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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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 . 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 )

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 )

V/R,

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

[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]

Originally Posted by jsragman

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]

Originally Posted by RTK

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]

Originally Posted by RTK

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...

[sleepyhead4]

Originally Posted by RTK

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]

Originally Posted by sleepyhead4

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)]

Originally Posted by sleepyhead4

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]

Originally Posted by Jack Moroney

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...

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

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.