Jump to content

Talk:Reserve Officers' Training Corps

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Air Force[edit]

Yeah, I added Air Force ROTC. Thought it was unfair to leave out the other branches. I'm not too fluent on Navy ROTC and Marine Option history, so that'd be a good addition.

ROTC in the Philippines[edit]

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)[reply]
  • Modified US-centric sections to show that the US is not the only country with ROTC. I also added the start dates for the ROTC programs in the Philippines, Korea, and Taiwan. -- adroth 16 December 2006
  • Write another article dealing specifically with Philippine ROTC. Otherwise, just have a section on it with the ROTC article. Do not mention every nation's ROTC when writing about American ROTC.
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]

ROTC in the Philippines is generally regarded as not being part of the military. This point of view of the regulars probably stems from the fact that ROTC, whose beginnings can be traced to the creation of a military training unit at the University of the Philippines in 1912, antedates the formation of the regular army which occurred in 1935. Although Advanced ROTC cadets are officially reserve non-commissioned officers with serial numbers, regulars see ROTC cadets more as students wearing uniforms, somewhat like boy scouts, rather than members of the military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

A comprehensive article on ROTC in the Philippines has been written on Reserve Officers' Training Corps (Philippines). Better late than never. — KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ Speak! 08:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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)

ROTC outside the US[edit]

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 (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I don't see anyone using the word "fascist" to describe ROTC (well... the US Government as a whole, really). Why is that?

Valley Forge Military Academy[edit]

The article gives examples of senior military colleges but none of junior military colleges. I believe Valey Forge Military Academy & Collegeis an examples of a junior military college.

Legal Status of ROTC members??[edit]

A couple of us read a news story where an underage ROTC student was considered an "airman" and was "charged" with "indecent acts" while others were given immunity on the "charge" of rape. What is not clear from the story was whether signing up for ROTC in high school -- or college -- then puts you under military law, as either a minor or an adult. Or might this just have been an administrative charge where the only sanction is to be kicked out of ROTC and any future in the military? Are there different kinds of contracts for different age groups or other categories? Just a quick clarification of those types of points might make a better article, including for young people thinking of joining ROTC. Carol Moore 00:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

This was an incident at the Air Force Academy, not ROTC. ROTC cadets do not fall under the UCMJ until they take their oaths of office as commissioned officers or if their enlistment is activated because they drop out of ROTC. Academy cadets fall under the UCMJ from day 1. BQZip01 talk 05:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this needs to be clarified. AR 600-20 specifically recognizes ROTC cadets as a grade, in between officer candidate and cadet, USMA. So all ROTC cadets (actually contracted cadets, not just students enrolled in military science) are enlisted. This is why students who are in both the reserve/Guard and ROTC are known as SMP (SIMULTANEOUS membership program). However, BQZip01 is correct that ROTC cadets are NOT subject to the UCMJ. This is by regulation, not law. Similar to how National Guard soldiers are NOT subject to the UCMJ unless they are under Title 10 activation. Otherwise (under Title 32 or SAD), they are subject only to their respective state codes of military justice.Todd Gallagher 00:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This specific question was about AFROTC, not army, so AR-600 does not apply. Regulations, by definition, cannot trump the law. Inactive reservists (which is what contracted cadets are; non-contracted cadets [those who have not enlisted/commissioned] have NO responsibility under the UCMJ. Note that the UCMJ does not specifically address ROTC. Therefore, ROTC cadets are not subject to the UCMJ unless they are active duty, such as a reservist who is doing his active duty commitment while being a cadet as well (see 801 ch 1 para 6 in the link). The regulations only restate and clarify the law, not exempt cadets from it. BQZip01 talk 04:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if we are disagreeing here or not, because you are not clear. There are TWO separate ranks of cadet, both in the Air Force and in the Army: cadet, Senior Advanced Reserve Officers' Training Corps, and cadet, United States Military Academy (or Air Force Academy). Cadets, ROTC, are NOT subject to the UCMJ, even if they are contracted. Even National Guard soldiers are not subject to the UCMJ unless they are specifically under Title 10 activation. Fulltime, active duty, Title 32 National Guard soldiers (such as the ones at the Mexcian border right now, or even tech civil service Guardsmen) are EXEMPT from the UCMJ and cannot be prosecuted or punished under it. Cadets, ROTC, are the same way. Federal law, which codifies the UCMJ, only allows the academy cadets to be subject to it.Todd Gallagher 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After you guys decide, feel free to put it in the appropriate spot in the article :-)

Carol Moore 00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

LOL! Thanks Carol. I'm trying to point out that the given question pertains to AFROTC, not the army and that army rules don't apply. In addition, there is no distinction between cadets at various institutions just like there is no difference in rank between a Major in the Reserves and a Major in the active duty, only that one is in a different entity. BQZip01 talk 04:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ROTC cadet and USAF cadet are two separate ranks. Just as officer candidate is a separate rank, yet all with the same purpose. The UCMJ is clear that it only applies to academy cadets, not ROTC cadets. I did ROTC at two separate schools, as well as my wife at two, and my brother at one. I understand teh regs and applicable laws. Otehrwise, show me one ROTC cadets, just one, who has ever been prosecuted or even punished under the UCMJ. I will show you several academy cadets. Mysteriously, since you say there is no distinction, not a single ROTC cadet will be among them (even though there are thousands of more ROTC cadets than academy cadets).Todd Gallagher 11:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Todd, first, I didn't state there was no distinction at all between the cadets of ROTC and those of the service academies. I was trying to point out that there is no difference in their rank. The ROTC cadets do not fall under the UCMJ (in almost all cases). The service academy cadets do. I am not disputing that.
Your document states in Table 1-1 that cadets from the USMA "outrank" those from ROTC, but does not mention OCS? Furthermore, table 1-2 (page 24) does not show any correlation between the other services. If I read this correctly, this document states that the most senior AROTC cadet is junior in rank to a freshman at West Point? Seems a little fishy to me and doesn't take into account their ranks at their respective schools. I'm not saying you are wrong with Army ROTC, just that ambiguous wording has been a problem in military regulations since time began...
On top of that, there is no way listed in Chapter 6 to determine rank between cadets. Seems like quite an oversight if your assertion is true.
This that shows where ROTC cadets CAN be prosecuted under the UCMJ, but only if they are enlisted and geting their degree as part of the AECP program. In short, AFROTC cadets are cadets just like the Air Force Academy (Navy too?)and it may simply be different with the Army.
Honestly, I wish they just were a little more explicit in the position of Cadets/Midshipmen in the military. They need to have SOME authority. BQZip01 talk 16:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Your document states in Table 1-1 that cadets from the USMA 'outrank' those from ROTC, but does not mention OCS?" USMA cadets do outrank ROTC cadets. Plain and simple. Just as a second lieutenant outranks the sergeant major of the Army. As for OC's and WOC's, it does mention them. Their is no rank "OCS." The insignia for officer candidate is "OCS," but the abbreviation is OC. WOC, OC, CDT (ROTC), and CDT (USMA) are all mentioned. As for other services, not all other services have ROTC programs. The Marine Corps does not have ROTC or an academy. The Coast Guard does not have ROTC. So there are not correlations with the WOC, OC, and two CDT grades. "On top of that, there is no way listed in Chapter 6 to determine rank between cadets." Not sure what you mean. "In short, AFROTC cadets are cadets just like the Air Force Academy (Navy too?)and it may simply be different with the Army." No they are not. Your example of Air Force cadets in ROTC is not accurate. Those are PRIOR-service airmen going through ROTC, and are subject to the UCMJ as airmen, not as cadets. Re-read the regulation. Even Army cadets who are SMP (in the Guard/Reserves at the same time) are subject to the UCMJ, but not as cadets, as their private, specialist, or NCO rank in the reserves. I do agree it should be clearer, and I am not even familiar with why ROTC cadets are exempt from the UCMJ. But, just as I mentioned with Title 32 National Guard soldiers, they are exempt. Remember, the UCMJ is the UNIFORM Code of Military Justice--it is not applied to one service differently than the others.Todd Gallagher 20:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that USMA cadets outrank ROTC cadets? As far as I know the only people cadets outrank are each other, i.e. cadet ranks. USMA cadets and ROTC cadets are just that, cadets. They are not in the chain of command outside of the cadet world. Just because USMA cadets are subject to UCMJ doesn't mean that they outrank ROTC cadets. Cadets definitely don't outrank any enlisted men; I went to airborne school as an ROTC cadet, with USMA cadets, and we were all told, plain and simple, that E1's outranked us. OCS candidates have to possess some kind of rank because they either applied as enlisted men, or direct commissioned. Of course, I haven't cited anything, but I haven't seen a citation for this ROTC/USMA/Cadet rank issue either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at Jump School or Air Assault School or any other school you attend, do whatever the cadre tell you. In the military, you will quickly learn that reality and regulation are two separate things. You state: "we were all told, plain and simple, that E1's outranked us." Well, I would not get into an argument, but whoever told you that is full of crap. They are probably not the brighest, so don't even waste your time with them. If you would like to pat yourself on the back knowing that you are right (or if it ever came down to an issue) read AR 600-20 (http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r600_20.pdf). Cadets, both USMA and ROTC, outrank all other enlisted personnel (cadets are legally enlisted soldiers--read your contract). AR 600-20(1)(6)(a): "Grade and precedence of rank confers eligibility to exercise command or authority in the U.S. military within limits prescribed by law." The grades of rank are then listed in order:
-General of the Army
-Lieutentant General
-Major General
-Brigadier General
-Lieutenant Colonel
-First Lieutenant
-Second Lieutenant
-Chief Warrant Officer, Five
-Chief Warrant Officer, Four
-Chief Warrant Officer, Three
-Chief Warrant Officer, Two
-Warrant Officer, One
-Cadet, USMA
-Cadet, ROTC
-Officer Candidate
-Warrant Officer Candidate
-Sergeant Major of the Army
-Command Sergeant Major
-Sergeant Major
-First Sergeant
-Master Sergeant
-Sergeant First Class
-Staff Sergeant
-Private First Class
There is nothing Hard to comprehend about this list. Army Command Policy list cadets above all other enlisted ranks. Plain and simple.Todd Gallagher (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated before, this is an Army regulation, not DoD. Furthermore, there are ROTC cadets that do not have a contract and are not enlisted. I am not saying you are wrong with regards to Army regs, BUT some of your statements are oversimplified or paint a broad, DoD-wide picture when the scope is limited. — BQZip01 — talk 06:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of ROTC[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mandatory Active Service?[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)knott

In other countries[edit]

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 (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Presently in the UK there is a program similar to ROTC which is known as Officer Training Corps. Formerly in Canada there was the Canadian Officer Training Corps. It is should also be mentioned that one of the South African army's artillery units is called the Regiment Potchefstroom Universiteit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presently in Cuba there is the 154th Regiment of the Territorial Militia Troops, whereas in Venezuela there is the University Military Reserve. Formerly in Argentina and Uruguay there existed university battalions.

In Thailand there is a program called Raksa Dindaen (Ror Dor, or RD). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Malaysia there is Reserve Officer Training Unit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Indonesia there is the Student Regiment

In Bangladesh and India there are National Cadet Corps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Pakistan there is also a national cadet corps, but it is part of the Pakistan National Guard, one of the Paramilitary forces of Pakistan.

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Military training centers of civilian universities (Russia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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).[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

ROTC insignia[edit]

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)[reply]

Too Much Unsourced Information[edit]

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)[reply]

Please add tags as you see to be necessary. — BQZip01 — talk 04:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

Indeed it is. — BQZip01 — talk 04:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoya Battalion[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Photograph -- STA-21?[edit]

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.) (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Relevant article[edit]

A new op-ed piece in the New York Times disputes the claim that the ROTC has been "banned" from Harvard and other college campuses. According to the article, ROTC voluntarily left the Harvard campus after a disagreement over academic course content and professor qualifications, and is by no means barred from returning:

Mazur - The R.O.T.C. Myth

Perhaps this should be addressed in this article? Jim (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard (and the article) are weasel-wording: ROTC 'withdrew' from Harvard in the same sense as the UNSCOM inspectors 'withdrew' from Iraq in 1998. Harvard suddenly announced that only Harvard professors, not military officers, could teach ROTC courses, which of course made it impossible to continue. Solicitr (talk)

Coast Guard - CSPI[edit]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for the reference and explanation. Army.berkeley says "The origins ... may be traced to the 19th century... The ROTC we know today originated in the National Defense Act of 1916." Since this article is about the particular program Reserve Officers' Training Corps, the history of that program is of interest. Naturally there is a more voluminous history of military discipline at various colleges before that. The source of your reference, a proponent of the program, does not give it the distance that a secondary source would have. That instruction under ROTC has "taught from day one", that Norwich initiated the program, is an obvious attempt to root the program more deeply in American history. Furthermore, your reversion of my contribution which cites a secondary source, is not an acceptable procedure. This discussion should continue here to reach a consensus.Rgdboer (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


At present most sources for this article are ROTC. Encyclopedia articles should be objective, not advocates. Yet the group Advocates for ROTC is the source of much of the text of the history portion of this article as it stands. Editors of this article should read WP:COI to avoid being in "conflict of interest". One of the External links seems to be malware: Spartan Battalion - Army ROTC at Michigan State University. It disabled my Back button. The Encyclopedia depends on volunteer editors, but the blatant abuse of this namespace and its redirects, by those not respecting the tenants of the Project that make it honest to the world, can be corrected by wikidisciple.Rgdboer (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I respect your concern, I believe that your effort is misdirected. Yes, many of these sources ARE from ROTC sites, but they are accurate and reliable sources. As such, they have no conflict of interest. In the case of your mysterious "malware", I see no problem with the link and it works fine; it doesn't appear to disable anything.
I'm not seeing the abuse you claim is here. If there is a problem please feel free to make necessary changes. Buffs (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new section, Further reading, has been added to give sources for editing the article. For example, Morden says Westmoreland opened ROTC to women. When used to make an objective, balanced description, these sources can be brought into notes. Note that the JROTC article is less caught up in propaganda. My interest here started with linking National Defense Act of 1916, then being reverted. That led me to look more closely at the sources used. Further reading is recommended for those looking into this 97 year old program, supported by the Federal Government, that is frequently reviewed.Rgdboer (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point. There was no large standing army until after WWII. All officer candidates came from the National Military Academies and the private Military Academies. I wonder what the commissioning rate was from private colleges? From the Academies it was nearly 100%, except during the Depression.
They may well have used (integrated) the Academies curricula into these land grant colleges. Today they are similar/the same. Student7 (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the way it worked before modern-ROTC was founded in 1916, was that graduates of the military colleges such as VMI, North Georgia, The Citadel, Clemson, etc., received direct commissions following graduation. Georgia Marshall is a prime example. But notice that even though he received a direct commissioned, he is credited as an ROTC graduate since he graduated from VMI prior to 1916. This is why ROTC's highest award is named for him. All the National Defense Act of 1916 did was create a national standard for officer training at the colleges which was already going on prior to 1916. It started prior to the Civil War at state and private military colleges and continued after the Civil War at the land-grant colleges.Todd Gallagher (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 November 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The consensus is that the American RSTC is the primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:WORLDVIEW Wikipedia has articles on Reserve Officers' Training Corps (Taiwan), Reserve Officers' Training Corps (South Korea) and Reserve Officers' Training Corps (Philippines). At least two of the three were set up by the US government modeled on the US ROTC but these are now independent programs. While the vast majority of the current articles are about the American program, this name would be more inclusive, especially since I just created a category. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. DuckDuckGo returns 31 results for the U.S. program, one for the Philippines. We should send our readers to the article they are most likely to be looking for, not tell them what they should be interested in. H. Humbert (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per PRIMARYTOPIC. This is no different than Royal Navy if you think about it, but no one complains about that because "worldview" apparently only applies to America. Calidum T|C 23:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:BIAS regional bias topic -- (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When and where did ROTC first become compulsary?[edit]

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)[reply]

Correct name[edit]

The article is currently located at Reserve Officers' Training Corps, but the first sentence uses "Officer", singular. Can we clarify this naming issue? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]