Talk:Reserve Officers' Training Corps

message: The article is american-centric. There is also an ROTC program in the Philippines—a leftover from the US occupation. I'd write about it, but I'm not entirely familiar with the system. All I know is that, unlike in the USA, the ROTC program in the Philippines is not an elective but a required subject in colleges and universities.
*I'll add a stub section about it, just saying it exists.--Mtnerd 02:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Are the programs in the Philippines, Korea, and Taiwan specifically called "Reserve Officer Training Corps"? If not, they shouldn't even be included here. "Reserve Officer Training Corps" is the official name of the U.S. program, not a description. Just because the programs in other countries are officer training programs at civilian universities doesn't mean they share the same name. Anybody have any info on that?--Nobunaga24 04:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Partial answer to my own question. In the Philippines, it looks like it does share the name. Can't find anything about Taiwan or Korea though.--Nobunaga24 04:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say split it off. It will get too confusing to have an article on ROTC from every single country in the world that has a similar one to the US. Start a new article for ROTC (Philippines) or ROTC (Taiwan), etc.Todd Gallagher 17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that the article says: "The Republic of the Philippines established its program in 1912, with the creation of the first unit at the University of the Philippines during American colonial rule." If this is true, then ROTC in the Philippines predates official ROTC in the US. If this is just when they started having military schools, or programs, then it needs to be changed, because just having military training at a school does not make ROTC. That is why we give a brief history about the evolution of ROTC. ROTC in the US was not founded until 1916.Todd Gallagher (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Philippine ROTC is specifically called "ROTC". If you wish to distinguish the ROTC programs of other countries (Taiwan and Korea both called their programs "ROTC"), then this article must be re-labelled "ROTC in the United States".(Adroth (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The law that created the modern Philippine ROTC program is the same program that created the Philippine Army and the Philippine Military Academy. It was, and remains, a program administered by the Philippine military, therefore to say that they program is "not being part of the military" is inaccurate. ROTC graduates become members of the reserves -- which is an integral part of the military. The rivalry between Philippine ring-knockers and ROTC-sourced officers stem from a perception of the former that they are individuals who specifically chose to pursue a military career, where as ROTC graduates are viewed as civilians who simply wound up in uniform.(Adroth (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ROTC in the Philippines 

message: Could someone put a "chronology" of sorts on this page? I'm still confused about how students go through this.. and then, at the end, what kind of commission that they take (is it required that they take one?), i.e. do they become officers in the regular or reserve military, etc. 01:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: I added more details about Philippine ROTC, as well as the Korean and Taiwanese programs.
I think that this article should be renamed "Reserve Officers' Training Corps (United States)," and that the article "Philippine Reserve Officer Training Corps" should be renamed "Reserve Officers' Training Corps (Philippines).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.50.171.134 (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ROTC outside the US 

message: I reworded the criticisms section as it was mostly about ROTC scholarships.  Many ROTC participants do not have scholarships.  I know I didn't.  
Also the real question is whether a democracy should just use a small corps of isolated professionals to defend it or if it should require a more widespread obligation of the citizenry.  ROTC was originally created for the later.
Also, there have been many democracies brought down by trying the former.  As someone once said, "A democracy without universal military service has fools for soldiers and cowards as citizens" --GCW50 14:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That section has been giving me problems for a while. It was inserted by an anonymous editor originally, with no counter arguments. I've wanted to insert something along the lines of "Anyone who joins ROTC and is stupid enough to think that the military will never go to war is probably not bright enough to receive a commission in the first place," but a little more encyclopedic than that. --Nobunaga24 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heartily agree. You might also add, "how stupid would they be to expect something for nothing. What do they think this is, a liberal arts degree?" (in more encyclopedic terms, of course). Jquarry 22:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: It has been several years since I did ROTC and I know the current program has changed. Someone should do some research and list the current outline of the program. For instance, the scholarship/nonscholarship cadets; the contracting; the program itself (MS-I thru MS IV); basic camp (or LTC or whatever they call it now); advanced camp; the regions (there were three when I was in; I know there were four at one time); the role of the PMS; the SMP program; CLTC; the available schools like Jump School or Air Assault etc; the choosing of branch and selection; how multiple schools can be in the same battalion or brigade (host schools, etc); and so on. The article does not give very much information on Army ROTC, but rather on its history. Todd Gallagher (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the basics of Todd's request, but, please realize that terminology and training regimens are not the same between different services. — BQZip01 — talk 21:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outline of ROTC 

message: After graduating from ROTC, does one have to serve in the armed forces?
:One doesn't "graduate" from ROTC, though you graduate from college. ROTC requires classes during college. At some point you actually enlist in the reserves (though inactive and not subject to UCMJ rules at any point you are not under orders) Upon graduation, you have fulfilled all the requirements of your contract and are eligible to receive a commission. Though a commission is not guaranteed, it is a highly likely outcome. Please sign your posts and direct further questions to the Wikipedia:Reference desk. If you have more personal questions, please contact me on my user talk page. — BQZip01 — talk 03:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you contract, then you do have to go in the military. In most cases, you are not allowed to take more than 2 years of ROTC without contracting. Exceptions would be at the Senior Military Colleges, where you can take all four years and not contract.Todd Gallagher (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of clarification, I went to an SMC and you are not allowed to take ROTC classes after your second year (though the first two are mandatory) unless you are on a contract. I'm not saying this is the case anywhere else, but it was at my school. — BQZip01 — talk 22:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At my brother's school, Virginia Military Institute, you only take ROTC your first 2 years also. However, you stayed in the Corps of Cadets. At my school, North Georgia College, all the cadets took ROTC all four years. One reason for this may be that North Georgia is the only SMC with only one ROTC program. Thus, the Corps of Cadets and the ROTC detachment are the same. At VMI, there was a Corps of Cadets and there were ROTC detachments for the various services. So technically, you could be a cadet private in the Army ROTC and at the same time be the regimental commander of the Corps of Cadets. This may explain your school's reason as well. As for Army regulations, SMC's are authorized to allow cadets to take it all four years and not commission.Todd Gallagher (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No argument there. It appears few SMCs have decided to require cadets to take ROTC all four years. — BQZip01 — talk 20:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The fact that this user read the article and still didn't know the answer this question indicates that the articles utterly failed to communicate this essential information. I tried to fix that by adding a non-controversial, sourced statement about active service obligations, closer to the introduction.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandatory Active Service? 

message: The article lacks a good introduction that in a paragraph or so explain more generally what the ROTC are. Someone who compeltly lacks knowledge will have not be able to understand much of the article.
21:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Other countries have programs which correspond to ROTC.  Australia has University Regiments, France has Préparation Militaire Supérieure (army, navy, air force, constabulary), and Spain has University Militias.  China has the People's Liberation Army Reserve Service.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.159.134 (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be ideal to get these into the article. If anyone has any inputs, please add! — BQZip01 — talk 16:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should make sure that the other countries really have "ROTC" instead of programs that are ROTC-like. I don't recall Canada or Russia having military programs called ROTC, so I'll have those removed unless someone can back them up with references. Ominae (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, Canada and the UK are being referenced to have ROTCs. I shall make the appropriate changes since the article makes it point out that the two countries explicitly have officer training units called ROTC, which they do not have. Ominae (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  In other countries 

message: For some reason, I was under the impression that there were some anti-ROTC groups out there, and at least some form of opposition on many campuses with and without ROTC programs. I believe that there are some concerns over the way the programs are run or how they are funded. At any rate, I know that there is enough opposition to the ROTC that it warrants mentioning in this article. Could someone look into why this section doesn't exist? TrogdorPolitiks (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, most of the anti-ROTC movements are not groups in and of themselves, but stances which broader groups take.  I'm not sure that there have been significant movements warranting a section devoted to anti-ROTC groups, any more than there's no mention of Scientology's opposition to antibiotics in the antibiotics article. LittleNuccio (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no issue with adding a balanced paragraph, but a subsection of pacifism or a separate article might be more appropriate. — BQZip01 — talk 16:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: This article should include information about ROTC cadet grade insignia.  It would be very interesting to know the origins of the use of circles and diamonds as insignias for army ROTC cadet officers.
:If anyone has a source, I'd be happy to add that information. Good idea! — BQZip01 — talk 16:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ROTC insignia 

message: The majority of details about ROTC in this article are unsourced. Presumably these passages were written by someone with personal expertise, which is fine but does not satisfy the encyclopedia's requirement for all assertions of fact to be sourced. Otherwise nobody else can fact check the information.
I'm going to add a tag to add citations to unsourced material.
Aroundthewayboy (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add tags as you see to be necessary. — BQZip01 — talk 04:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Much Unsourced Information 

message: I and a bunch of other Australians were amazed when an American friend referred to this as "Rot-See". Is that how it's pronounced, and is there even a common pronunciation across the States? MartinSFSA (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it is. — BQZip01 — talk 04:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Georgetown University's ROTC unit, called the Hoya Battalion, can trace its lineage to 1789.  Why is this unit not included in this article?  Why is ROTC considered to have begun at Norwich University in 1819 and not at Georgetown in 1789?  Why is the National Defense Act of 1916, which established ROTC, not mentioned in this article?
:ROTC is the embodiment of the concept of the citizen solider. Norwich was founded upon this ideal. The Hoya Battalion originated as an active unit, not under the collegial concepts of ROTC. — BQZip01 — talk 04:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the National Defense Act of 1916 reference. I included some text from there in the history. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoya Battalion 

message: Is the current lead photograph, :File:US_Navy_NRTOC_040508-N-2383B-377.jpg, best representative of ROTC graduates?  The three ensigns most visible have chests full of medals including Navy Good Conduct Medals.  Are these graduates of STA-21?  While that is part of NROTC, it is not the most common path, so perhaps a more representative photo could be found, or perhaps the caption could be extended.  As it is, the photograph gives the incorrect impression that the typical NROTC graduate will be commissioned with a chest full of medals.  (It is also used as the lead photograph at Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps.) 124.157.247.144 (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the photo gives an impression of one possible route. There is no reason to believe that everyone will graduate with "a chest full of medals" any more than everyone will graduate and commission into the Navy (vice the Air Force or Army). — BQZip01 — talk 04:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:   Photograph -- STA-21? 

message: Hello everyone. I took it upon myself to add reference to the Coast Guard's ROTC equivalent which has been around for many years, albeit with various other names. Feel free to move it around, but I think it should be included in the article. What the article said before, that the Coast Guard does not offer a scholarship program, is patently untrue. I can say this with absolute certainty because the Coast Guard is currently paying for my college. Quietmartialartist (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coast Guard - CSPI 

message: Reference to Norwich University as the origin of ROTC was found unverifiable. The reference given says only that the founder's concept contributed to the eventual formation of ROTC. That mention has been replaced by National Defense Act of 1916, the actual origin, which resulted from an initiative from Ohio State University personnel.Rgdboer (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously you have no experience in ROTC or you would understand that this is taught from day one. The origin of ROTC started with the various state and private military academies of the 19th century. Schools such as Norwich, VMI, The Citadel, the University of Alabama, North Carolina Military Academy, etc. Many of these schools are no longer military-based, or are shut down, but this is where the land-grant colleges came from following the Civil War. Each state was allotted a college by the federal government but it had to be military and science based. Auburn University, Clemson University, North Georgia College, etc. Following World War I, the program was nationalized and more than just the one land grant college per state was given ROTC. This is where ROTC at the civilian colleges came from that we have today rather than the all military Senior Military Colleges. This lasted until the 1960's when ROTC was made voluntary. So yes, the modern-day ROTC came from the National Defense Act of 1916, but that was based off the land grant colleges from the Civil War which were based off the state-run and private military academies pre-Civil War. The first was Norwich University. Here is a nice reference from an ROTC program. http://army.berkeley.edu/history.shtml You will find many to accompany it.Todd Gallagher (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norwich 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Reserve Officers' Training Corps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722221550/https://www.nrotc.navy.mil/military_requirements.aspx to https://www.nrotc.navy.mil/military_requirements.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503232931/http://afrotc.com/careers/service-commitment/ to http://afrotc.com/careers/service-commitment
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040626054527/https://www.nrotc.navy.mil/ to https://www.nrotc.navy.mil/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The end of compulsory ROTC starting in the 1960s is documented, but not the beginning, nor what the provisions of the National Defense Act of 1916 really were. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  When and where did ROTC first become compulsary? 

message: The article is currently located at Reserve Officers' Training Corps, but the first sentence uses "Officer", singular. Can we clarify this naming issue?  talk 00:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct name