wet Dog, I think there's no such thing as a bad leader. You either are a leader or you're not. What we call a "bad leader" would be more accurately described as a "ruler," witness Hitler the Murderous Screamer ("do it or I'll have you shot")and Alexander the Great the Bargainer and Wheedler ("okay, you won't do that. What will you do?").

The difference is that you'd follow a leader into hell if that's what was required, but having to follow a ruler would just be hell, a minor but significant difference.

I don't know all the traits of a leader (as opposed to a ruler), but I do know that I wouldn't consider a person to be a leader unless I knew s/he wouldn't hesitate to do what I was being asked to do, although circumstances might require that I do it instead.

My reference points are real leaders I've known, but especially my own father. Men who flew with him in the Philippines and Java in 1941-1943 have told me that he was always the first into the cockpit when it hit the fan and was the best "stick" in the Air Corps. Of course, these were guys who looked up to him and followed him and my hero is always more of a hero than your hero, no matter who you and I are. But, isn't that one of the real yardsticks by which we measure leadership, that the followers think the leader is the best there is and would do ANYTHING for them, so they will do anything the leader asks?

I don't know the answers, but I can't think of a better forum in which to ask the questions. Anybody got an opinion?

[akv]

My $.02 is effective leaders I've met have the ability to stir great emotion in the hearts of men, either fear or love, and the great ones both.

As for grades, Field Marshall Erich Von Manstein had a matrix for assessing his officers;

Dumb and Hardworking- Fire immediately, they will do more damage to the organization than good.

Dumb and Lazy- Perfect for the menial low importance jobs every organization requires to function.

Smart and Hardworking - middle management.

Smart and Lazy- Promote to high command, because they have the ability to imagine or think outside the box.

[wet dog]

Good leader traits: (in my opinion only)....

Knowledgable, knows his craft, knows the lives of others well lived, knows the historical significance (event, location, etc.).
Experienced, seen it, done it, not much gets past him. Has made mistakes, some big ones, learned from those tough times.
Listens to others.
Is aware of his surroundings.
Humble.
Clever.
Is a student and teacher.
Emotional strength, intestinal fortitude.
Calm.
Resourceful.

others, please chime in...

[Scimitar]

"Leaders aren't born, they are made. "
~ Vince Lombardi

My take is that leadership is a technical skill that can be learned. It's not a potion or a spell or some mystic power and it certainly isnt limited to only a certain personality type.

I like to start with what's called the Organizational Leadership Job Description.

If you don't know WHAT your job is, how can you do it. (And I'm not talking about the kinda documents that HR kicks out everytime you hire someone new, it certainly aint that simple.)

I will ask a leader that I'm about to come under, "What would you say organizational Leadership is, on a day to day basis, for you?"

If he or she can't give a pretty clear answer, then I tell you what they ain't gonna hit the mark they can't see are they. (I tend not to take those jobs.)

I've got a few favourite models I use. But that's the basis of it. Leadership is Influence, and you can't lead leaders if you can't show focus. No internal understanding of the job description, no focus.

You can lead followers through inspiration, but you lead leaders through showing them that you have wisdom and focus. Trick is ya gotta have it before you can show it.

Having seen my old man lead in the Army, I'd hazzard a guess that the major difference between other leaders and Army leaders is that from my point of view Corporate does not do a very good job AT ALL training its leaders, where as it seems that the technical skill of leadership is vurtually handed to the new Officer.

Just my $0.02

Scimitar

[Buffalobob]

An interesting thread simply because it contains some of Jacks writing.

t is also the very reason why their are good staff officers and good commanders, but many times some not suited well for both or either. So the best that the military can do is let them in the door if they show the minimum potential needed and let the leveling begin in their basic courses-those that don't fit leave and get hired by the corporate world-despite their inability to perform in the military as a leader or ability to make a commitment to what the military leader is all about. That does not make him a bad person, but it does provide a fertile ground for recruits for the corporate world because inspite of the officer's failings or lack of commitment he is now more mature, has shed a lot of his baggage that the corporate world will not have to cull, and will go on to do great things outside the military-or not. Just my observation.

I served under Jack in a very stressful time for Special Forces and I believe Jack saw me and my contemporaries and that formed a lot of his opinions and views of the world. I agree with many of his views. Mostly I agree that 2Lts simply are not mature enough to be COs of ODAs. My peer group of 2Lts at 10th SFG(A) was simply the worst collection of lost little boys you ever saw in your life. No matter how hard you tried and no matter how hard you wished it differently you simple had not had enough life experiences to lead. The best decision I ever made as a ODA CO was to leave SF and go to RVN and get some experience.

As Jack opines, I went on to rise to the heights of my profession outside the military because of what I learned in the military.