United States Military Academy (USMA West Point)
NCOs
Officers
Army
ROTC was great training, and it's more cost effective. I used to think the Acdemy must have better training but after meeting Academy grads the main thing they have going for them is the Network they build.
That Network is very useful, no mater where they go in the military, one of their classmates is there.
Personally I received a much better military education from USMA, specifically on military history and tactics. The intense work load (remember academically separated!) prepared me for a lifetime of learning, but other schools could also provide that.
I got a much better life education from ROTC in a civilian college. Having to worry about taking care of myself (no one woke me up in the morning or told me when and where I needed to eat or what time I had to turn my lights off and go to bed) and manage my life including school, military training and life in general better prepared me for being a 2LT at my first duty assignment.
I think a great commissioning source would for a young person to spend 2 years at USMA, then go into ROTC, but as graduating with a degree, find a way to not get commissioned, but instead enlist for OCS! I actually debated this a little bit since I figured I already had 2/3 sources covered, why not do one more.
No time no talk!
To answer your question, generally speaking, more West Point Cadets tend to become Generals however, Gen Colin Powell attended ROTC and was the first 4 Star to come out of ROTC. First African American, and first African American as the Head of The Joint Chiefs of Staff. I believe it's about determination. If that is how far you want to go, ONLY YOU can stop you from reaching that goal. :)
MSG, I did ROTC and I found it was the best option for me. I felt that it prepared me to be an officer. My program was made up of about 100-180 cadets, which ment the ratio was way smaller than that of the USMA. So, I had more 1-1 time with the officers and senior NCOs. Key being the senior NCOs, I picked their brains on everything.
I believe ROTC affords that pre OJT that you recieve as a brand new PL from you PSG. However, when it came to having a netork and living the army life I was lacking as young LT. That just made me try harder to be the best officer I coud be for my soldiers.
I think both programs produce brilliant officers but its all about the cadet/officer input. You cant take a lazy unmotivated person and put them into either program and expect great resluts. I do believe that ROTC produes more well adjuted officer that are more prone to adapt to soldiers and issues.
Once again, I can only speak from my own exerience.
I would think ROTC is a school or college based military officer training course with it's curriculum in the civilian world. For example, you major in medical and in addition the military ROTC course. West Point deals strictly with military officer training for 4 years.
Now based on my opinion I believe West Point is better, it teaches a broadbased course that can be used in the military, artillery, infantry, etc. officer course.There are quite a few apparent differences and your choice is based on what you believe you find is better.
Actually, West Point is military training 24/7, but not "hard core". Clearly, not all the subjects taught are military subjects, but they are taught by military officers in a military manner and always with an eye toward the applicability toward leadership, duty, honor, country. The cadet's entire 4 years revolves around that and is structured toward enhancing, developing, and directing the natural leadership abilities they were selected for. Even meals, recreation time and choices emphasize and develop leadership. Academy cadets have very, very little unstructured time in their lives at all during their 4 years, compared to ROTC. With 4 years, the Academy is supposed to do more than develop a 2LT.
ROTC, on the other hand, is structured much differently. Unless the ROTC cadet is at VMI or the Citadel, their program is necessarily structured to produce the most proficient junior officer possible in the time allotted. ROTC has 4 years of instruction time, not 4 years of the cadet's LIFE, to do it. The cadet is expected to be a good officer. If he/she turns out to be a great senior officer and national leader, that's great too!
If he was a PFC, then he should have gone through Basic. He should have at least known how the Army worked...at least from a private's eyes. He must have only been book smart then..... ;o)
Sir, in this case, the best thing I can say is that poor young 2LT had a good heart.
I have a nephew who is Direct Commission (an AMEDD CPT), a psychologist. The Army took the time to send him to an officer's course, and naturally he grew up listening to his crazy Airborne Ranger uncle's stories. He listened to my advice before accepting the commission: got in good physical condition, read about his responsibilities and takes them to heart. He's doing well for that branch, although they shake their heads a bit when he asks for jump school.
That surprises me that they are hesitant to make a Psychologist for airborne troops.... as anyone who jumps out of a perfectly good airplane clearly needs his head examined.... ;o)
- Define "better".
- Can someone tell the difference if an officer is an ROTC or a West Point graduate? Maybe initially but probably not after a several years of commissioned service.
- ROTC and West Point both have their advantages and disadvantages from a personal perspective. Both are capable of producing both good and bad officers.
- ROTC is spread among approximately 250 different universities with varying degrees of quality in terms of ROTC among those universities. ROTC produces about 75% of the Army's officers each year. There is also a few different options as to when and how one enters ROTC (4 year scholarship, 2 year scholarship, no scholarship).
- West Point is centralized at one location which makes it easier for quality control but West Point produces only about 25% of the Army's officers each year. There are a few different options to enter (out of high school, prior enlisted) but everyone goes through the same four year experience.
I have made sure that I do everything in my power to ensure that I know the bigger picture but know for a fact that when it comes to the mission at hand I see everything from ever angle that I can. I want my troops to respect me and willing to do anything for me (including die) if the need is there.
When you have an officer right out of ROTC/West Point they are getting someone so green that thinks that they know the best and do not want to take the advice of the senior personal in their ranks.
Here is what it is really going to come down to: your performance and potential. If you are the top O-6, your commissioning source will not matter. I am a Direct Commissionee, and I feel as though I stand just as good of a chance as any other Officer at earning a star. I do not think that I will be one of those who will get a star (mostly due to MRD and age), but I feel as though I would have an equal shot at it.
There is one advantage to West Point: the experience and alumni network can provide some amazing development that extends beyond the four years spent on West Point.
Personally I think some of the benefits of ROTC is that it there is a lot more personal responsibility to say get to PT in the morning because unlike at West Point only small percentage of the student body are cadets. I also like being at a civilian college so I can expand my relationship with civilians and see what I'll be fighting for in the future. On the flip side I can definitely imagine how cool it would be to go through the same halls Pershing, Patton, Eisenhower, and MacArthur and be a member of the Long Grey Line. Hope that helps!
MSG(P) Quick,
Full disclosure: I am a product of 2.5 years at USMA (academic separation) with my final two years in a ROTC program where I received my commission (I did a total of 5.5 years of college to get a BA degree). One fun part of this has always been, when I meet an officer trying to figure out their commissioning source; I usually get it!
While I don't recommend doing 5.5 years of school to get an undergrad degree and commission, I do feel that I am a much better officer because of my split experiences (had I had time, and the patience, I would have liked to enlist after completing my degree rather than being commissioned, then go through OCS, for the full experience).
USMA gave me a heavy academic and daily immersion into the military (Army) lifestyle and mentality. Every day was about being in the military, from how I lived, to the classroom instructors and the military minded themes across everything. I left USMA a much better student than when I arrived (flunking out does that often), and I knew much more about the military than my ROTC counterparts I joined later.
ROTC was a better 'life' experience, having a mixture of friends, some in the military community, but most not. Having a couple of jobs outside school forced me to learn how to be a 'grown-up' more quickly, and living "on the economy" taught me how to fend for myself without being spoon-fed every life experience.
Each has strengths and weaknesses, and some folks may want/not want the specific experience offered by each, but I do believe iin general, they provide the right pre-commissioning experience. With over 20 years hindsight, I have seen good and bad officers from both sources, and while USMA is a singular source, ROTC has hundreds of schools, offering various levels of education, military and civilian.
-
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 
