OCS restricted to 4 year college degree grads ?

[adrbuddy]

I am more than disappointed to hear that there is a new policy restricting soldiers in attending OCS. Now you have to have a 4 year college degree? is this true ? Come on ! ... Why are we giving our backs to non traditional students. Students who have to work hard full time and go to school part time at times. What about those older experience soldiers who are more than eligible to be part of leadership for their dedication. ? Policies as these are killing our Army..
:(

[Jumper5]

A bachelor's degree is a four year degree.

It doesn't mean that you took exactly four years to complete it.

[MCGYVER]

I think this idea is a very good, smart and prudent one. Will keep some of the shitbags from jumping on the gravy train that haven't earned the right. Some of the squared away joes will suffer but mostly it will weed out the losers who couldn't cut it as enlisted. They can still go warrant and get some money (not the respect but the money, LOL).

[SailorDave]

OCS for the Navy has always been a Bachelor's Degree. Has it been different for the other services ?

[Creaminess]

I think this idea is a very good, smart and prudent one. Will keep some of the shitbags from jumping on the gravy train that haven't earned the right. Some of the squared away joes will suffer but mostly it will weed out the losers who couldn't cut it as enlisted. They can still go warrant and get some money (not the respect but the money, LOL).

So you respect a new 2LT more than a new WO1 who most likely already has experience in his/her field? Are you aware that most warrant MOS's require the applicant to have served in the equivalent field as an enlisted Soldier before they can become a warrant?

I agree with a lot of what you say on these boards, but this one statement shows your complete ignorance. Find a signal 2LT with no experience and a signal WO1 and tell me who you respect more based on the knowledge they have. You'll change your tune quickly, especially if you need them.

[Yggdrasil]

Policies as these are killing our Army..
:(

Actually, the others services have always been this way - the Army was the only service that allowed you to go to OCS with 90 credits. Don't worry, you'll be okay.

[adrbuddy]

Why would i want to become a warrant officer if i am qualified to be a Commissioned officer?i dont understand some of your points ladies and gentlemen.

I always thought you will be able to APPLY to OCS with a 90 credit college transcript. But whether or not that rumor is accurate (about the four degree requirement for OCS) ... The ARMY is becoming a huge inconvinience for many new soldiers, that are willing to serve the country. Oh well, My ETS is coming soon and it looks like, 125 college credits is not enough... I was just asking since many college friends have been asking and wondering... perhaps they are trying to get in. I am glad i gave them the heads up to think before making the biggest mistake of their lifes.
:mad:

[MCGYVER]

Creaminess, sorry I hurt your little feelings. I was speaking in generalities, not specifics. I'll now break it down for you. Most Warrants don't get that much respect from either the enlisted, NCO or officer sides of the house. I believe (could be wrong though) that most warrants are aviation and don't have that requirement you speak of.

[MSMUROTC]

People on these boards keep acting like the Army owes everyone something and that economics and economic theory doesn't come into it at some point.

The Army needs a certain amount of officers per year. Now that they are getting more applicants that have B.A.s', they can now afford to accept officer candidates that have B.A.'s. Previously, all officers had to complete their degrees prior to MAJ, which was paid for by the Army, both with regards to tuition and pay benefits -- which, I might add, would be in many cases O-3E pay with quite a few years TIS.

So now the Army has more than enough fully qualified candidates, individuals who have shown the personal initiative, dedication, ability, and other good traits to actually complete their degrees ... and that, in having their degrees done, they will save the government millions of dollars ... and the Army should still accept people that aren't as qualified that will cost them millions? Doesn't make any sense to me. It actually sounds like the Army is making a good call for once.

[Creaminess]

Creaminess, sorry I hurt your little feelings. I was speaking in generalities, not specifics. I'll now break it down for you. Most Warrants don't get that much respect from either the enlisted, NCO or officer sides of the house. I believe (could be wrong though) that most warrants are aviation and don't have that requirement you speak of.

You may want to do some research. Aviators make up roughly half of all warrants, at least on the active duty side; I can't speak numbers for USAR or ARNG. Nearly every branch in the Army has warrants with the exception of Infantry and Armor, and I might be missing one or two others.

Many warrants have Bachelor's degrees or higher, but that's not why they become warrants; they're chosen to be warrants because they're considered subject matter experts in their field. Other than aviators, you generally have to have extensive experience already in your field just to be selected as a warrant. There are some exceptions to that, but for the most part warrant officer MOS's have enlisted "feeder" MOS's, where you have to have held a certain enlisted MOS to qualify for a particular warrant officer MOS.

To become selected for OCS, a prior enlisted (or warrant officer, for that matter) Soldier does not have to have experience in the branch for which he or she is chosen. Case in point: An NCO I work with right now was selected to go to OCS and serve in a branch in which she has zero experience. Why the Army didn't do the smart thing and keep her in her current branch, which she requested, is beyond me, but there must have been a greater need in the branch in which they are placing her.

To say officers and enlisted don't respect warrants as much as they do branch officers is really generalizing, and I think you'll find throughout the Army that senior leaders rely heavily on their warrant officers. I'm not saying that warrants are more valuable than anybody else, but I AM refuting your statement that they are not respected. You must not have served with any, or most of those you've served with must not have interacted much with you, or you would know they are highly respected and, in all but rare cases, extremely technically proficient.

[Creaminess]

People on these boards keep acting like the Army owes everyone something and that economics and economic theory doesn't come into it at some point.

The Army needs a certain amount of officers per year. Now that they are getting more applicants that have B.A.s', they can now afford to accept officer candidates that have B.A.'s. Previously, all officers had to complete their degrees prior to MAJ, which was paid for by the Army, both with regards to tuition and pay benefits -- which, I might add, would be in many cases O-3E pay with quite a few years TIS.

So now the Army has more than enough fully qualified candidates, individuals who have shown the personal initiative, dedication, ability, and other good traits to actually complete their degrees ... and that, in having their degrees done, they will save the government millions of dollars ... and the Army should still accept people that aren't as qualified that will cost them millions? Doesn't make any sense to me. It actually sounds like the Army is making a good call for once.

I agree with you on this. This is no different than the Army now saying you must have completed high school or have a GED instead of accepting high school dropouts and giving them a deadline by which to complete their diploma/GED.

As times change and situations change, the Army adapts. Maybe one day again the economy will be wonderful and the Army will have many fewer people enlisting and trying to get commissioned, and they'll have to adjust the requirements accordingly. For now, with if there are more than enough people trying to get into the officer ranks who already have degrees, you're right: The Army should do this to save money, as well as to save the added stress on new officers who have to not only worry about doing their jobs but also about completing their degrees in a timely manner.

You're 100% correct on this, MSMUROTC.

[MCGYVER]

Creaminess, I TOLD you I was speaking generally, what part of that didn't you get? I also said that MOST warrants were Aviation (about half of all warrants out of many MOS) which is correct. You say that "many" warrants have Bachelors, I believe it's closer to "some" and that the majority don't. With warrants it's a LOT of schooling once selected so experience (in general) doesn't matter that greatly. If someone has the option of going either warrant or commissioned and is fully qualified for both they'd probably be a fool to go warrant (in general) because they'd end up making less money and be less respected (in general) than a commissioned officer. They'd also make less money on the outside.

[adrbuddy]

Thanks for the reply.

I am not sure if that answer my first question, but i think i am now more confused. But whatever ... I will be moving on ... and I wish you good luck in your ARMY CAREERS, becuase mine will be expiring soon and I cant have inconviniences in my path. I will be just a regular dude out of the MILITARY ..

THanks again,
:cool:

[MSMUROTC]

If you "can't have inconveniences in your path" and you can't figure out how to convert 125 credits into a B.A. at some school in less than a year, you're really not officer material anyway.

[Creaminess]

Creaminess, I TOLD you I was speaking generally, what part of that didn't you get? I also said that MOST warrants were Aviation (about half of all warrants out of many MOS) which is correct. You say that "many" warrants have Bachelors, I believe it's closer to "some" and that the majority don't. With warrants it's a LOT of schooling once selected so experience (in general) doesn't matter that greatly. If someone has the option of going either warrant or commissioned and is fully qualified for both they'd probably be a fool to go warrant (in general) because they'd end up making less money and be less respected (in general) than a commissioned officer. They'd also make less money on the outside.

You're generalizing again.

Why would somebody be stupid to go warrant instead of branch officer? And by the way, warrants are commissioned when they're promoted to CW2, so you can't use "commissioned officers" as a way to differentiate anymore. I thought somebody who was supposed to be as smart as you claim to be would know that.

Here's why somebody would choose warrant over branch officer: Warrants work in their field nearly all the time, which cannot be said of branch officers. For instance, say you have a transportation CPT in an infantry brigade. That transportation CPT can work as a battalion S4, a company commander, in the brigade S4 as the AS4 or the log officer, or in the SPO. However, that transportation warrant (generally a mobility warrant, 882A), only has one place in the brigade he/she can work. Almost all warrants in a battalion or brigade are one deep. Some exceptions would be that you'll have a handful of maintenance warrants in a brigade, or obviously you'll have several warrants in an aviation unit. So somebody who wants to stay working in a certain specialty may choose to go warrant for that particular reason.

Also, I've served a year in an aviation unit in Korea, and most of the branch officers stated they only got to fly enough hours to meet whatever their requirements were, while the warrants were flying all the time. Again, the warrants were, for the most part, doing what they should have been doing IAW their MOS, yet the CPTs (we had almost no LTs) and above were staff pukes first and pilots second. Sure, some of the warrants had additional duties like supply officer, standardization officer, etc., but they were flying much more frequently than their branch officer counterparts.

As for the "respect" issue, branch officers are a dime a dozen. Warrants, on the other hand, make up about 2% of the total active Army population. Is it more difficult to be chosen to be a branch officer or a warrant officer? I think it's pretty clear.

Also, speaking of the "respect" thing, ask any battalion UMOs (usually LTs) how much they respect and rely upon their brigade mobility warrants. Ask your battalion S1s (generally CPTs or LTs) how much they respect and rely upon their brigade HR techs in the brigade S1. Ask your company and battalion commanders how much they respect and rely upon their maintenance warrants. I could go on and on, but I think if you really had any clue about the Army (I'm really starting to sense that you don't, whether you're serving or not), you'd know better.

As for pay on the outside, there are plenty of enlisted Soldiers who can make more money than branch OR warrant officers on the outside. It depends on what skills they bring to the civilian world, what jobs they're willing to do, etc. It's quite obvious that the percentage of branch officers who have BA/BS degrees and above is going to be higher than the percentage of warrants or enlisted who do, because they're REQUIRED to have them. That's a no-brainer. But that doesn't automatically assure them of getting a better or higher paying job on the outside.

[MCGYVER]

First and foremost, I never claimed to be smart. :) Second of all, you could also say Warrants make up only 2.4% of the force because that's how badly they are needed. You obviously are much more passionate about this subject than I. I merely offered an opinion and you want to vilify me for it. I do know who the Backbone of the Army is though. :) By the way, if you ask all those people what they honestly, truly feel about the Warrants, 90% of them are going to give the politically correct answer. If you ask the NCO's who work for them over a few beers you'll probably get a completely different answer. Sometimes it just briefs well and looks good on paper. If I had a dollar for every time an officer got credit for my or my mens work I'd have a lot of dollars. But I digress.

[adrbuddy]

MSMUROTC ?? I am not sure what you are referring to .. i have a bachelors degree and I am actually still going to school for more school credits. As i stated before, i just had that question in regards entering OCS.. i have been through OCS already. I am just not re enlisting ... It was just a question to a rumor I have heard from some future candidates. And you belong to the ROTC .. they dont go through much but college drinking anyway...

[adrbuddy]

MCGiver are you foreal ? i mean wow .. are you really a platoon daddy ?

[Master Tanker]

I believe the point is not the mere accomplishment of a BS/BA, because college isn't all that difficult. But it is the common knowledge and a good rounded education a BA/BS provides and the energy one invests to get it that makes the difference. One cannot be a good officer without knowing about how the world and how societies function. When the people, who a 2LT commands, are better educated or more knowledgeable then he/she, then things are getting embarrassing. The best leaders are those who people look up to. By the way: The BS/BA education minimum is common throughout most Western Armies.

[MSMUROTC]

"Ii have a bachelors degree and I am actually still going to school for more school credits. As i stated before, i just had that question in regards entering OCS.. i have been through OCS already. I am just not re enlisting ..."

If you're an officer, you wouldn't be "re-enlisting", so that confuses me. Or you went to OCS but didn't complete it, or you did complete it but have your BA but are still getting more credits, as in more BA credits or you're pursuing your MA? I'm extremely confused.

As well as your statement "My ETS is coming soon and it looks like, 125 college credits is not enough" ... I read that as you were saying your ETS was coming up and your 125 credits that you have aren't good enough for OCS ...?... I don't know what you meant by it. Maybe you were trying to say that you have a friend who has 125 credits who can't do OCS and that's why you're not going to stay in? Weird reasoning. Or they're not staying in? Again, you're not being very clear.

"And you belong to the ROTC .. they dont go through much but college drinking anyway..." ... In my opinion, OCS is a joke. You become a quality officer by becoming acculturated into being an officer, by balancing competing priorities, and by learning how to deal with and interact with different types of people. Yelling at someone for a couple weeks doesn't make them an officer. Even USMA is suspect in my opinion, it's too cloistered of an environment. Obviously, it ultimately up to individuals, but I don't see the basic premise of OCS as being anything but an inferior commissioning source.

[MCGYVER]

adrbuddy, um, I was actually a platoon daddy years ago. I'm now a First Sergeant but this forum automatically promotes you from recruit to platoon daddy once you reach a certain number of posts.

[Gold_Reaper]

"Ii have a bachelors degree and I am actually still going to school for more school credits. As i stated before, i just had that question in regards entering OCS.. i have been through OCS already. I am just not re enlisting ..."

If you're an officer, you wouldn't be "re-enlisting", so that confuses me. Or you went to OCS but didn't complete it, or you did complete it but have your BA but are still getting more credits, as in more BA credits or you're pursuing your MA? I'm extremely confused.

As well as your statement "My ETS is coming soon and it looks like, 125 college credits is not enough" ... I read that as you were saying your ETS was coming up and your 125 credits that you have aren't good enough for OCS ...?... I don't know what you meant by it. Maybe you were trying to say that you have a friend who has 125 credits who can't do OCS and that's why you're not going to stay in? Weird reasoning. Or they're not staying in? Again, you're not being very clear.

"And you belong to the ROTC .. they dont go through much but college drinking anyway..." ... In my opinion, OCS is a joke. You become a quality officer by becoming acculturated into being an officer, by balancing competing priorities, and by learning how to deal with and interact with different types of people. Yelling at someone for a couple weeks doesn't make them an officer. Even USMA is suspect in my opinion, it's too cloistered of an environment. Obviously, it ultimately up to individuals, but I don't see the basic premise of OCS as being anything but an inferior commissioning source.

OCS is an inferior commissioning source? You have a right to an opinion, but have you ever been to OCS? Here's what I KNOW, not what I think...

I was actively enrolled in ROTC for 2 years in one of the best programs in the country, and at the time, decided it wasn't for me. However, I wanted to be apart of the solution in regards to our country's defense, so I dropped a packet, went to basic training, then to OCS. Contrary to what you may think or heard, it's not yelling and screaming at candidates for 3+ months. I received mentorship that was just as good, if not better in OCS than in ROTC. It depends on the company, the cadre, but most of all, it depends on the candidate. In regards to ROTC, I'd say it surely depends on the program. There are many suspect programs across the country that produce dirtbag officers who are overweight, incompetent, or just plain stupid. That's not to say that OCS or USMA doesn't produce dirtbags, because they certainly do. However, 60%+ of the officers in the Army come from ROTC programs. But that's neither here nor there...

Sure, you can say officers are acculturated into being an officer. So that means programs such as state run OCS would turn out great officers, as it's done over the course of a year in a lot of states.

Commissioning Source means nothing in the Army at O-6 and below. O-7 and above, ring knockers are rule the ranks.

Leadership ability, technical and tactical ability, political persona, and a being a great golfer will get you far in the Army. Go practice your swing grasshopper...

[MCGYVER]

"Leadership ability, technical and tactical ability, political persona, and a being a great golfer will get you far in the Army."

All I can say is you might have those in reverse order and you are missing a couple (kissing ass, polishing knobs and having good knee pads).

[adrbuddy]

i always have my knee pads ready !

[MPA]

I thought it was already. Why wouldn't we want officers to have four year degrees?

[adrbuddy]

we definately want our officers to have completed their degree once they are ready to TAKE their commission but just to apply to attend the program? i find it very discouraging !

[MPA]

we definately want our officers to have completed their degree once they are ready to TAKE their commission but just to apply to attend the program? i find it very discouraging !

Okay I am confused. You think that it is unfair to require a college degree to qualify for an Officer Program? That it should only be required at the time of commissioning?

This is already the case for ROTC and Westpoint. Its only with OCS that you have to already have your degree.

As for those already enlisted, isn't there Green to Gold and the Simultaneous thing?

Just get your associates degree and you have the best of both worlds.

[Gold_Reaper]

Candidates should have their degree in hand prior to attending OCS IMO. This will cut down on the dirtbaggery prior SVC NCOs who get 90 hours from Joe Schmo's Backyard Community College University and dropping an OCS packet. Then, they'll have to actually complete their degree before attending, which will make it more competitive.

Also, the Army would spend less money sending these new LTs to degree completion, where they are out of the loop for up to 18 months finishing something they should have had done before going to OCS.

[MSMUROTC]

EXACTLY. And clearly the Army is in a position to do so now, which will result in better officers and tons of money saved.