Great critique on the service academies

usaffanatic said:
He is also wrong about the DUI's. A DUI is a one way ticket out of both ROTC and the SA's. Also they both have the same alcohol policy. Its 2 strikes and your out. Also it makes sense that SA cadets get paid a lot more because they are always training and doing things whereas ROTC has their class period, their one uniform day, and their summer training once out of four years. He makes some good points especially about the Prep school but he does make a bunch of unfounded statements.
Click to expand...

Just to clear one point up, for AROTC it is possible cadets, some not all, will have training every summer they are enrolled in ROTC. The amount of pay/stipend received by both SA and ROTC cadets work out to be cloes due to the fact that money is deducted from SA pay for several items ROTC cadets do not have to pay for.

Granted, you were referring to the Air Force.
 
I have a lot of problems with the article, which I had to read 3 times to make sure I understood all his points. "I thought I was long winded"

First and biggest problem I have, is that you CAN'T teach at a military academy for 25 years, COMPLAIN about pretty much it's entire existence, and NOT BE PART OF THE PROBLEM!!! Therefor, I put very little credence in his opinion, when he IS part of the problem. And yes, I do agree that the academies have their problem. Number one of which, "I believe and is my opinion", is that in the last decade or so have put too much emphasis on political correctness and diversity recruitment, but NOT in the right way. They put too much emphasis on race, ethnicity, gender, and similar characteristics. And they have lowered the standards in order to reach their goals. While standards may also be lowered for athletics, this is a much smaller percentage of the student body and isn't as big of an issue. Issue? Yes. Just not as big.

Next; for someone who has been there for 25 years, he has absolutely NO IDEA what the academies are or what they teach. To allow transfers and not have a cadet/plebe participate for the entire 4 years is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I won't even debate that. If he doesn't understand the whole concept of BCT through to graduation, teamwork, class, etc... then he's an idiot.

Accepting older student??? Again; he doesn't know anything about the academy. People need to realize that someone who spent 25 years there, and doesn't understand the reason behind some of these policies, is the real waste at the academy.

The academies aren't "Infantilizing" students. He has no concept that you can't effectively LEAD, until you know how to follow. Live off campus? What a tart. I have absolutely NOTHING against ROTC or OCS; but the number one difference between them and the academies is that the academies are 100% military 24/7. You can't be that if you aren't living with each other 24/7. And disagree if you want; this is probably the #1 benefit the academies have over ROTC and OCS. They aren't 1 or 2 days a week for a couple hours.

What shows Mr. Fleming's IGNORANCE, and even stupidity, is that a couple points later he says we should stop awarding pay and benefits to the cadets at the academies and prep school. So how the hell would you allow them to live OFF BASE like you suggested. I suppose he'll want them to be allowed to have part time jobs too to raise money.

My last point; and believe me, I could list at least a dozen more inaccuracies, points of ignorance, and plain B.S. opinions; is when he says that those graduating from the academies are "Frequently perceived by enlisted military as arrogant ring knockers". I have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE with this. Most of you who know me know; I am NOT an academy grad. I am NOT an ROTC grad. I am NOT an OCS. I AM NOT A COMMISSIONED OFFICER. I am a Retired NON-COMMISSIONED Officer. I AM the enlisted folk he is talking about. And in the period of 1978-1999 (And for a few years beyond when I was still close to many friends still on active duty); the enlisted military, at least in the air force, thought very highly of academy grad officers. Nothing against ROTC grads, but we (The Enlisted), knew exactly how competitive and challenging it was to get into the academy and to graduate from there; and we thought higher of academy grads than we did ROTC and OTS. And as senior NCO's; many with B.S/MA degrees ourselves; we found MOST academy grads 2Lt new to active duty to be very willing to learn from their more experienced NCO's, and they wanted to be better leaders. And their 24/7 military mentality from the academy made them much more understanding of young enlisted personnel and their problems when they became O-3 and were commanding. No, I have nothing against ROTC and OCS, but my first hand experience has been that of the 3 commissioning programs, the enlisted force generally had the most respect for the academy grads.

Anyway; that's why I find very little merit in Mr. Fleming's "OPINION". It is full of misunderstandings of the academies, ignorance on the purpose of the academies, and he is biased because he doesn't recognize the fact that it is HE who is part of any problems at the academies. And if he can't recognize that, then he sure in hell can't recognize what the real problem is.

I am however very impressed by the rebuttal by Rajiv Srinivasan

http://rajivsrinivasan.wordpress.co...tive-point-average-rebuttal-to-bruce-fleming/
 
usna1985 said:
Unless things have changed since my day, this statement is patently untrue. The year of prep school does count because it is considered a year of enlistment. In fact, I believe it actually counts toward your 20 years for that very reason (i.e., a NAPSter can retire 19 yrs after graduation and get credit for 20 years served). But the other four years . . . they are merely four years of your life and are not added to your service credit upon retirement.

Fleming (who is well known to USNA types) likes to stir the pot under the proetction of tenure. Somewhere in the midst of his rant are some valid points. In particular, there is a bit of treating mids -- especially the more senior classes -- like children.

OTOH, I think MOST grads look back on their USNA experience in a positive light and MOST would not have traded the experience for ROTC or OCS, no matter how great those programs may be. I would be one of those.:thumb:
Click to expand...

Time served as a USMA/USAFA Cadet, USNA Mid, or at any other service academy...it specifically NOT counted counted toward retirement per USC Title 10.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
I found Professor Fleming's article to have some good points. When I first arrived, I was taken aback when I found that West Point was much more Athens than Sparta, and I think that more serious military and physical training should be incorporated into the 47-month program. That being said, I did take issue with some of his final recommendations.

"1. End the tradition of a class getting to practice its "leadership" on the class below it."

I made mistakes during my time as team leader last year, but I also learned a great deal. Professor Fleming says there is "no evidence" that student leadership does much to create better leaders, but it seems like it would be just as easy to say that there is no evidence to the contrary. The burden of evidence is on him.

"2. Stop infantilizing students."

I admit that there are days where I roll my eyes at the shenanigans I see going on around West Point. However, the things that most cadets complain about, such as having to be in by Taps, going to football games on the weekends, doing drill, preparing for inspection--in all, generally not being allowed to do what they want when they want--comes with the territory. It's not being infantilized, it's being part of a military organization and the duties, traditions, and expectations that come with it. The only infantile thing I have seen in those situations is cadets' responses. We say we signed up for selfless service, but are unwilling to sacrifice our time.

"3. Allow older students to enroll, if they can hack the physical challenges."

I don't have a problem with this. However, it seems unlikely that many 30 year-olds will seeks out a program designed for 17 and 18 year olds.

"4. End the practice of awarding military pay and benefits to students at both military prep schools and the academies. "

I could be mistaken, but the reason we are awarded pay is because we are active-duty serving under UCMJ. If the pay goes, then UCMJ goes.

"5. Give time credit for transfers."

This would only work in an academy devoid of rank and positions of responsibility among the cadets.

"6. To open up more seats, academies should throw out students who fail to live up to academic and moral standards. The academies should stop recruiting below-par students who use academy prep schools as back doorways into their freshman years."

I wholeheartedly agree with tightening up standards. There are too many cadets who just skate through their four years here, relying on the system to get them through. However, I do not agree with Professor Fleming on nixing the "racial quota" policy. He bemoans the fact that highly-qualified white students are passed over for minority students--if his policies were carried through, then we would be left with an essentially all-white officer corps.

"7. Finally, have a real college president for the college part of things. The head of the Naval Academy is an admiral who last saw college when he graduated."

No comment. Not educated enough on this subject to make an informed assessment.
 
Prof. Fleming tends to reappear every 6 months or so with yet another negative article about service academies. I think he mostly enjoys being in the limelight. Seems by now he would have found another job instead of being an instructor at USNA if he was so opposed to their practices. But then I guess he would lose his soapbox of being able to bash from the 'inside'.
 
flieger83 said:
Time served as a USMA/USAFA Cadet, USNA Mid, or at any other service academy...it specifically NOT counted counted toward retirement per USC Title 10.
Click to expand...

You'd think the good prof would at least get his facts straight. Makes you wonder how accurate the rest of his "facts" actually are.:rolleyes:
 
Some people like seeing their name in print. And for some people, this is how you do it.
 
Professor Fleming's Bi-Annual appearances cause most to roll their eyes. Still, it is important for the SAs to be able to demonstrate their value to the public. I believe LTG Huntoon (USMA Supt) said that every ten years their rises a cry (Ricks, etc) that the service academies need to be shut. He said it was important for them to be able to demonstrate their importance to the services and nation.

My two cents. While Fleming is annoying, it is why we give tenure. We need to be prepared to address his points objectively. It will make it easier when someone from congress makes that same points.:thumb:
 
Flemings is a well known anti-service academy professor.

He surfaces every few months - he clearly wants to be noticed.

I agree with some of his points but many of his numerous "grand" statements are not true. I especially disagree with most of his conclusions. The rebuttals listed above are "right on target" so I will not repeat them.

The service academies are not perfect - the selection process is not perfect - there are Cadets that probably should not be there (information from my son who is currently a Cadet and several of his company buddies). However, I believe thatthe Academies are a great asset to our nation. They have trained thousands of young men and women to be military officers who have served with honor.

For those great young men and women who feel that the Service Academies are not for them - wonderful - seek your education in other institutions - we have plenty of great candidates to take your place.
 
MemberLG - thanks for the link. What I find concerning are the retention rates noted in the document provided by MemberLG. Specifically in light of the investment made by the taxpayers to train these young men and women. To have such a valued asset leave after 5 years makes me think hard about the value of the $$ spent training them. For that matter the attrition rates before graduation is also very high. In some classes it exceeds 20 to 25%.
 
PBA said:
MemberLG - thanks for the link. What I find concerning are the retention rates noted in the document provided by MemberLG. Specifically in light of the investment made by the taxpayers to train these young men and women. To have such a valued asset leave after 5 years makes me think hard about the value of the $$ spent training them. For that matter the attrition rates before graduation is also very high. In some classes it exceeds 20 to 25%.
Click to expand...

It's pretty much impossible for any 17-18 year old to know exactly what they want or more importantly, what they're getting into when they walk into the academy. We see it every day when there's someone who says they've wanted the academy and the military their entire life. That they've been working hard for years to get an appointment. Then, when they get there, they realize it's not what they though it was. Not because the academy has changed, simply because they had no idea what they were getting into. Also, many high schools are not as good as some students and parents want to believe they are. Many get to the academy and can't handle it academically. They got "A's" in high school, but can't pass math classes at the academy. (But I guess this can't be true, because Fleming says the education at the academy isn't all that great). So what does that say about those who can't make it academically.

Anyway; that's why there's going to be so many drop outs prior to graduation. This is also why the academies bring in more than 1000 cadets each year. They know there will be a certain percentage; which is around 20%, that will not make it through to graduation. Some by choice, some academically, and some because of disciplinary reasons.
 
PBA said:
MemberLG - thanks for the link. What I find concerning are the retention rates noted in the document provided by MemberLG. Specifically in light of the investment made by the taxpayers to train these young men and women. To have such a valued asset leave after 5 years makes me think hard about the value of the $$ spent training them. For that matter the attrition rates before graduation is also very high. In some classes it exceeds 20 to 25%.
Click to expand...

Think about the money spent on a full-ride ROTC grad who can leave after 4 years. There is nothing wrong with people leaving at 5. The Army needs only about half as many O-4s as it needs O-1s. Attrition shapes the pyramid.
 
Also, at least at USNA, attrition during Academy years is down significantly. It used to be around 25%. Now, it's 10-12% from I-Day to graduation.

And agree that attrition at the junior officer level is needed. Even with normal attrition, selection rates for O-4 are about 80% (or were in my day). The number of senior officers needed isn't going to change, especially as the size of the military draws down. So, the services need people to attrite. When enough don't leave on their own, the military offers incentives to get out (or did in my day).

The issue isn't so much the numbers in terms of how many people leave but whether the services are losing the people they want to lose (the lesser performers) or the ones they want to keep -- regardless of accession source. The metrics the public sees won't provide that info.
 
scoutpilot said:
Think about the money spent on a full-ride ROTC grad who can leave after 4 years. There is nothing wrong with people leaving at 5. The Army needs only about half as many O-4s as it needs O-1s. Attrition shapes the pyramid.
Click to expand...

Good point and agree. I lost that thought in the cloud of data and in thinking about the costs inciurred using the $400k estimate per SA officer.
 
Christcorp said:
This is also why the academies bring in more than 1000 cadets each year.
Click to expand...

Now now now, lets not generalize, not ALL of the Academies bring in a 1000 cadets each year. In fact, I can think of one that brings in less than 250... and enrolls less than a thousand total across all four classes... :yllol:
 
USCGA13STN said:
Now now now, lets not generalize, not ALL of the Academies bring in a 1000 cadets each year. In fact, I can think of one that brings in less than 250... and enrolls less than a thousand total across all four classes... :yllol:
Click to expand...
TOUCHE'. After I wrote it, I expected LITS to jump in and catch my fubar.

let me qualify the statement:

"This is why the "ACADEMIES" generally bring in "MORE" cadets/plebes than they "PLAN" on graduating.

LOL!!!:thumb:
 
PBA said:
To have such a valued asset leave after 5 years makes me think hard about the value of the $$ spent training them. For that matter the attrition rates before graduation is also very high. In some classes it exceeds 20 to 25%.
Click to expand...

What's interesting is that apparently the Army is not looking to increase retention of grads past the current 5 years currently. This is a change from previous years, but with the drawdowns is the current position.

Specifically, we were told last spring to expect significant changes around Additional Service Obligation as it is primarily a retention tool and is no longer a need of the Army.

What this tells me is that the current level of retention is not viewed as a problem, at least at the senior USMA staff level. And if it was a problem for the Army, they'd be feeling and responding to it.

What's not clear is what the 10+ year retention *should* be. Common sense would tell you that even for academy grads that not all will make the cut to mid-level rank. I would expect a higher percentage, which I think we are seeing.

In the corporate world we'd call one impact of the academy process "top grading". IE: In theory you are trying to pre-select top performers and then develop them further. We could argue about whether the process is compromised by athletics, diversity, etc. And they would argue that those aspects are just another metric they are selecting for. That debate could go on forever.

But the problem with top performers in any org is that they are the best positioned to move. They are more likely to get offers from other orgs. They typically have more confidence in their performance, and are wiling to take a risk. And, more inclined to move if they encounter organizational barriers, etc. They have a career plan, and will go to plan B if plan A is not on track.

So it's normal to lose some percentage of your top performers. And if you squeeze an org via budget cuts, reduction in force, etc, you will lose more. Let political correctness override merit based advancement, and you'll lose even more.

What's not clear is what those percentages should be for the Army. Is there a problem or not?

My sense is that for academy & ROTC grads you need to look past 5 year retention. Of the officers which stay past 5 years, what is their promotion rate vs other commissioning sources? Then at 10 & 15 years and beyond.

All that said, my suspicion is that having a mix of officers from different commissioning sources is desired. If it skewed toward one or the other you'd be at risk of mono-culture.

Makes one think of the old adage that as an enlisted soldier, you want your platoon leader to be a mustang, your company commander & staff to be ROTC, and your higher officers to be academy grads. Sweeping generalization for sure, and I'll leave it to those who have served to comment further. I'm sure we all know exceptions.

One thing is for sure- I don't believe Prof Flemming is objective in his analysis, nor can you trust what he positions as fact. He has a blatant agenda, even if many of his points start with a kernel of truth.
 
hawk said:
My sense is that for academy & ROTC grads you need to look past 5 year retention. Of the officers which stay past 5 years, what is their promotion rate vs other commissioning sources? Then at 10 & 15 years and beyond.
Click to expand...

If you are looking for some sort of analysis/studies about the miltiary, go to
DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER or www.dtic.mil and use the search function.

With several military schools that are graudate school eqivalent, students have to do produce papers to graduate.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF COMMISSIONING SOURCES ON RETENTION AND PROMOTION OF U.S. ARMY OFFICERS

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a424559.pdf


We conclude that Academy graduates have the lowest retention rates, whereas OCS graduates have the highest retention rates. Among male officers, retention rates are higher for ROTC graduates than for those with Direct Appointments; among female officers retention rates are higher for Direct Appointments than ROTC graduates. The Promotion to O-4 Model
indicates that the effect of commissioning source is different within gender, race and marital status groups. The results of the promotion to O-5 model contrasts with those of the O-4 models. Academy graduates are more likely to be promoted to Lieutenant Colonel than those from other sources, followed by ROTC graduates and then Direct Appointments
Click to expand...
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top