The shoulder loop insignia here, while obviously not technically heraldry, is an example of the worst kind of unofficial or semi-official high-school heraldry you sometimes see on year-book covers, diploma covers or graduation invitations, in which the perhaps-arms of the school contain such symbols as a comedy mask, a torch, a book, an evergreen in each quarter and the "arms" of the school (in quotation marks because I don’t know if they’re intended to be such), while mercilessly little used, are difficult to remember or to distinguish one high school from another.  There is nothing intrinsic about a high-school to say it shouldn’t have handsome, elegant, powerful arms, even, perhaps, arms with a certain (perhaps canting) humour, but these generic and indifferent designs are truly terrible.

I generaly feel that most JROTC insignia are somewhat badly designed from a heraldic aspect. Quite not up to ordinary TIOH standards.

Marcus K wrote:

I generaly feel that most JROTC insignia are somewhat badly designed from a heraldic aspect. Quite not up to ordinary TIOH standards.

Agreed.  I think this may be because the design process has more input from the school.

Daniel C. Boyer wrote:

Agreed.  I think this may be because the design process has more input from the school.

You are probably right there, I get the impression that many designs are based on the various Schools sports teams’ symbols.

I find it interesting how they described the tiger pseudo-supporters as "overall" and "combatant". It seems they may have read a snippet of heraldry somewhere!

Cheers,

The blazon of what is at best a quasi-heraldic design will have been written by TIOH.

Keep in mind that this is technically not considered a coat of arms.  If I’m not mistaken, the Army grants coats of arms only to color-bearing units:  permanently established (known as TOE—"table of organization and equipment") regiments and battalions.  However much something else may look like a coat of arms, it is technically merely an insignia.