<p>That's very true SparkleandShine, which is one of the reasons why I'm still so torn. I could always go to Harvard for law school....... :-)</p>
<p>Well it seems you have a rather envious decision to make. I would suggest that you do some long term planning of what is that you want to do in the military. Do you want to be a Marine platoon leader, in which case USNA might be better. But if it is lawschool and JAG then Harvard might be better as you might be able to get a higher GPA at Harvard (primarily because you can focus much more on soley academics and not have the multidue of other things with a service academy) and unfortunetly Law Schools are pretty much all numbers driven. But based on what you have accomplished thus far it seems you will do well either way and will undoubtably be a great assest to the Armed services.</p>
<p>Haha, thanks rkam9. As for what I want to do in the Marines, my options are a bit limited because I'm a girl, but I've decided that if I can't fly (would need PRK, etc), then I want to go into Intel....I really want to continue studying Chinese like I have in high school, and I think I would minor in it at either school. Also want to start learning Arabic...figure both will be useful. But hey, I'll do whatever they need me to do; if they tell me to be an engineer, I'll do it, if they want me in civil affairs, i'll do it.....just anything but admin.! lol. I used to want to be a JAG, but not entirely sure now, although I'm not dismissing the possibility.
Good luck to everyone currently waiting to hear from any of the Academies!</p>
<p>Oh so you wish to be a Marine officer?. In that case another option would be the OCS program. you would do this if you chose Harvard. Instead of doig ROTC you would go to OCS during youre summers i believe it is divided amongst 2 summers. This could be good for you in that i believe they guarentee you branch choice for ground, JAG, and aviation (granted medical, etc). A nother benefit of this is you can focus all youre military activites over the summer and foucus more on academics during the school year. Granted you may very well want to wear that brigh uniform around Cambridge and shock those libreal elitists lol. But its just something else to look at.</p>
<p>Yeah if I do ROTC, I'll have to do OCS anyway. I figure if that's what I'm doing, I might as well have the military pay full tuition for me through ROTC. I know that whether I go to Harvard or USNA, the military absolutely has to be part of my college experience. And it would be fun to **** off the liberals with that hot uniform... :-)</p>
<p>boston usmc, did it ever occur to you that many liberal democrats were wearing that uniform when they died in Iraq and Afganistan? I don't remember neo-con being a requirement for military service in the United States.</p>
<p>Whoa, that word that was starred-out was not a swear; reading that it looks terrible, that is not what I meant at all! That looks totally not like it was supposed to read. I'm sorry, I didn't mean that the way it sounded, and I don't mean to offend 'liberals' in uniform. I'm using liberals in the sense of my world, meaning the type of people I have to deal with who are basically anti-military and consider THEMSELVES "liberals". In MY school and surroundings, anyone who considers themself "liberal" is against everything I stand for and does not support our soldiers at all, and that's what gets to me the most. I know that there are many "liberals" who have died in uniform, absolutely, and I appreciate their service as much as anyone. I apologize if I offended anyone with that, it was taken out of context.</p>
<p>Most labels put on "liberals" were pinned on them by "conservatives", and vice-versa. There is a war being waged for the hearts and minds of this nation in both the media and in Washington and it is being waged by a very powerful and influential minority of both sides. The moderates on both sides had better wake up. Todays terms of "liberal" and "conservative" have no place in a sane world---they only serve to help the effort to divide a nation which is woefully under-read--</p>
<p>Today the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are used by many to paint a broad and usually inaccurate brush across people they disagree with without having to really illustrate their point with facts.</p>
<p>The terms have become insulting to free thinking Americans.</p>
<p>I consider myself moderate. I think a litmus test said I was libertarian lol. I have mixed views on everything, and I believe utmost in compromise. Tunnel vision never gets you anywhere. 20/20 hind sight doesn't mean 20/20 future sight either.</p>
<p>woohoo for libertarian philosophy! poopoo for political parties!</p>
<p>I think currently the problem lies not with political prefrences but with demographics. Currently the Military is staffed primarily with some of the lower socio-economic demographics. It would be nice to see if some of the nations "elits" would also serve. Not saying some dont (this board proves they do and are willing to ), however no where the percantges they should be. This would not only make policy makers more weary about the use of force (as it could more directly affect them). Also it would allow easier transitions for Veterans, etc from military to civilian job. I have seen to many ex veterans (officers included) end up in menial dead-end jobs because civilan employers do not see their resume as applicable. I am not suggesting a draft or anything just a thought.</p>
<p>" I've decided that if I can't fly (would need PRK, etc), then I want to go into Intel....I really want to continue studying Chinese like I have in high school, and I think I would minor in it at either school. Also want to start learning Arabic...figure both will be useful."
Quite honestly, I think you would do better at Harvard and we need good linguists (see Bush speech last week). Harvard has incredible opportunities along those lines vs. USNA. Combine with the ROTC & you'll be an awesome asset!</p>
<p>Thanks, Weski, good point. </p>
<p>Yeah, sorry about my comment before again. I live in Boston, (right next to Cambridge), and it's basically the liberal capital of the country. When I was writing that post I was responding to the one before me about the "liberals" at Harvard -- the ones who won't allow ROTC on campus, who won't even allow Harvard students to list ROTC in their yearbooks because it is "discriminatory". At my school, the kids who CALL themselves "liberals" are the ones who organize the anti-war rallies, who put up posters in my school about protests at local recruiting stations, who write ridiculous articles in the school newspaper with no factual evidence to back them up. And everyone believes them. It just gets REALLY frustrating to me that the military isn't given the respect that it deserves, and in my particular city, along with Cambridge, where Harvard is, it's the self-proclaimed liberals who just annoy me to no end. Who knows, maybe in other parts of the country I myself would be considered "liberal", but here in Boston I'm as "conservative" as you get, generally, and it seems like the debates never end; very emotionally draining. So I'm sorry, I hope that comment wasn't taken the wrong way; I was letting my emotions get the best of me. </p>
<p>Kind of hijacked this thread...so back to the original question, what do other people think about Academies vs. ROTC? Why would you choose one over the other?</p>
<p>Academies vs. ROTC?</p>
<p>Honestly it is a question of what you want in a college experience. I would not do it on what would make you a better officer or give you more carrear prospects. How you perform as an officer will depend on how you do at youre first duty station, which will be predicated on how you work with youre subordinates. Because you could graduate number 1 in youre class at USMA and have a worse OER than a ROTC LT from a tier 3 school if you start thinking you are gods gift to the military and dont listen to youre NCO's. If you want a "regular" college experience frat partys, Beer pong and all go to a civilan institution.If you want the pride of going to a school where the guest of honor at graduation is the President, and is the subject of various Hollywood films go to an Acadamey knowing that more than likely you wont be able to play flip cup or whatever every weekend.</p>
<p>"It would be nice to see if some of the nations "elits" would also serve."</p>
<p>Not likely without a draft. Even with a draft many of the nations wealthy find a way "out", as we saw time and again during Vietnam. In any event, just because someone is not part of the "socio-economic elite" doesn't mean they won't develop into good soldiers and leaders. In fact it could be argued that the very fact that our nation's defense ISN'T solely in the hands of the above mentioned group makes our nation that much stronger :)</p>
<p>"socio-economic elite" doesn't mean they won't develop into good soldiers and leaders</p>
<p>I know i was not trying to perpetuate the idea that these "elites" would be better officers than middle or "lower class" ( some of the finest CDTs in my ROTC class would be considered of the lower socio economic class). My comment was in regards to the societal implications. If there were more elites then there would be greater personal affinity beetween policy makers who send soldiers to war and the soldiers who fight them. Also if there were more elites in the military then it would increase respect for the military in civilian circles, and allow a better transition from military to civilan job. I just find it frustrating to see former milirary officers end up in dead end jobs soley because their experience is not seen as prestigious.</p>
<p>Retired military officers are highly sought after in the American business world. For some very good reasons. I agree that it would be beneficial for policy makers to have a "vested interest" in their decision to send young men and women to war but that isn't always a guarantee they will act on that interest one way or the other. One can only hope that they act in the best interests of the nation as a whole and that the nation as a whole takes their right (and duty) to vote seriously.</p>
<p>Actually, right now the nation's "elite" are in the military in higher proportions than the makeup of the elites in relation to the populace at large.</p>
<p>"Actually, right now the nation's "elite" are in the military in higher proportions than the makeup of the elites in relation to the populace at large."</p>
<p>Skirby would you happen to have a link to the study or article that gives this data. I am very interested to read it. It is quite possible that i am wrong, and on this issue i would be more than happy to be proven wrong.</p>
<p>I hate to break it to you guys, but as soon as you get to West Point, you'll no longer really be affiliated with a Party or participate in politics. We support the Commander in Chief, and don't talk about politics either way.</p>