What do you think should be requirements for becoming an officer?

//to become an officer you should also have to have lead during a combat deployment...in combat.//

BIG hole in that theory. Where would we get Second Lieutenants once we've gone a few years without combat?

I like this post. Im enlisted and want to become green to gold. I can't comment on rotc west point being a cadet etc because I have never been but the reason why I became a tango is because I wanted to know the helicopter before I flew it (being a pilot is one of my main reasons for joining the army.) Another reason why is because I wanted to be enlisted first before becoming an officer. There are many enlised with your point of view, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it, because its your opinion. I do think soldiers become very entitled the more they are in the army, I started to see it in myself even in AIT and saw it in others growing up. I don't want to be that way but I think it comes down to humility in general. Because there are some NCOs that are horrible leaders just as much as there are officers. When/if I become an officer I want to relate to my soldiers being deployed, is only one way to do that (its a great way). Officers have a lot different job than a NCOs so I would expect thats where the disconnect comes from. We don't see our officers as much as we see our NCOs unfortunately. I personally think WLC ALC and OCS, even though I've never been, could do a better job at weeding out the bad leaders in the first place. Make it harder. We are the army. I honestly think our graduation rate to these things is way to high anyway. I think these courses she be harder than most of the schools we have, because these are the people who have the fate of the army in there hands. Shouldn't we have the best of the best? Instead of people who just do the bare minimum. Just my opinion.

prior enlisted that is all doesn't have to make NCO, but must serve as some sort of enlisted soldier. The perspective and point of view is completely different

Your deployment clause...once upon a time there were none. Do we stop producing officers when there is not a war on? I had been on active duty over seven years before 9/11 and had missed ODS by a year. Officers have a shelf life that varies based on age, genetics, random life events, etc. The Army demands the POTENTIAL for 20 years of Active Federal Commissioned service and runs you up against mandatory retirement at 55 years old (SECDEF waiver required except for Chaplains). Essentially it benefits the Army to get a new officer in the 23-25 year old range, especially for what we look to have that new lieutenant to do and to have some left in the tank for potential senior service once they gather all that experience along the way.

Prior service can be an asset. My current BDE Commander positively leverages his experiences as a junior soldier. I have known many others. There are many that never successfully make the transition and it ends up either stunting them at CPT or creating a toxic effect with their NCOs or both.

Being an effective and competent officer has little to do with commissioning source. It has more to do with what is inside. OBTW, ROTC candidates historically made up about 80 percent of the officer corps. That dipped during the GWOT era. You may also find it odd that ROTC scholarship recipients are Prohibited from enlisting in the reserve components and are not allowed to get that experience. I was faced with that choice in 1989. You seem to make it out to be a character flaw.

One of the trade offs of Green to Gold, enlisted West Point Appointments, and OCS is the loss to the future of the NCO and Warrant Officer Corps. Those candidates undoubtedly could have potentially been future 1SGs, CSMs, and Warrants.

One of the strengths of the Officer Corps is that we generate it from a variety of sources. It gets us different people, from different places with different skills, attributes, and experiences. As an example, I cover the Civil Engineer, Commercial Fisherman, Ordnance demographic.

What specifically, from a program/process perspective, vice officers you did not like, convinces you that ROTC does not produce a capable officer?

Some really valid ideas in this discussion thread. (It's nice to converse with a group who has something beyond mere opinion to offer.) I can only think of one qualification to add to the list thus far assembled: Arrogance.

Not hubris, arrogance is required in a good officer (any leader actually). It takes a refined sense of arrogance when the bombs are bursting and bullets fill the air to stand up and say "Follow me" as though you actually believe that you know what to do.

Of course, if you're wrong, someone will get hurt and you'll be guilty of hubris...

I enlisted at the ripe old age of 32 before commissioning through OCS. I had a bachelor's degree in Geology but I am hard pressed to determine how my academic knowledge in geologic processes made me a worthy of platoon leadership. Nevertheless, simply having 10 years of additional LIFESPAN perhaps contributed more to my perspective than 4 years of ROTC could have.

Then again, I did stay at a Holiday Inn the night before MEPS...

For my part, some of the best officers I knew were prior enlisted. The bad ones I never bothered to find out. The service also makes a difference whether prior enlistment helps. Army officers lead their enlisted into combat. Air Force enlisted send their officers into combat. (Aviation units) It's also my observation that good NCOs can overcome poor officer leadership. I was both Army Ranger and Air Force fighter pilot. Leadership styles and techniques did not always transfer across these services. Most of the reason was because of the differences in the officer/enlisted relationship. Every officer should have to spend at least one year on a working cattle ranch.

In my personal opinion the Officer either being a Warrant or a Commissioned Officer sets their own destiny and path in the military. I have great experiences both with prior service that went through OCS or came out of the ROTC Program. Our ultimate goal as NCO's is to mentor coach and advice our officers. In every speech I heard or you heard "from an officer is that certain NCO or enlisted SM that influenced them to be what they are today"

1) In my experience, military academies add nothing to an officer. They are a college with more rules, simple as that. As far as being priors, again that's no guarantee of making them better. Some of the worst officers I have come in contact with were priors. There is a completely different mentality between enlisted and officer and some priors can't snap out of it.

2) This is completely nonsensical. We went for years without being involved in wars and non of the junior officers had been deployed. You are either suggesting that we remain in a perpetual state of war or never deploy again.

3) Already a requirement.

4) ROTC candidates already follow the same career path as non-ROTC candidates. Being part of ROTC honestly just means you have less free time in college. Your actual training is going to come out the same by the time you reach your unit.

A few of the best officers i have worked for came from ROTC. Some of the worst officers i have worked from come from the Annapolis. that example goes vis-versa too. A degree does not make you a leader. I have met officer's who could not lead there way out of a wet paper bag. I think one thing that makes a great officer is if they have a great Chief to help mold them when they are Ensign . If they have a poor Chief teaching them the ropes it shows in how they lead. Im sure that goes with the other branches.