Excited for November Break - BUT Let the Dark Ages Begin

[jasperdog]

JasperDog ...

I have no idea where on the rule/exception spectrum I fall, and did not mean to put myself in either category. ... That, I think would be a mistake.

.... Back when I was in, you got your class ring as a 3/C so I have a 95 class ring. ...

....

I only had one academic setback btw ... the first was medical. That was probably what kept me in in the end.

KPEngineer:

My point about exceptions vs "the rule" is just making the point that I feel number of setbacks aside whether it was back in our days or now a setback was and still is an exception vs the rule. I'm not sure the exact numbers anecdotally I've heard of as many of 30+/- in a recent class, that would be like 20% of those classes. Since that would mean 80% are not setbacks, single, double or otherwise that would make setbacks a minority and therefore "the exception vs. the rule" in the way i was using the term.

On a personal note, I too think a "zero setback" policy would be ill advised as well. There will always be some legitimate reasons to give some number of Midn setbacks IMHO.

I never heard that at any point in time Classes got their rings as a 3/C that's interesting to me, just as an aside... not remarkable just interesting. Did you still have your ring dance 1st Class Year?

Just a note to the other folks on this thread, as you point out, you recieved first a medical setback and then an academic setback. I've never regarded medical setbacks as an issue and do not feel the fact that someone has recieved one should in anyway become a consideration in any future discussions as to their status or elgibility for an academic or disciplinary setback during theiur tenure at the Academy, nor did I mean through any post on this thread to imply otherwise.

 

[KPEngineer]

I didn't feel slighted by any of your comments.

Yes, in the early-90s we got our rings as 3/C. We ordered them beginning of the year and got them towards the end. I actually had two ring dances. One with 96 and one with 97. I had my 95 ring dipped both times. Part of the reason I consider myself part of all three classes I guess.

Setbacks will always be the exception instead of the rule, although I think you could make a decent case that KP should be a 5 year program. I think particularly for Engineers, most people spend so much time just trying to keep up and learning what I should have learned last quarter so that I can pass this quarter and I'll learn what I'm supposed to learn this quarter next quarter, that taking the number of credits down to something human and doing an extra year would mean we probably would have learned things better. Of course that opinion is all based on when it was quarters ... no idea how trimesters have impacted things.

 

[jasperdog]

I'd like to see how you'd get that appropriations increase through Congress...

RE: "Setbacks will always be the exception instead of the rule, although I think you could make a decent case that KP should be a 5 year program."

Not agreeing or disagreeing just pointing to a very real and practical large impediment - whateve measure you use to estimate the cost per graduate would have to increase by 25+%....

 

[2KPsons]

I have been saying for years that this should be a 5 year program, to give the students time for a more realistic academic workload along with sea year. As for cost, yes, it will cost more - but perhaps that might be offset by an increase on the obligation side.

 

[2013Parent]

I have been saying for years that this should be a 5 year program, to give the students time for a more realistic academic workload along with sea year. As for cost, yes, it will cost more - but perhaps that might be offset by an increase on the obligation side.

Being Very Very new to learning and understanding the inner workings of KP, I'd say the case can be made for either (4 or 5 years)

On the five year side, 2kpsons and others have summed it up well.

On the four year side, if I've heard it once, I've heard it 20 times, the program as designed, graduates a leader that can function well under hot fire and much pressure. That is the nature of the challenging schedule and everything else that goes along with KP. If you make it more reasonable and manageable, you might graduate a higher percentage, but would the alum pool be weakened by graduates that do not function as well under fire and pressure?

My vote would be keep it four. However, revamp setbacks. For example there could be GREAT downside consequences for students opting for a setback IF they choose to come back and try again and then fail. IMO that would allow someone to demonstrate they had learned from a past mistake and succeed........ or take full responsibility if the second chance was taken too lightly.

But, as a lowly parent, there isn't a vote to be had by me!

 

[KPEngineer]

I recall that when I went we were all told that if we left after starting 2nd class year we would have to pay back the tuition. I don't recall ever hearing of anyone who actually had to do that. That could be a good start.

What is the actual policy on setbacks ... is there one? Putting something down in writing might be a good start too.

The whole, we've been through the crucible so we can handle anything, idea isn't all it's cracked up to be if you ask me. First and foremost, you have to confidence in your own abilities as a mate/engineer. An overwhelming education does not breed confidence.

I'm not convinced 5 years is the right answer either, but I do think the idea has some merit.