Posted on Jan 23, 2015
Are too many ROTC Cadets pushed into an MOS in which they are not suited?
14.1K
16
12
1
1
0
When I was in "Cadet Land" I had a crazy PMS (Professor of Military Science) who would not acknowledge any MOS outside Combat Arms, nor would the PMS or Assistant PMS provide guidance for those seeking an MOS within medical studies. I always thought to myself, "Look Rambo, if you don't encourage / support those that want to serve in a medical capacity, then who is going to help you when you get shot?" Most of my graduating class ended up Infantry, Armor, etc because it was the "next best thing" due to not receiving the proper guidance to pursue their actual interest. Some individuals ended up in branches completely unrelated to their interest due to the Army's needs. This was just a random thought that crossed my mind and I wanted to know if anyone else experienced the lack of support for pursuing an MOS outside Combat Arms.
Posted in these groups: 
MOS
MOS
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
2
2
0
Unfortunately, it sounds as though you simply encountered a PMS with a severe Combat Arms bias. Although it may have seemed that he was pushing a "Combat Arms" or bust agenda, it is perhaps possible that his true intent was to push each of you to excel in all aspects of Cadet life; academically, physically, ethically, and fundamentally as a future Officer. Whereas selection to the Combat Arms branches is fiercely competitive, if a Cadet can position his or herself on the OML so as to be a voting competitor for one of these highly-coveted slots, it only stands to reason that the Cadet will stand an even stronger chance of getting their first choice of branch in the CS or CSS realms.
As for the rest of your concerns about the Infantry-centric focus of ROTC, bear in mind, at our core, we are all leaders of Soldiers, and as such, must know how to lead and employ thm in combat, regardless of the branch we are ultimately selected to. FM 7-8, your "bible" in ROTC is the foundation upon which your professional skills as an Officer is established.
As for the rest of your concerns about the Infantry-centric focus of ROTC, bear in mind, at our core, we are all leaders of Soldiers, and as such, must know how to lead and employ thm in combat, regardless of the branch we are ultimately selected to. FM 7-8, your "bible" in ROTC is the foundation upon which your professional skills as an Officer is established.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Sir,
While I emphatically agree with your assessment that all SMs need to be proficient in combat skills, I do not believe everyone is meant to LEAD combat arms. There are some individuals whom I would say are “just proficient enough to walk and carry their weapon simultaneously”, while others I categorize as “locked, cocked, and ready to rock”. I would hesitate to say that I fall into the second category myself. I believe I am well trained and COULD lead a combat arms mission if required, but I am more in-tuned to my profession of medical skills. In fact, if it came down to me having to LEAD a combat mission, I would rely highly on my Senior NCOs to advise me rather than risk my SMs lives in an environment in which I am not more than adequately familiar. I believe pushing SMs into areas in which they are do not have the confidence to succeed ultimately hurts the readiness of whatever unit the accessions command decides to send that new 2LT. Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Very Respectfully,
1LT Edward Krohn
While I emphatically agree with your assessment that all SMs need to be proficient in combat skills, I do not believe everyone is meant to LEAD combat arms. There are some individuals whom I would say are “just proficient enough to walk and carry their weapon simultaneously”, while others I categorize as “locked, cocked, and ready to rock”. I would hesitate to say that I fall into the second category myself. I believe I am well trained and COULD lead a combat arms mission if required, but I am more in-tuned to my profession of medical skills. In fact, if it came down to me having to LEAD a combat mission, I would rely highly on my Senior NCOs to advise me rather than risk my SMs lives in an environment in which I am not more than adequately familiar. I believe pushing SMs into areas in which they are do not have the confidence to succeed ultimately hurts the readiness of whatever unit the accessions command decides to send that new 2LT. Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Very Respectfully,
1LT Edward Krohn
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
When I was in ROTC most of the infantry slots went to people at the top or the bottom of the list!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I think the part that is hazy for many cadets is that leadership is not a branch specific qualification. The ability to connect with and understand Soldiers without crossing the line towards unprofessionalism is what all commissioning sources strive to achieve for their cadets beyond just precommissioning requirements. I went to West Point where everything was INFANTRY RANGER INFANTRY RANGER and I didn't learn that Infantry Rangers were not the end-all-be-all of the Army until I became an artilleryman. The funny thing about combat arms though, is that it seems to produce the most disciplined troops. Maybe because they're the ones who need to be to maximize mission accomplishment and minimize unacceptable risks. I think the idea behind reinforcing combat arms is that, even if you do not go that route, you may still take some of that discipline borne out of necessity with you to whichever branch the Army decides you belong in. Now I can't say definitively that this is the case, but I like to think there is a grain of truth behind it.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google