Last year for USAFAPS?

There are other ways to make enlisted enter leadership roles (think ROTC). If diversity is judged to be important, then there are easy fixes as well.

The reality is USAFA was set-up to be academically demanding. We can debate if that is necessary but it makes sense to me. Some don't want a bunch of 4.0's at the helm. If diversified GPA's are important, I suppose we should then dummy-down the academics or reduce the other demands.

From my limited knowledge, it seems that with all of the other responsibilities that are given to the cadets, you better have a God given talent academically or you are going to sink. That is why the average GPA is 2.67. Some of these students are not learning the material because it is too demanding. If there is a huge washout from preppies at USAFA, then we can conclude that that extra year of prep isn't the fix, but rather a waste of effort.

That said, if my DS went to the prep school and got a 2.0 GPA and struggled, I would wonder if that was the right decision.
 
Where are the stats for these dropouts (this year, past years, trends?). I have only seen a statement made in opening post.
 
Last edited:
It should be a clear case of: Are you qualified to get in or not? If you are-then you get accepted. If you're not given a direct appointment then reapply the next cycle. There should be no consolation prize of an extra year that's footed by the taxpayers.
:

How could spending a year in prep be a consolation prize? There are candidates that are deemed not ready to be accepted directly, they are given this time to address deficiencies so they can fill the holes missed by admissions as one of the posters have stated.
 
Last edited:
Well; a gpa of 2.67 at the academy, is actually not that far off of the national college gpa. And considering that the academy is an engineering school; with every major requiring engineering classes; I would say that a 2.67 is about right. And somewhat acceptable.

Now; if an individual struggles at the prep-school; then I believe they probably won't do so well at the academy. And the air force should consider deeply before possibly giving this individual an appointment.

We all know that there is waste in government spending. And the military is no different. And yes, the military is a large part of the federal budget. But it's NOT THE LARGEST PART. And my point was simply that, because of politics, they aren't going to cut back on the largest part of the federal budget; which happens to be social programs. Military/Defense/security was about 19%. Social Security was about 22%. (Which I don't believe should ever be touched, because this is money the recipients actually put in and it's not their fault if the government are irresponsible). Health care programs: Medicaid, Medicare, Chip: come out to 21%.

But then, you've got what they call their "Safety Net" programs which are another 12% of the budget. That's the "Earned Income Credit", "Child Care Credit", and other programs for the poor. The social programs alone come to more than 1/3 of the budget. And these are the areas that not only won't see significant cuts; they are areas that politicians will fight for to "EXPAND". That was my only point. I know the military/security spending is a large part of the budget. But that's not why it gets attacked as often as it does. It gets attacked, because it doesn't directly affect LARGE VOTER'S PAYCHECKS!!! Social programs do.
 
It should be a clear case of: Are you qualified to get in or not? If you are-then you get accepted. If you're not given a direct appointment then reapply the next cycle. There should be no consolation prize of an extra year that's footed by the taxpayers.

Actually, no. While I don't approve of using the prep school to help IC athletes get in to USAFA and agree with your statement in that case, having that extra year for prior enlisted is very important. If you have ever been a student, you know how hard the first few days of school are trying to get back in to academics. Try several years. A prior enlisted member may have been stellar in high school, but that could be 4 years past. That is a long time to just pick up and start and ivy league level education. It's the same reason that AFIT (the Air Force graduate school here at Wright-Patt) has over a month of technical refresher classes. When I go back to school in a year, it will only have been 2 years for me, and I will have spent those two doing research, but I am still going to struggle to readjust to the academic world.

Additionally, one of the strongest leaders in my squadron (at least in my opinion) went to the prep school for a little extra academic preparation. While I don't know the details, I do know he was sending a solid portion of his cadet pay home to his family to help pay the bills. If it weren't for the prep school, he wouldn't have been admitted and it would have been a great loss for the Air Force. That is just one example, I am sure there are others. But like it has been said, it will be a political decision (and I highly doubt it will go away completely)
 
Prep School

I agree wholeheartedly with each of Christcorp's posts - as a taxpayer.
 
Well; a gpa of 2.67 at the academy, is actually not that far off of the national college gpa. And considering that the academy is an engineering school; with every major requiring engineering classes; I would say that a 2.67 is about right. And somewhat acceptable.
Is this perhaps comparing apples and oranges? I believe that the average gpa of the most select colleges is above 2.67. When you have a very selective application process that only takes the best you expect better than average. I know from an academic standpoint the average stats are not on par with the MIT's of the country but they are considerably above the average of all college students.

I received some C's in a few college courses. I struggled in those classes and did not learn/understand the material particularly well. A 2.67 average suggests you may have a lot of very bright kids not learning the material very well.

Edit: If the grading is done on a bell curve the 2.67 may very well be appropriate as it is relative to ones peers. After all C/2.0 is average
 
Is this perhaps comparing apples and oranges? I believe that the average gpa of the most select colleges is above 2.67. When you have a very selective application process that only takes the best you expect better than average. I know from an academic standpoint the average stats are not on par with the MIT's of the country but they are considerably above the average of all college students.

I received some C's in a few college courses. I struggled in those classes and did not learn/understand the material particularly well. A 2.67 average suggests you may have a lot of very bright kids not learning the material very well.

Edit: If the grading is done on a bell curve the 2.67 may very well be appropriate as it is relative to ones peers. After all C/2.0 is average

Grade Inflation - that needs to be understood in the context of your observation. The expectation at many colleges today is that a "B" is an average grade, just go to a graduation and you see hundreds of students graduating with cum laude, very different distinction today than it was 20-30 years ago.
 
Is this perhaps comparing apples and oranges? I believe that the average gpa of the most select colleges is above 2.67. When you have a very selective application process that only takes the best you expect better than average. I know from an academic standpoint the average stats are not on par with the MIT's of the country but they are considerably above the average of all college students.

I received some C's in a few college courses. I struggled in those classes and did not learn/understand the material particularly well. A 2.67 average suggests you may have a lot of very bright kids not learning the material very well.

Edit: If the grading is done on a bell curve the 2.67 may very well be appropriate as it is relative to ones peers. After all C/2.0 is average

I deal with a lot of individuals going to college. What you say is correct, when looking at a school like MIT. When you admit a specialized student body, into a specialize school, you do expect the average GPA to be a bit higher. And while many consider the air force academy to be an "Engineering" school; and everyone must take some engineering courses; the truth is, it's a Liberal Arts college. It has about 34 majors. From various engineering to behavioral science to degrees in history, english, and philosophy. And the student body isn't all the same type of student either.

It's a given that the majority of students who attend Harvard are similar in academic background. Same with most of the big name universities. Moreso if they are specialized like MIT. Data from a couple years ago showed Harvard averaging a 3.5 gpa; princeton was lower at 3.3. Nationally, for all colleges, it's right at the 3.0 mark. Now; most universities, especially liberal arts, have a curriculum 100% related to their degree. The air force academy is different. There is no other school that I know of, where a History or behavioral science major, MUST TAKE multiple engineering classes. Or even the math and science classes that the academy requires. Add to that the work load with military studies and training and physical fitness; and I would say that a 2.65 gpa at the air force academy is quite acceptable.

But remember; that's an average. There are plenty of individuals who have a 3.0, 3.5, 3.7 and 3.9 gpa at the academy. But again; the academy is unique. And in some ways, trying to compare their gpa to other schools is comparing apples to oranges. The academy is much more demanding of it's students. A 2.65 average gpa is quite acceptable in my opinion.
 
It is difficult to know what that 2.67 really means with regards to their understanding of the academic material. My experience was I didn't understand it very well if I received a C. It very well may mean that a C at USAFA means that they just didn't understand the material as well as about 1/2 of their peers but understood it consideralbly better than the majority of students at the University of Wherever.
It is pretty tough to compare gpa's from different colleges just as it is from different high schools.
More to the subject at hand is if the prior prep school cadets are mostly in that below average range even with the extra year of instruction that indicates a possible problem. I am all for the prep school to help prior enlisted make the transition. Some of the other uses I am more skeptical of.
 
Well; a gpa of 2.67 at the academy, is actually not that far off of the national college gpa. And considering that the academy is an engineering school; with every major requiring engineering classes; I would say that a 2.67 is about right. And somewhat acceptable.

Now; if an individual struggles at the prep-school; then I believe they probably won't do so well at the academy. And the air force should consider deeply before possibly giving this individual an appointment.

We all know that there is waste in government spending. And the military is no different. And yes, the military is a large part of the federal budget. But it's NOT THE LARGEST PART. And my point was simply that, because of politics, they aren't going to cut back on the largest part of the federal budget; which happens to be social programs. Military/Defense/security was about 19%. Social Security was about 22%. (Which I don't believe should ever be touched, because this is money the recipients actually put in and it's not their fault if the government are irresponsible). Health care programs: Medicaid, Medicare, Chip: come out to 21%.

But then, you've got what they call their "Safety Net" programs which are another 12% of the budget. That's the "Earned Income Credit", "Child Care Credit", and other programs for the poor. The social programs alone come to more than 1/3 of the budget. And these are the areas that not only won't see significant cuts; they are areas that politicians will fight for to "EXPAND". That was my only point. I know the military/security spending is a large part of the budget. But that's not why it gets attacked as often as it does. It gets attacked, because it doesn't directly affect LARGE VOTER'S PAYCHECKS!!! Social programs do.

I get your point about the safety net. I think it has less to do with the votes (yet still VERY important) and it has more to do with 1/2 of politicians in a certain party really believing that more help is needed without worrying about the debt implications. That mentality just taught someone to be dependent on the system. I diverge...

But yes, politicians cater to the voters. More voters == more power. That said, I give the AF leadership more credit then only cutting $$'s based off of politics. But yes, congress have equal influence. If cuts had to be made and they un-plugged the prep school, it won't be about politics. The rumors circulating gave the reason: there is a high percentage of washout and the ROI is not good.

Additionally my broader point was don't underestimate the importance of the military vote. Politicians cater to this group just like seniors, college students, and every other demographic. :)
 
Last edited:
A 2.67 average suggests you may have a lot of very bright kids not learning the material very well.

That is how I look at it as well.

Re: the GPA. During parents weekend, the head of the physics department said those with the technical degrees actually had higher overall GPA's than other disciplines. So the "hardest" degrees turned out the highest GPA. But I do agree that if you made a traditional student take technical classes (who was not technical) they too would struggle. But the difference is at USAFA, the applicants were vetted. Meaning admissions confirmed that they took technical classes and that they did well on the science and math portion of the standardized tests. So this isn't an "average" college.

I'm all for giving people chances but at what cost? If the amortized cost of a USAFA student is $400K for 4 years, should we admit students that need 5 years (or >$400K) when a lot of them get washed out? If money wasn't an issue, I say of course the prep school makes sense. But it seems that the economics don't make sense especially when there are a lot of ways to skin the cat (diversity, giving enlisted a chance to lead, etc)

Note: I am not in the camp that believes that "better" students are turned away to make room for preppies. I don't have any data to make that assumption. But paying an extra year of college for someone that attends THE most expensive leaning institution seems like a less than ideal ROI. And if something has to be cut, I think that closing the prep school down (which arguably has turned into a sports red-shirt factory) makes a lot of sense to me.
 
Quick question for those that want to keep it going, how will you feel in 4 yrs from now when you are kicking the tires for a double turn, and told "Don't worry, our recs say there are 3 landings left"

Will you as an ADAF member still say the scholarships for prep schools are important when it impacts your ADAF funding?

I don't think the prep at CS will close, but as a taxpayer, my heart won't be bleeding if they cancel prep scholarships to feeder schools.
 
Quick question for those that want to keep it going, how will you feel in 4 yrs from now when you are kicking the tires for a double turn, and told "Don't worry, our recs say there are 3 landings left"

Will you as an ADAF member still say the scholarships for prep schools are important when it impacts your ADAF funding?

I don't think the prep at CS will close, but as a taxpayer, my heart won't be bleeding if they cancel prep scholarships to feeder schools.

Pima, I believe that the other feeder schools like NMMI, MMI, and NWP are not funded by the Air Force, but rather the Falcon Foundation.
 
Prep School

In an effort to add some objective information to the discussion, the West Point Prep School Website states that, since 1951, Prep School Graduates made up 11% of the Corp of Cadets and 23% of the Senior Cadet leadership.

I don't think that one can take a look at a direct effect of the ROI, as has been suggested, because there are tangential benefits to the American citizen. Although, objective evidence would be difficult to gather, one could argue that the American citizenry benefits from a young person attending, and/or graduating from Prep School, and even more, from a young person spending a year in Prep School and possibly a semester or year in the Academy before they leave. This is a similar argument to stating that a young person benefits from 2,3 or 4 years in the military, in general, in character development. In other words, they will be a better citizen because they experienced those situations, and thus, be of more benefit to society had they not had the experences. It is also a similar argument when one considers those who go through the Academy, yet do no retire from the military.

In way of full disclosure; my DS is a "Direct."
 
In an effort to add some objective information to the discussion, the West Point Prep School Website states that, since 1951, Prep School Graduates made up 11% of the Corp of Cadets and 23% of the Senior Cadet leadership.

I don't think that one can take a look at a direct effect of the ROI, as has been suggested, because there are tangential benefits to the American citizen. Although, objective evidence would be difficult to gather, one could argue that the American citizenry benefits from a young person attending, and/or graduating from Prep School, and even more, from a young person spending a year in Prep School and possibly a semester or year in the Academy before they leave. This is a similar argument to stating that a young person benefits from 2,3 or 4 years in the military, in general, in character development. In other words, they will be a better citizen because they experienced those situations, and thus, be of more benefit to society had they not had the experences. It is also a similar argument when one considers those who go through the Academy, yet do no retire from the military.

In way of full disclosure; my DS is a "Direct."

Your points are all valid except what I highlighted in bold. The reality is, to a certain degree, you have to look at ROI. I don't know the washout statistics. Let's say 1/2 of the Preppies wash out (I pulled a number right out of rear-end). As Pima suggested, don't you think that we have to look at how to best spend the $$'s? The bottom line is the SA needs X amount of students to turn into Officers. Path A (with the Prep school) allows X to be commissioned and path B (without the Prep school) still allows X to be commissioned. One path saves money and the other path spends a lot more. But plan B has a better football and hockey team.:wink: Spending >$100K to $250K for a couple of years to stretch oneself doesn't seem like a great idea to me. If someone else wants to foot that bill (AOG) then of course I say go for it!

Other smart folks have questioned the whole concept of a SA in the 1st place. It's a legitimate debate and it is centered around ROI. To me at least, I'm not going to lose sleep if the Prep school closes. I do see the value of a SA. Maybe not at the sticker price but their is value. I'm also not a fan of "5 and dive". As a tax payer, that's a terrible ROI.

I see the same thing for doctors and dentists. My DD applied for a HPSP scholarship. They pay $2100 a year stipend, pay $75K x 4 tuition and a $20K signing bonus. They have to give back a mere 4 years after taking $370K (and getting paid $74K, $74K, $91K, and $91K). A fantastic deal for her but a terrible deal for the taxpayer. Again I diverge...
 
Last edited:
I understand the need for checks and balance between the military and civilian leadership. And I agree with it. My point was; there's a lot of decisions about the military, when left to the military, do much better. Sometimes politicians get "Too involved". E.g. Vietnam, Iraq. They also get too involved with the military's budget. When it comes to budget, they should approve the dollar amount for the budget, but allow the military to spend that budget as they see fit. Just like with the sequester. If they cut back and say "This is your new limit", they shouldn't tell the military what they can and can't cut back on. Basically, the political side needs to not micro-manage as much. But I'm definitely in favor of a civilian chain being part of the military.

my two cents, I think there are more wrong decisions military leadership made than right decisions.

I don't totally agree with the article, but it does make some good points. Can't have a double standard when junior officers are judged based on end results and general officers are not because what they do is very complicated.

From the Armed Force Journal August 2013

Purge the generals

The U.S. Army’s generals, as a group, have lost the ability to effectively function at the high level required of those upon whom we place the responsibility for safeguarding our nation. Over the past 20 years, our senior leaders have amassed a record of failure in major organizational, acquisition and strategic efforts. These failures have been accompanied by the hallmarks of an organization unable and unwilling to fix itself: aggressive resistance to the reporting of problems, suppression of failed test results, public declarations of success where none was justified, and the absence of accountability.

A short and by no means exhaustive list of such failures might include the RAH-66 Comanche armed reconnaissance helicopter (launched in 1991, canceled after $6.9 billion), the XM2001 Crusader mobile cannon (launched in 1995, canceled after $7 billion), and the Future Combat Systems (launched in 2003, canceled after $20 billion). FCS in particular was notable for senior Army leaders’ efforts to ignore or suppress the results of simulations, tests and analyses that highlighted problems and ultimately predicted failure.

Today, we have the Ground Combat Vehicle program, which was launched amid the wreckage of FCS and has, despite official proclamations of confidence, already seen two delays that have pushed production out to 2020 or so. There is also the Joint Tactical Radio System, launched in 1997 as the heart of the effort to bring a robust network to the battlefield. In March, the Government Accountability Office reported that the 16-year-old program had yet to demonstrate in a realistic environment that the Rifleman variant could use one of its three critical technologies or that the Manpack variant could use any of its four critical technologies.

Not sure if other branches did better than the Army . . .
 
Pima, I believe that the other feeder schools like NMMI, MMI, and NWP are not funded by the Air Force, but rather the Falcon Foundation.

Yup...don't worry, I didn't take any of your money last year (unless you happen to have donated to the FF, in which case, thanks!)
 
Prep School

Your points are all valid except what I highlighted in bold. The reality is, to a certain degree, you have to look at ROI. I don't know the washout statistics. Let's say 1/2 of the Preppies wash out (I pulled a number right out of rear-end). As Pima suggested, don't you think that we have to look at how to best spend the $$'s? The bottom line is the SA needs X amount of students to turn into Officers. Path A (with the Prep school) allows X to be commissioned and path B (without the Prep school) still allows X to be commissioned. One path saves money and the other path spends a lot more. But plan B has a better football and hockey team.:wink: Spending >$100K to $250K for a couple of years to stretch oneself doesn't seem like a great idea to me. If someone else wants to foot that bill (AOG) then of course I say go for it!

Other smart folks have questioned the whole concept of a SA in the 1st place. It's a legitimate debate and it is centered around ROI. To me at least, I'm not going to lose sleep if the Prep school closes. I do see the value of a SA. Maybe not at the sticker price but their is value. I'm also not a fan of "5 and dive". As a tax payer, that's a terrible ROI.

Disclaimer: I hope I copied this correctly from the previous post.

Yes, no question. The ROI must be considered. However, I think that my point was not fully addressed. What I am saying is that the ROI should be considered in the milieu of factors in evaluating the effectiveness of the Prep School, but issues about considering whether the Prep School should be in existence cannot be distilled down to the ROI alone. If the Prep School has unacceptable graduation rates at the SA, than the administration of the Prep School should be tasked with improving their graduation rate. That is a totally different issue than getting rid of the Prep School.

You seem to agree, in part, with this assessment. The reason I say so is because you do recognize that the SA's themselves do have value beyond their ROI. I am saying the same thing about the Prep School.

Additionally, I am aware of the argument to get rid of the SA's, also largely based on the ROI, and I am also aware of the comparison of the ROI's between the SA's, ROTC and OCS. My problem is that I am not impressed by "smart people.":wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top