leadership training USNA vs. NROTC

Colleges and Universities A-Z Naval Academy - Annapolis
1

<p>I am currently applying to the USNA and for NROTC. I was wondering what the differences are between the leadership training that you receive at USNA vs. the training in NROTC.
Are you going to be better prepared to lead coming out of the USNA or will you be equally prepared by both programs?</p>

<p>I know the academics at the schools I am applying to for NROTC is comparable to the academics at the USNA, and I know I will be pushed physically in both programs. I just wasn't sure what the difference between the leadership training.</p>

2

<p>USNA is better if you plan on making a career only because of the networking. I couldn’t tell the difference in officers’ backgrounds, other than in subs the Academy guys were technically weaker (I guess it was easier for them to get into nukes).</p>

3

<p>

In the past, subs out of the Academy has been extremely competitive. However, among other things, due to the changing role of our submarine force, the opposite is now occurring. Lesser qualified mids are actually now being ‘drafted’ to go subs. Probably in the future, now that females can select subs, the quality will rise back up again.</p>

4

<p>mombee- do you have facts that support lesser qualified mids are being drafted to go subs? My son is a technical major in the top 100 of the class and he was drafted. I would not call him less qualified.</p>

5

<p>No facts, just a lifetime of observation and discussion. Back in your day, I am sure submarine selection for a non-technical grad was not even an option. With the end of the cold war and before USNA developed their sophisticated ‘volunteering’ tactics, they began accepting non-technical majors into subs. The class standing ‘cutoff’ has been closely monitored and adjusted as necessary. A non-technical grad whose technical courses were less stringent than those of his fellow technical-major classmate, a non-technical major who probably had his GPA inflated by his major course load and somewhat deflated by his required engineering courses are the Academy grads to which TigerDude was probably referring. A problem which USNA addressed several years ago by increasing the percentage of technical grads and which they just addressed this year by allowing women to select subs. How deep they go for ‘volunteers’ in the non-technical majors, I don’t know. I do know several ‘poly sci and dive’ grads who have had difficulty in nuc power school. And another question remains, will a ‘drafted’ indivual perform to the standards of a volunteer? I suppose how severely they had their arms twisted might have something to do with it. (Did they ‘draft’ anyone this year who had subs listed lower than 2nd on their preference cards?)</p>

<p>Your son was definitely not the subject of my comment. Congratulations. Wish him good luck for me.</p>

6

<p>Back in my day ('82) Ronald Reagan was pressing forward with the 600 ship Navy which of course included a large nuclear fleet. Realizing the need for a large number of nuke officers the navy made a full court press to get volunteers. Many graduates (both USNA and ROTC) were “invited” to see Admiral Rickover for screening for the Nuclear Propulsion pipeline. Along with the invite was a stern warning “not to throw the interview” less you wind up at mast for dereliction of duty. I didn’t realize that the Navy was doing it again. </p>

<p>With regard to the differences between USNA and ROTC I have the following observation, albeit from the cold war days. The US Navy is no longer the small group it was in the early part of the last century. Back then if you were not a “ring knocker” you were doomed. Today with so many officers it is not as crucial for advancement as it was at one time. As a NROTC graduate I felt my CO (a outstanding USNA grad) could care less where you got your degree. It was, and I really hope still is, all about your performance as a member of ships company. I hope that has not changed. We had good officers and bad ones and they both came from both commissioning sources. </p>

<p>With regard to USNA non-technical degrees being “technically weaker” I would have to disagree. I sat next to a USNA history major at Nuclear Power School and he had a ton of technical courses including the dreaded “wires” (electrical engineering). His history degree included a ton of technical courses that a normal history major would not have to take.</p>

<p>Choose either path and you will not be sorry. The Navy will give you the chance to do things a civilan company would never give you at a young age. Good luck!</p>

7

<p>S1 commisionned through NROTC at a big state u. in May. He had many opportunities for leadership experience throughout his four years. Each year the midshipmen were given more responsibilities in the running of the unit. We have no experience with USNA so I can’t compare. Since there are not nearly as many midshipmen in the ROTC units, I would think there would be less competition for leadership positions. </p>

<p>One of the guys in S1’s commissioning class was prior enlisted subs. He really did not want to go back to subs after commissioning but ended up there anyway.</p>

<p>S1’s NROTC unit had great officer leadership. S1 got his first choice on service selection day in a very competitive branch. He worked hard for it but gives one of his ROTC officers a lot of credit for helping him get there.</p>

8

<p>

</p>

<p>Just one of many studies on this subject:</p>

<pre><code> http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA457507
</code></pre>

<p>See page 32. You should have sat next to an engineering major. Statistically, he would have a .3 higher nuclear power school GPA.</p>

9

<p>Nice thesis eh? I particularly enjoyed the “THE RICKOVER HYPOTHESIS” section. Interesting to note that if Adm. Rickover had his way the author would certainly not be getting a M.S. in Science and Leadership and Human Resource Development. </p>

<p>I’m not saying that a technical major is not better than a non technical major to prepare oneself for NPS. The more technical courses you take the better prepared you would be for a technical course like NPS. I am saying that the term “non-technical major” label as it applies to a USNA graduate is a misnomer. At least when I was in the Navy, all USNA midshipmen had to carry a core set of courses that were very technical. A history major from State U in no way looked like one from the USNA. Perhaps that is not the case anymore.</p>

<p>Lastly, although a GPA is a wonderful thing to put on ones resume and can be used in reports (like this thesis) it has little to do with success following NPS. As you no doubt know there have been many excellent Navy leaders who have not done well in school but excelled in the service. Perhaps another thesis can correlate GPA’s with success or failure in the service?</p>

10

<p>

That is exactly what the report is stating, that the more technical courses one takes, the better they will do. The curriculum has changed very little, if any, since your time. History majors continue to take a technical core curriculum. However, they have not taken technical courses commensurate with their engineering classmates and, thusly, do not do as well at nuclear power school. Also, a proportionate number will fall below the pass/fail cutoff and will not be able to graduate in order to validate your theory that grades don’t matter that much past graduation. </p>

<p>Also, your seatmate may not have informed you but his dreaded ‘wires’ courses as with many of his other engineering courses were not as rigorous as those of his engineering-major classmates.</p>

11

<p>Didn’t mean to stir up a hornet’s nest, but in the 80’s it was easier to get into nukes from the boat school.</p>

<p>Back on topic, I don’t think it matters in terms of leadership where one gets his or her commission. You don’t know dink when you get to the ship anyway.</p>

12

<p>

Are you sure that you are not trying to stir up a hornet’s nest. Over the years many studies have been done on the relative merits of the various commissioning sources. Statistically, USNA consistently comes out on top. I think the reason this is true is that USNA grads hit the fleet just slightly more prepared. Many, if not most, careers are made or broken in that first sea tour. Initially hitting the deck plates prepared and running pays off.</p>

13

<p>hi hbury14,</p>

<p>i hope i can provide my insight into this matter. This is a question I’ve answered before. I’m in my 4th year in the NROTC program and love it and its great. I don’t have much experience in the fleet, but I can tell you what I hear from everyone from ensigns to admirals because this question is always asked. prior to just a few years ago, the naval academy did have an advantage of ROTC guys. They were given active duty commissions, and ROTC guys had to compete for active duty commissions. Basically, what this meant was that Naval Academy officers got promoted more than non-Naval Academy officers. The Army actually works this way with their ROTC units, however the Navy now awards all NROTC officers the very same commission that Naval Academy guys get. That is from a career-talking standpoint.</p>

<p>As far as training goes, I’ve come to the conclusion of the following things based on consistent feedback I’ve received from new JOs. </p>

<p>Naval Academy midshipmen are trained in a strict military environment, so in the Navy they have a better understanding of basic naval concepts, traditions, etc. This can also be attributed also to the wide variety of resources they have such as YPs, sail boats, etc. However, all that goes out the door after about 6 months into your first DivO tour. (so basically you’ll start knowing a little more than others, but after 6 months of training with another non academy guy, you’ll be essentially in the same knowledge place)</p>

<p>This is actually opposite for the Marine Corps. NROTC Marine midshipmen get a lot more marine training than their naval academy counterparts (who actually aren’t even designated a Marine until their service selection senior year). NROTC Marine midshipmen train nonstop throughout college that leads up to Officer Candidate School, a rigorous school that NROTC Marine midshipman have to complete to become Marines. Naval Academy marines don’t complete OCS and get commissioned straight into the Marine Corps. When both start TBS (The Basic School, which is a school all marine officers attend after commissioning), the ROTC marine midshipmen are usually more accustomed to the life there, and have seen most of the evolutions they do. Of course, all this is thrown out the window after TBS when you go to your respective MOS schools.</p>

<p>The Naval Academy is always seen as more prestigious, and it is definitely more well known but essentially you end up in the same place. You’re getting a free education both ways, and whether your in a civilian school or at the Naval Academy, you hold the same rank, go on the same type of summer cruises, and they essentially divide the slots up evenly among the navy communities. And even though ROTC is usually seen as a back up from the Naval Academy, keep in mind that

  • There are plenty of candidates every year that get into from the Naval Academy and rejected from NROTC scholarship spots
  • There are plenty of Naval Academy midshipman who transfer to NROTC units before entering their third year.</p>

<p>Obviously the same is true vice versa, and there are ten Naval Academy slots open every year to ROTC midshipman in their first year. (as a nrotc mid, my friend transferred to the naval academy after freshman year)</p>

<p>I know I’m skipping your major question about “leadership training”. You will get billets to demonstrate your leadership in both ROTC and Naval Academy. Good leadership isn’t just black or white, it’s a big gray area. There are some folks who respond much better to a structured military school environment, and there are others who respond much better to a civilian type school environment. For me, I could never see myself at an academy. I’ve developed a lot of great management skills at full and part-time civilian jobs, on campus events and organizations, stuff that academy guys will never get to do. I think it has made me a much more well rounded person. The ROTC environment gives you a lot of flexibility and imagination. Of course, us ROTC guys party a lot more than Naval Academy guys too, and that’s always a plus! (I can’t imagine not having a true college experience… a lot of mids even join frats!)</p>

<p>I would recommend doing what you think is better for you. Visit the naval academy, speak with the midshipmen there, and visit the ROTC unit and the school you got accepted to, and speak with everyone there. See what academic program you like more, and make up your mind with what leadership environment you seem you’d excel in. Feel free to message me if you have any NROTC specific questions.</p>

<p>zack</p>

14

<p>This is an age-old question and since this is a Naval Academy and not a ROTC forum, I am compelled to present the side of USNA.</p>

<p>I firmly believe that if USNA did not provide a service GAO would have shut it down years ago. What service does it provide? There are many. Some are concrete and some are esoteric. I have been relegated to my lap top but if you want evidence of the concrete, go to the Monterrey website and google theses. Seems like ever semester, a student will take on some comparative study between the two programs. The overall consensus seems to be that USNA is the most cost effective officer procurement source which the Navy operates. How can this be when an USNA Ensign is exponentially more expensive than a ROTC one? When examining both quality of service (promotion rates and/or fitrep grades) combined with length of service, USNA comes out ahead. Simple fact is that USNA fitreps are better and hence their promotion rates are better. USNA grads are more likely to make USNA a career. Increased promotability allows for a longer career beyond mandatory retirement had they not been promoted.</p>

<p>Why causes the above conclusions to be valid? This is where the reasoning becomes much more esoteric. First off, why do USNA grads have longer careers? Did the simple fact that they decided early and applied to the Naval Academy more likely set them on a career track from the very beginning? Did the fact that they were embedded in the Navy 24/7 from the very beginning cause them to be more open to a career? Did the fact that, unlike their ROTC counterparts, they interacted daily with many career officer role models influence their outlook? Did all these factors and many more give them a greater level of confidence when they hit the fleet and hence more open to the thought that yes this would be a career in which they could succeed? In reality, it is probably a combination of all the above.</p>

<p>Why do Academy officers promote better? While many don’t realize this and by the time they do, it is too late, it is, in my opinion, the most important of all. First impressions are paramount. An Academy grad is prepared to make that good impression. Also, many times when initial job assignments are divvied out, more is ask of the Academy grad and hence a greater chance to excel. The first six months can set the tone for the first tour. The first tour will set the tone for subsequent tours. Bottom line, if one, as an Ensign, doesn’t hit the deckplates on fire and running, in six months he could be in a position never to catch up.</p>

<p>Zack, while I am not as familiar with the USMC, I have two questions to pose. Only 10% of initial USMC 2nd LT procurement is USNA. By the time they reach General, historically between a third and half of them are USNA grads. So a USNA grad has a 3 to 5 times better chance of unlimited promotion than those from other procurement sources. Why is this? Also, the Corps has recently drastically increased the numbers of 2LTs coming from the Academy, by far the most expensive procurement source. Why is this?</p>

15

<p>Hands down, USNA is better for leadership opportunities and training.</p>

<p>Now before I get flamed by the ROTC supporters, hear me out. USNA is a military school, whose sole purpose is to produce combat (line) officers. It does this through a 24/7 immersion program. Hell, you can barely get out of the Yard (campus) the first year. During this time, you will be subjected to all kinds of leadership styles from hundreds of different officers and enlisted Navy personnel. You will like some of them and dislike others. You will (hopefully) adopt the best and merge it into your own style. You will take courses in leadership and psychology, law of war, seamanship, navigation, naval engineering, weapons, warfare, etc . . . You will have a role in a squad, eat community meals together, march everyday, live in a rigorous shipboard-like environment and try to get people you like (and don’t like) to do things that have to be done whether you agree with them or not. Because of this immersion, you will graduate from USNA knowing more about the Navy, how it works, its history and traditions, and the reasons behind certain things than you could ever get out of an ROTC program. Simply stated, USNA (and all the service academies) are the leadership laboratory for the nation’s armed forces. They always have been and always will be.</p>

<p>IMHO, ROTC simply cannot compare - not because it is a bad program, in fact I think it is an excellent program. But it simply cannot compare because of less time in the lab and the non-military distractions at a civilian school. </p>

<p>Now I completely agree what others have said about ROTC and USNA in the fleet. What you do with the training and opportunities at USNA and ROTC is much more important than where you went to school. In many ways, ROTC officers perform better because they have not been immersed. They view their first assignment as something to take seriously, while some USNA grads look at it as an opportunity to get out of USNA, finally.</p>

<p>I disagree with comments about a Navy “ringknocker” mafia. That time has passed. Now, performance matters much much more than pedigree. I know ROTC officers that I would much prefer to serve with over certain USNA grads, and vice versa. Performance and ability matter more. I stopped wearing my USNA ring simply to prevent people from judging me - good or bad - based on where I went to school.</p>

<p>Bottom line, they are both excellent programs, and it depends on what you do with what you learned more than where you go to school. But, as far as leadership training and opportunities, there may not be a better “college-type” environment in the world than USNA or any of the other service academies (with possibly Sandhurst and the like excepted - although I would never tell a Brit that :))</p>

16

<p>GetIntoUSNA, good post. I think we crossposted. If not, I may sue you for plagiarism.</p>

<p>I was only addressing the upper limit of possibilities, not the bottom end, but you do make a very valid point. The ‘sameness’ does prevent some USNA grads from hitting the deckplates running at their first command and the ‘differenceness’ does cause some ROTC grads to excel.</p>

17

<p>mombee, you bring up some good points taking the side of the naval academy, but I’d also like to bring up a few philosophical fallacies with your statements.

  • regardless of the statistics you write about how many naval academy midshipmen were promoted to the rank of admiral or general, it is pretty much worthless since all the admirals now were commissioned in the mid to late 70s. like I said, times have changed, and when all those admirals were ensigns, the ROTC program was different and commissioned ensigns into the US Navy Reserve, so they did have an advantage.
  • however, besides the program change, USNA midshipmen often stay in the navy and make it a career because they usually don’t have too many outside experiences. When it’s time for an officer that was commissioned through ROTC or OCS to sign a contract, they can much more easily compare and contrast the civilian lifestyle and civilian work opportunities. For example, if you realize all your college civilian buddies have a better lifestyle and get paid more at their civilian jobs, you’re more likely to get out of the navy to pursue a civilian career. Therefore, the very good officers out of OCS/ROTC with leadership characteristics that are destined for admiral or general might go out into the civilian workforce and become the CEO of a company instead. if you throw in statistics, remember correlation is not causation!! </p>

<p>i think that 20 years from now, the flag officers will be much more evenly divided between all the commissioning sources than there has been previously, but unless you have a time machine that can jump ahead and prove yourself right, let’s not assume anything through an appeal to tradition.</p>

18

<p>just as another example, while everyone is quick to point out the Chairman of the JCS and the CNO were both naval academy alums, our current secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus was an NROTC midshipman at the University of Mississippi in the 70s. He became a surface warfare officer and got out of the navy after his junior officer tour to pursue a career which eventually led him to become a governor, ambassador, and now secretary of the navy. He was also a very successful chairman and CEO of a large company.</p>

19

<p>And lets not forget that our Commander-in-Chief got his start in the military as…uh…never mind.</p>

20

<p>I completely disagree. Though academy grads may be subjected to much leadership though their time in the Yard, ROTC midshipmen have a certain life’s experience that can only be acquired through interaction with people on a personal level. You won’t find a plebe on the yard going up and having the confidence to approach a group of firsties and have a comfortable conversation with them about their past experiences, and you won’t find said plebe talking to them during chow. in my opinion, ROTC produces much more well rounded leaders. According to many officers Academy grads come out of the academy, much cocker than they should be, and the last thing a chief wants in a cocky JO with ZERO experience under his belt to come in and jack up everything. </p>

<p>Bottom line: Theres a reason why the term “ring tappers” has a negative connotation in the fleet</p>