Originally Posted by
Schmedlap
I'm not knocking that theory at all - especially since mine is also anecdotal - but my experience was the opposite. I and many of my peers were 2-year scholarship folks. But, kind of piggy-backing upon my earlier comment, I suspect that cadets who get 2-year scholarships or no scholarships at all are more likely to stay in. They're clearly joining for some reason other than the money. Most of us, in spite of our lesser scholarships, were determined to serve. The amount of the scholarship didn't factor in at all. Many of us didn't even care about college. We just wanted the commissions. I stuck with ROTC specifically because of my "pre-formed expectations" and "my ideal of it." I was convinced that once I finished ROTC and got into the "real Army" that I would be serving in the company of Schwarzeneggers and Stallones. I wanted to be pushed beyond any reasonable physical threshold and took personal offense at the Army commissioning anyone who was not a physical specimen on par with a cyborg and not a "field Soldier" who always wished, even in the rainiest, coldest, muddiest situation, for things to "suck even more."
But, while my impression of what type of motivation correllated with what type of scholarship is different, I agree with the observation of "gung-ho" types feeling incredibly let down. We had ourselves convinced that we were joining an Army that is as elite as it sounds. Upon discovering that the Army was imperfect, many of us felt betrayed and angry and took personal offense. Unrealistic expectations. I and many of my peers started out fairly cynical as 2LTs because of the baffling array of seemingly limitless, very dumb rules. Most rules of the dumb variety are borne by necessity: someone does something incredibly stupid and instead of just punishing that clown, we thrust some new idiotic rule upon everyone. I eventually grew up and stopped being bothered by such foolishness. Unfortunately, several of my peers did not. When you're young and surrounded by so much stuff that makes so little sense and you know that it all exists in order to mitigate the incompetence of so many around you, it is sometimes difficult to see anything positive in the organization. It sounds dumb, but I think a lot of guys were driven out primarily by frustration with the Army's apparent tolerance for mediocrity. This was compounded because the tolerance for mediocrity pertained to important things, like tactical competence, but there co-existed a zero-defect mentality for unimportant things, like environmental regulations and draconian safety rules. Maybe separating as a result of such frustration was a sign of immaturity and it was good to lose those Officers? Maybe. Or maybe they would have grown up and made great Officers. We'll never know.
I know guys who dropped out of college in the last semester of their senior year because they found out that they were going to be branched something other than Infantry. Some of them were scholarship winners. They paid back their scholarships rather than serve as CSS Officers. Now there is a lose-lose.
I know guys who were branch detailed to Infantry or Armor and did everything that they could to stretch out their time prior to the career course and then ETS, so as to avoid serving any amount of time in the branch that they were slotted for after their initial Infantry or Armor tenure. That's a little better than the lose-lose above, but still a loss. Those guys were more than happy to remain in the Infantry or Armor. The Army said, "no, you're going to be an MI Officer." Now they're gone and contributing nothing to the Army.
That computes in my brain. My rationale is - how many people join the Army with the intent of becoming a logistician? Obviously, there is nothing wrong with that and we need logisticians, but I doubt that a significant number are drawn to the Army for that reason. It seems as though one could be a logistician in the civilian world with significantly less BS to put up with and less service commitment. My former Supply Sergeant is now a Logistics Officer - a branch that he enthusiastically chose - but I'm not aware of many folks who got out of high school and went into ROTC to be logisticians.
Lots of guys who wanted to branch combat arms, but ended up in combat support or CSS, went into their careers with a crappy attitude and then left at the first opportunity. On the other hand, the majority of officers whom I knew in the Infantry and Armor wanted to serve in those branches. Thus, they were off to a good start and still had a good attitude when it came time to choose between career course or career change.
I know the data may contradict me, but I just don't buy it. The majority of individuals whom I served with in the Army knew that they could get out and make a lot more money, have more time with their families, and live far less stressful lives. Most of them chose to remain in. I'm nearing completion of an MBA and JD which, with my service as an Infantry Officer with numerous deployments and glowing OERs, make me highly employable. In all likelihood, I'm taking my fancy degrees back to the Army. The only explanation for the decision that I am making, and similar decisions that other have made (either to remain or return), imo, is that job satisfaction is part of the compensation package. If guys claim that they're getting out because they can get paid more, then it's because they weren't getting enough job satisfaction to compensate for the salary difference. Assume, arguendo, that I dislike my current job and it pays $70K, but I can get another job that I equally dislike and it pays $100K. I'm switching for the money. But the root cause of me leaving is the dissatisfaction. Take that away and, in most cases, I suspect that you will retain the Officer.
Bookmarks