5
5
0
Can you tell If a Officer is from West Point? Can a Officer see the difference or does the NCO have a better eye on it. I my self have meet both.
United States Military Academy (USMA West Point)
NCOs
Officers
Army
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 30
10
10
0
Good Officer's can come from anywhere, and so can bad ones. I can generally tell pretty well what someone's commissioning source is and whether they were ROTC/USMA/OCS, (I was ROTC myself). I've had issues with leaders from each, and I've seen some of the greatest leaders I've ever met from each; as SSG Benavidez said it comes down to the individual. I don't think any commissioning source is better than another, they're just different, and each tend to come with their own set of issues.
(10)
(0)
MAJ Joseph Parker
You are correct 2LT Youngblood! West Point and ROTC have slightly different missions and generally different training standards and methods. They also have different selection standards. Is one "better" than the other? Depends on what one means by "better." We definitely don't want an Army of only West Point Officers, or only ROTC, or only OCS. On the whole, each source provides leaders of character with traits that serve the needs of the Army. Also, each source provides a spectrum of leaders, from poor to brilliant, from early bloomers to late bloomers.
(4)
(0)
8
8
0
I can usually tell the difference between the two. It's hard to say which is better but I have to say it's the person that makes more the difference than where they were educated from.
(8)
(0)
1SG(P) (Join to see)
From a NCO Point Or my point of view. Its harder to help out or train the new LT then it is a ROTC LT.
(5)
(0)
MAJ Joseph Parker
SSG(P) Joseph B: You are not the only one to notice this! This is because of the difference between the ROTC and Academy selection and training programs. The Academy selection process is aimed at selection and training of young men and women for a LIFETIME of national leadership and service. The numbers selected are small. Generally speaking, academy graduates really start to come into their own in the more senior grades and higher levels of responsibility. This is what they were trained and selected for. That doesn't mean they won't be a good or even great PLT LDR.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SFC Craig. When I worked at Little Rock AFB - we had the Reserve there working in the Base Weather Station. One civilian forecaster was pulling weekend duty when he said that his observers were better than active duty. Except for me he said I was the best of them all.
I say this because you mentioned trainability and to some extent I agree because we had enlisted guys with Masters degrees in Physics and such. Many were resistant to be a forecaster because the observing job was easy outside of bad weather.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
MSG(P) Matthew Q.: The avenue depends on the student, their qualifications, and their goals. Be careful not to judge the Academies as better than ROTC, etc. They are just different. Each program produces a different kind of leader
First, the academy: Besides the qualifications; the student must want to spend a lifetime of service to the nation and want more than anything else in the world to go to the academy. Otherwise, they just won't be able to make it through. Desire is the essential element. Well rounded and national level leadership, academic, and physical skills are next. However, without the burning desire none of the skills will matter.
Second: ROTC: Basically, the student will need the same skills and desire for a life of service to the nation. ROTC is less rigorous on a daily basis so the desire for service the student needs to succeed is far less intense. The training is excellent and though different than the academy. It provides a junior officer every bit as good if not better than many academy officers. It is also a good avenue for students who don't meet academy academic standards or who can't get an academy appointment to still become an officer. CAUTION: Some ROTC programs are every bit as rigorous as the academy, and the "desire" factor is a greater concern if the student is to succeed. For example, the Citadel.
Finally, I would recommend that the student sit down with a few field grade officers (no slight intended to the company grades out there) and discuss what he or she would like to do in the military and why. Field grades know all the ropes and have the experience to point a young person to the best avenue. They can also write the best recommendations and have contacts at school admissions.
(7)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Each has there plusses and minuses. For my own children, as much as I dearly love and support the mission and education offered by the service academies, I would tend to carefully consider whether they offer broad enough curriculum to meet not only the military needs but also the potentially broader educational needs of my children. The choice should ultimately be a carefully considered commitment by the child. But, they need to fully understand the traditions, capabilities and limitations of both systems.
1SG (Join to see)
With all due respect, I don't believe the external ranking of a service academy is indicative of how well of a leader it will produce. Sure, the level of education may be on par with the Ivy League schools, but can the individual apply that education to the real world environment that US military personnel endure on a daily basis? In my experience, it comes down to a person's character, their inner being. Education is great and does much to enhance our skills but let's not place too much emphasis on where that education is learned...in my opinion.
(2)
(0)
LCDR Thomas Combs
It's true that the academies are not the end all, be all of commissioning sources. But, in regards to whether they create leaders of character, then I'll just throw out a couple names...Lee, Grant, Webb, Scott, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Bradley, Arnold, Clark, Patton, Stilwell, Wainwright, Schwarzkopf, Petraeus, Nimitz, Jimmy Carter, Alan Shepard, Jim Lovell, and ADM Holloway, etc. Of course, I'm biased to the Military Academy (I didn't recognize any of the AF guys, and let's not even mention the CG Academy, I'm sure they've all contributed much to the nation). True, character is most important. I argue that character is set by the time you graduate high school. The only thing the academies can hope to accomplish is to weed out the bad eggs.
My point is this...the academies have provided a proven product. Yes, there are many strong officers from other commissioning sources (Colin Powell, George Bush Sr and Jr just off the top of my head), but not the magnitude of the service academies. History speaks for itself.
In regards to the rankings...that comment was made in regards to whether they provided a good, well rounded education...to which I say they have also provided a proven product. Apparently Forbes agrees with me...or vice versa.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Joseph Parker
<p>Ladies and Gentlemen, let's be clear here. The United States Military Academy at West Point was founded in 1802 to be the repository and training ground for the nation's most precious and hard-won knowledge: that which is learned on the battlefield - tactics, strategy, logistics, and leadership. Its graduates are SWORN to a life of selfless service and take their motto to the grave and beyond in everything they do: DUTY - HONOR - COUNTRY. These young men and women are selected for a lifetime commitment of national leadership, not for an education so they can get a job.</p><p><br></p><p>The other academies are service-specific and although their entry requirements are high, only West Point carries the mission of providing national leadership in all areas of endeavor, which it has accomplished quite well. Yes, Harvard has a great program and has produced a lot of Presidents. Weigh it out: do the young men and women who go to Harvard go there because they want to serve their country, or because they want to make it big? Who, really would make the better leader?</p>
(1)
(0)
COL Mo Fenner
ROTC vs USMA is a long discussion. Bottom line is that if the person has good potential as an officer, ROTC, OCS or USMA can all hone that potential. USMA has different selection and training standards that are more sharply focused on producing good senior officers. One difference is that USMA takes enlisted personnel every year into the classes as cadets. My class had 118 prior enlisted of the initial 1397 cadets. ROTC also takes prior enlisted but the percentage fluctuates from school to school. USMAPS provides about the same number each year. I don't understand the comment about broad enough curriculum. 95% of officers never use their degree after they get on active duty, but with a goal of a lifetime of service - it doesn't matter. West Point is a rigorous and well rounded education. You are graded on academics, leadership, conduct, and athletics.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Wow, loaded question! I am a West Pointer so of course I have a conflict of interest. I don't think it is a matter of which is better, I think it is a matter of producing officers that have different backgrounds that creates diversity in our army. I have seen both and bad officers from both sides. There are stereotypes that West Pointers see things in black and white, socially we are behind because we couldn't party, but that we are capable, type A people that want to and can get things done. <div><br></div><div>I really believe it is more personality than anything though. When I took over my platoon, after several months when they found out I was a West Pointer they were shocked. I didn't seem like one. So there are stereotypes, some flaunt it more than others, and some don't.<div><br></div><div>I am extremely proud of my degree and it has helped me in the civilian and political sector being a West Pointer. It is ranked as one of the top schools in the country. Aside from the fact of producing officers, it also has significant second and third order effects. many civilians wouldn't know about the military without the service academies.</div><div><br></div><div>The Army navy game is popular, there are plenty of articles and series on West point and the other academies, and I know many that joined the military because of it. I decided to go to West Point in the 5th grade because I loved the leaders it produced and the history behind. The history department motto is "much of the history we teach, is made by those we taught." Just thinking of it always gives me good bumps.</div></div>
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
Meh.... The source really only matters initially (and really that is more an issue of perception than anything else). Once you get to 1LT, it's pretty much an even playing field at that point. Cream will rise regardless of where you went to school and how you got your bars. I've served with Pointers who couldn't lead soldiers out of a wet paper bag and ROTC grads who are future General Officers. I think the different commissioning sources helps to prevent an inbred mindset that you can develop when everyone comes from the same school.
(3)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
That being said, I have the utmost respect for my WP brethren. They put with crap for 4 years that I would not have. Which is why I did the ROTC route. I actually wanted a life... ;o)
(1)
(0)
MAJ Joseph Parker
Sir, you completely are correct. Regardless of the source, the cream will (or at least should) rise to the top. If you want a life, DON'T go to the Academy!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I can spot a West Point 2LT a mile away...mainly because he's announcing it at every opportunity.
Give me a Mustang any day, preferably a former NCO who has combat experience.
Give me a Mustang any day, preferably a former NCO who has combat experience.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I don't know how it is now, but back in the day (60's & 70's) OCS was the best for Company Grade Officers and West Point for Field Grade. ROTC guys were out of the loop not by their own design but ROTC in those days was woefully behind on current planing, tactics, and boots on the ground knowledge.
That being said, I have served with outstanding officers from all sources. BTW I was in OCS Class 1-67 but only had a years experience before OCS (they lowered the standards). Others were far more experienced than me. I am sure some of my decisions reflected that limited experience. Fortunately, as a 2nd Lt. I had GREAT NCO's to keep me in line. Oh Yeah, and one crusty CWO Garrett. The Chief had the most colorful ways of telling me I was a screw-up. He was a W-4 (as high as it went back then) and I looked upon him as GOD and the NCO's as the Disciples. Oh the fun we had......LOL.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
I cannot attest as to what difference there may be, but one can typically tell if an Officer is a West Point graduate because he or she will likely let you know fairly soon. :-) No offense intended, simply an observation.<br><br>
(2)
(0)
SSG Barbara Mitchell
They are both great start, but I think West Point is more prestige, because it take a little more to get accepted.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Indeed SSG Mitchell I recall applying to the Air Force Academy in the 1980s with great grades, and school participation but the congressional nominations hurdle is a high one. As I stated no offense intended.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Joseph Parker
SSG Seidel: Indeed! A congressional appointment is required so that all states are represented. This started with West Point. Since the mission of the Academy is to train national leaders, Congress wanted to be sure every state was represented so no region was left out of the future leadership of the country. The process carried over to the other academies as they were created. The President, Vice President, and SecDef also have appointments they can make.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google 
