Are ROTC Officers Better?

[USMCRET6391]

Bruce Fleming | November 01, 2005

The widespread presupposition at service academies is that their graduates make better officers than those from any other commissioning source. It's an article of faith. But is it true?

I ask because my impression is that this conviction of the superiority of service academy officers is not shared either in the officer corps or enlisted ranks. In fact, I've never heard anyone in the fleet seriously argue that ROTC officers are inferior as a group to service academy products taken as a group. And if ROTC and OCS produce officers that are just as good officers as service academy products, that should give us pause to think. Are the service academies really worth what the entail?

They entail a lot. First off the academies, by their own calculation, are considerably more expensive to the taxpayers than ROTC programs. The most recent figure I heard for the Naval Academy was $280,000. It's quoted by high schools that keep a tally of the monetary value of scholarships won by their graduates at colleges and universities. One high school I heard about listed acceptances by one student at both USNA and USAFA as separate sums, thereby claiming “scholarships” of over half a million dollars for that one young man. I've never quite understood where this figure comes from. Perhaps it includes pro-rated amounts for maintaining the YP (Yard Patrol) boats and summer cruises on ships and subs? ROTC by contrast pays for tuition for four years at civilian schools, nowhere near the same ballpark.

But even if it cost the same to produce an academy officer as it costs to produce a ROTC officer, there would be other reasons for asking if the academies are worth what they entail. The midshipmen complain all the time about absolutely all aspects of the system. Not that complaints by themselves cut much ice with me. I'm well aware that “a grumblin' sailor is a happy sailor,” as one of my prior-enlisted students reminded me. In fact, over the years I've learned to block out the background-level complain-to-cope whining, as well as the complaints I have no sympathy with (Sir, we can't have keg parties). But the fact is that midshipmen do have to do a lot of things that somebody in ROTC doesn't do. Do these contribute to the end product?

Their liberty is severely curtailed, for starters: in ROTC, students put on a uniform a couple of times a week and their evenings are their own, not to mention all of the non-uniform days. Plebe year is no fun by anyone's estimation, what with all that chopping in the halls, the squaring of corners, the being asked professional knowledge at meals when all you want to do is eat, and having to make motivational bulletin boards (bulletin boards for college students!). Even upper-class midshipmen are yelled at, do PT in the rain, and forced to do all sorts of odd things.

All this impacts academics, my own little corner of the carpet. They are doing so many other things that frequently their work is perfunctory, and their attention is always somewhere else. That's not true of students at civilian schools who have the freedom to actually concentrate on the mind-work of classes (though they may not exercise it), not having to make bulletin boards or prepare for a come-around or memorize rates. (Has anybody ever shown that memory is significantly enhanced by having to learn menus?)

What about our vaunted “leadership” lessons? Here's where my opening questions becomes so important. Whatever the intention behind many of the things we do (and many things have all but lost a sense of intention; they're just “tradition”), if they don't produce better officers they fail. So that's my question: do they?

Instead of asking people in the fleet, as I'm doing here, my students try to prove to me that what we do just has to produce better officers. “Sir,” they say, “it must! We have to put up with so much more!”

This is odd logic. The proof of the pudding should be in the eating: does what we do make better officers? Not: Academy officers have to be better officers because of x, y, and z.

We read that Academy graduates have higher retention rates. Yet who's to say this is due to the Academy rather than the type of people who come to the Academy? Many midshipmen arrive from families with Navy connections, and came in thinking they would make a career of the Navy. If for a moment we postulate a world without the service academies, these same people would do NROTC at Tulane, Vanderbilt, or Penn (or Mississippi State). Who's to say they wouldn't have had the same commitment?

We hear that flag officers are still largely Academy graduates. But again, the problem is that we have no control group to isolate the determining factor. Who's to say this isn't the effect of the “old boy network,” a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy?

I don't know whether the academies produce better officers than a more relaxed and academic environment at a civilian school where ROTC officers have developed alongside civilians. I'm unnerved by the fact that I don't hear from the fleet the same “of course they do” response that's so rote at the academies.

[Vulture6]

You know, this is such an age old argument and the points that he makes are, at best, trivial.

What makes for a strong officer corps is diversity. Not some demographic politically correct diversity of ethnicity or gender, but a diversity of experience. We don’t want a military run and led by the product of some cookie cutter officer factory. Is one way better than another? For some folks yes, for others no.

It is the fact that we have officers who spend 4 years immersed in a certain culture mixed with ROTC graduates, officers from enlisted commissioning programs, and OCS graduates that gives us a robust officer corps. Does this also produce mediocre officers who have no real business leading troops? Of course it does, and just like the strong leaders, the weak ones come from each of these sources in equal numbers.

It is not the commissioning source that makes a good officer or good officer corps. What makes a good officer corps is drawing officers from a variety of sources and then the system that evaluates them to promote the best and weed out the worst. If anything needs to be examined in how and where we get officers, it ought to be focused on how we keep the good ones and flush out the weak ones.

[USMCRET6391]

I tend to agree Vulture, some of the worst officers I worked with and around were Academy Grads (I lump Citadel and other "Military" Colleges in here), some were ROTC Officers. On a personal level I tend to lean toward ROTC Officers, I think they have a less insular view of the Military and don't have that "Old Boy" attitude that the "Ring Knockers" exhibit.

[cincymarsdad]

I appreciate the discussion on this topic. As some of you know, my daughter Sarah would like to become an officer and could have the opportunity to attend West Point. She is currently leaning towards 'just' an ROTC program where one has a "life" outside the academy situation.

For me, a second aspect of this is how an Academy diploma looks on your resume in civilian life. I work with two people, not closely, who are USNA grads, and they are both fairly "manic" about things ... I don't know if this is typical as it just reflects a data set of n=2. Frankly, in my view, neither exhibits a high level of what I would term "leadership", at least in a civvy environment. But, at the 'foot in the door" phase, it does look good on the paper.

I suppose another angle on this is whether certain specialties/branches highlight differences between ROTC and Academy grads - or is the difference still equivocal? Knowing nothing else, would you tend to prefer being led in combat by an Academy grad or the alternative? It sounds as if this would not be a relevant factor. Would it make a difference in other specialties? If you had to choose a lawyer, would this play any role at all if you had a choice between the two? (For an Art 32 or CM).

[Covertness]

We've had great leaders from all of these sources. However, if given a choice to serve under an officer and all I knew about him was where he got his degree from, I'd probably pick one from The Citadel or VMI, then start dipping into the ROTC pool. However, my family has close ties to The Citadel so my opinion is biased in their regard. As a grunt, I appreciate the fact that they had to live in a military lifestyle to get their degree. Those rings automatically earn respect from me. ROTC officers, well they gotta start from scratch in the respect collumn.
Now Academy ring knockers are just 200 pound guys with 600 pound egoes. They have an uphill struggle just to find the respect collumn with me. I expect more from them but normally they don't measure up to that higher expectation. Just another officer to salute.

[Grimmy]

I'm probably way to the "left" on this issue but...

In my utopianist "perfect world" set up all officers would be those that had proven themselves first as Soldiers, then as NCOs and then selected for Officer School.

I have little respect for what is in all reality a system based on old aristocracy concepts.

Now, in an attempt to be on topic:

I generally assumed that Acadamy stuffed shirts went Acadamy for the diploma and the appearance of elite..while ROTC stuffed shirts wanted to serve but just not as ditch diggers.

Both are still basically "those officer guys" and, generally speaking, best avoided on all occasions. When in direct contact, avoid eye contact, smile gently, back away slowly, say Yes Sir or Yes Ma'am and then check with Staff NCO to validate anything directed or ordered :P

[Bronco1986]

cincymarsdad, i see where your coming from with Academy looking good on a resume. However, ROTC or academy, its the same bar, and being a military officer in general is going to look good on a civilian resume no matter where the commisioning source. it may play a slight factor, but overall i dont think it matters that much.

as far as the overall question goes.....

i think a leader is a leader. academy or ROTC, either you've got it or you dont. i'm currently contracted AROTC. and i know that there are definately a couple guys in my battalion that i would have a hard time following, others i would have no probelm what so ever with. but i've also seen and talked with cadets at West Point, VMI, and The Citadel, some seem very squared away, some others i wouldnt trust to give me the time of day. i think its all based on the individual. some people are natural leaders only needing a little direction(which the programs provide) and others are not.

[CFergusn]

No No No

[heart_felt]

i was in army rotc and i believe that i would make a good officer

[Vulture6]

i was in army rotc and i believe that i would make a good officer

No offense, and nothing personal (because I know nothing about you) but I've never met anyone in OCS or ROTC who didn't think they'd make a good officer... and yet bad, selfish officers come from somewhere.

My opinion remains as stated above - commissioning source is not an indicator of whether or not someone will be a good leader or not.