Last year for USAFAPS?

This would be the shallowest and dimwitted reason.
I would like to believe that it would be: Officers willing to pay the ultimate price to defend our country if need be and not just get the degree and skedaddle after the minimum service.

I forget.... are you currently serving? If they only wanted officers willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice, they wouldn't waste millions of dollars on educations for people not alive to use that education.

No no, the goal is to produce officers who will stay alive, contrary to the popular talking points.
 
One of the first things they show incoming cadets is the memorial wall naming USAFA graduates that have been KIA. It drives home the message that upon graduation, their job entails being in harms way. I agree that to willingly serve in a profession that may require the ultimate sacrifice supercedes any monetary value.
 
I forget.... are you currently serving? If they only wanted officers willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice, they wouldn't waste millions of dollars on educations for people not alive to use that education.
"when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging".
Why do you waste time on the AF forum?
 
I could have sworn I remembered a fellow USAFA RANDite doing work that included the USAFAPS. I was right:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD274.html
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/rgs_dissertations/2010/RAND_RGSD274.pdf

Some key quotes:
In addition, cadets who
attended the USAFA preparatory school were significantly less likely to
enter 92T0. The probability of entering 92T0 for these cadets was 15
percentage points lower than cadets who did not attend the USAFA
preparatory school, on average. Furthermore, even conditional on USAFA
preparatory school attendance among other things, the probability of
entering 92T0 was 9 percentage points lower for cadets who were
recruited for athletics vs. those who were not, on average.

Additionally, 51 percent of black cadets and 43 percent of Hispanic
cadets attended the USAFA preparatory school, compared to 7 percent of
white cadets. Black cadets were also more likely than white cadets to
be recruited for athletics (31 percent vs. 24 percent). All else being
equal, these patterns will tend to produce differential rates of 92T0
accession across demographic groups.

Cadets who attended the USAFA preparatory school were significantly
more likely to prefer engineering/acquisition or support AFSCs over
rated AFSCs. These cadets were about 3.7 times more likely to prefer an
engineering/acquisition AFSC and 6.2 times more likely to prefer a
support AFSC over a rated AFSC, compared to cadets who did not attend
the USAFA preparatory school. Similarly, recruited athletes were more
likely to prefer these two sectors to the rated sector than cadets who
were not recruited for athletics.

Finally, as implied by earlier results, the AMEs show more clearly
that cadets who attended the USAFA preparatory school and cadets who
were recruited for athletics structure their preferences in such a way
as to avoid the operational side of the Air Force
, even conditional on
their human capital investments and background characteristics.

Second, this analysis shows that recruiters must consider more than
the demographic composition of accession cohorts, since subsequent
decisions may work against diversity gains in recruiting. The best
example of this point is the USAFA preparatory school. The USAFA
preparatory school is the source of 51 percent of the non-Hispanic black
cadets and 43 percent of the Hispanic cadets in the data set (compared
to 7 percent of the non-Hispanic white cadets). Thus, the USAFA
preparatory school is clearly a key tool for minority recruiting.
However, this analysis consistently found USAFA preparatory school
attendance to be negatively correlated with both assignment to 92T0 and
assignment to rated AFSCs as a group. Thus, the gains in demographic
diversity that were made possible by the USAFA preparatory school may
not fully translate to long run gains in the demographic makeup of Air
Force senior leaders.
 
One of the first things they show incoming cadets is the memorial wall naming USAFA graduates that have been KIA. It drives home the message that upon graduation, their job entails being in harms way. I agree that to willingly serve in a profession that may require the ultimate sacrifice supercedes any monetary value.

It's certainly a more effective message than showing them a wall with their pay grades and promotion rates, I'll give you that.

People don't joint to die. They join to live, and possibly bring death to others. They also join for a number of other reasons, that don't involve those "emotional" experiences your first summer, of folding a flag and talking about those who have come before you. True, they are reasons that aren't pretty and don't translate into YouTube videos that make you cry.

How many 15 year officers do you talk to that say "I'm going to give it another 5 years, and may die in that time." Or do they say "I'm at 15, might as well make it 20." What is the benefit of hitting 20? Why was the DOMA decision by the Supreme Court so important to the Pentagon (hint: we have another thread about that)? Why as soon as government officials start talking about Tricare benefits do service memebrs start to make noise.

You already know why. But you don't want to admit it. It's because, while the pomp and circumstance is nice, and people are willing to hold guns and go places where people want to kill them, if that was ALL there was to it, people wouldn't go, and the public wouldn't support it.

The U.S. federal government, and the citizens of the country aren't paying U.S. Air Force Academy cadets to learn for four year so they go die. They're paying them to learn so when they graduate they are productive, thoughtful officers who keep their people from dying. And the agreement for that schooling is an obligation to service at least five years. That's the agreement because, in this country, there still aren't "free lunches".

If you want to distill that down to "the goal of an academy is to train people to possibly die" then you may want to clue in some senior leaders. I don't remember taking a course in "here's how to die serving." I do remember taking a course in "here's how not to die".
 
"when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging".
Why do you waste time on the AF forum?

This is an AFA forum, not AF, and some points aren't service specific. Hornet's quote is interesting, however, and specific to AFA.
 
And at the risk of boring everyone to tears, wouldn't only taking the subset of those that finish Prep and enroll at SA (your toothbrushes turned organges) and looking at their eventual SA grad rates tell a HIGHLY limited story? For example... if 400 went into prep, and only 20 cadets finished it and enrolled, but those 20 then went on to graduate from the SA, your numbers would give Prep a 100% efficacy rate..... despite the fact that 380 out of 400 never completed the ultimate goal!

LITS' grapes are the answer to this question.

The mission of the prep schools is to take toothbrushes and make oranges, not to take toothbrushes and make grapes.
 
LITS' grapes are the answer to this question.

The mission of the prep schools is to take toothbrushes and make oranges, not to take toothbrushes and make grapes.

But you would agree the academy's should make oranges into grapes (green and purple). If the toothbrushes that become oranges couldn't become purple grapes, who on earth would an institution with a limited budget accept oranges?
 
Quick question:

NAPS is a stepping stone to the Naval Academy. Midshipmen find themselves there for a year, and provided they do what they need to do, they move on.

Are there applicants to AFA prep, or is it used the same way?

Is AFA's prep like NAPS or more like a New Mexico Military Institute?
 
Hornet. Excellent find. That has been a topic that has existed for a very long time. Does diversity recruiting; in any venue *Not just the military", produce the desired results; or does it simply satisfy "Political" agendas?

Also; not having read the entire dissertation, I wonder if the additional year at prep-school somewhat sours a future cadet's perspective on the military, and as such, the reason they prefer not to apply for rated positions is because of the additional years of commitment vs a non-rated AFSC. And in line with this hypothesis; I wonder what the rate of "Five and Dive" is for Prep-school cadet/officers vs direct entry cadet/officers?

As Arsenio Hall would say........ "Things that make you go hmmmmm".
 
Hornet. Excellent find. That has been a topic that has existed for a very long time. Does diversity recruiting; in any venue *Not just the military", produce the desired results; or does it simply satisfy "Political" agendas?

Finished "Freakonomics" a week or so ago. The authors touched on this for public schools, and with a slightly different focus, but found that the bussing and diversity projects weren't having the desired outcomes.
 
Is no one else disgusted by these uber-impressive academy GPAs?!?!?!

I guess I can only be happy my CGA GPA didn't follow me around in life after my academy career (well if kind of did as I applied to grad school, but only briefly).

Your kids are nerds and I would like to bully them! :wink::biggrin:

I don't know LITS, he is going to be tough to bully. :) He was rostered on the boxing team this season but turned it down because he made the Wings of Green.
 
Hornet. Excellent find. That has been a topic that has existed for a very long time. Does diversity recruiting; in any venue *Not just the military", produce the desired results; or does it simply satisfy "Political" agendas?

Also; not having read the entire dissertation, I wonder if the additional year at prep-school somewhat sours a future cadet's perspective on the military, and as such, the reason they prefer not to apply for rated positions is because of the additional years of commitment vs a non-rated AFSC. And in line with this hypothesis; I wonder what the rate of "Five and Dive" is for Prep-school cadet/officers vs direct entry cadet/officers?

As Arsenio Hall would say........ "Things that make you go hmmmmm".

By some transitive properties I think a couple answers are possible:
1. Preppies are disproportionately recruited athletes who (both as preps and direct accessions) disfavor operational AFSCs. In other words, recruited athletes are less likely to be those who seek a career and would rather 5 and dive regardless of all other characteristics.

2. In the dissertation is a graph showing incoming Ac Comp of White/Black/Hispanic and how that impacted the choice to be a 92T0. The white curve is pretty flat but the black curve shows a big dip in the lower Ac Comps. These are the most likely black individuals who went through prep (since 51% of black candidates as cadets were preppies). 7% of whites were preppies.

MY conclusion is that something about either recruited athletes AND/OR the IC athletic team participation causes those cadets to choose a path that keeps them in the shortest period of time.

ANOTHER dissertation of a USAFA grad from last year also looks at prep school attendance:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD307.html

Rodriguez found the following variables as significant predictors of
career success in the directions indicated in parenthesis: gender
(1=male, 0=female) (+), black (-), Hispanic (-), prior academic record
(-), adjusted academic composite (+), candidate fitness test (-), Air -
Force Academy prep school (-)
, grade point average (+), military
performance average (+), academic probation (+), academic probation
plus other probations (+), pilot (+), navigator (+), air battle manager
(+), flight surgeon (+).

Prep school attendees and cadets without a close family
military connection to the military were less likely to hold
a line leadership position

A few variables, such as all-state count, prep school, ROTC, athletic
recruit, black, Hispanic, and Asian had significant and negative
correlations with holding a line position.

The average marginal effect of attending a preparatory school on
the probability of participating in a line position was higher in
Models C and D than in Model B. Model B contains a greater number of
class years. I suspect a selection policy change for the preparatory
schools, or a change in the training regimen at the prep schools at
some point in the timeframe covered by the sample might explain this
difference. Comparing the selection process and curriculum for Academy
preparatory schools over time would further illuminate this finding but
is beyond the scope of this study.

For preparatory school attendees,
emphasizing that preparatory school leadership training is not a
substitute for holding a cadet leadership position may improve the
percentage of prep school attendees applying for line leadership
positions.


Preppies were LESS likely to hold cadet leadership positions which led to lower retention to the O-5 rank. Therefore the prep school does not produce candidates more likely to remain in service longer.

In addition, the author found that SOMETHING changed at the prep school from 1982-present that began to affect the prep school effect on future retention. I think many of us have a pretty solid assumption on what that change over time happened to be.
 
I am sorry if I am misleading. I am not trying to suggest a young person with a 4.0 GPA can't lead or won't have those traits, what I am suggesting is that you do not need a 4.0 GPA to guarantee success or to make a great leader.

That goes without saying. :)

The leader I admire the most never even graduated from college, his men would follow him to hell and back if he wanted.

I know several non-college grads myself who are great leaders.
 
I don't know LITS, he is going to be tough to bully. :) He was rostered on the boxing team this season but turned it down because he made the Wings of Green.

And to make it even worse.... I do a pretty good job of being punched.

During one summerat CGA we started a "U.S. Coast Guard Academy Summer School Underground Boxing Association" or USCGASSUBA. My first recorded fight (we video taped and provided comentary on fights) I got a decent black eye. I wanted a better one, so my next fight, i wore less headgear.... and got a nice concussion because of it. No black eye, but issues with light, focusing, and headaches!
 
Too many variables. Maybe because most recruited athletes are "Team" oriented way before they even got to the academy, most prefer to be LEAD by coaches and others, compared to being held totally responsible. I.e. fighter pilot with 100% control over the final results. (Just a theory).

Another theory is that because MANY of those who attend the prepartory school were because of "Academic Deficiencies", it's quite possible that after another 4 years of college "The academy", the last thing they want to do, is to go through another 18-24 months of school to be a pilot. Especially with the possibility of failing. Maybe they've always had to work harder for their grades?

The biggest variable of course is; "Some prep-school academy cadets, DO go to flight school." "Some DO go on to Grad School". What makes them different. I know a couple personally.

It definitely gets interesting.
 
Too many variables. Maybe because most recruited athletes are "Team" oriented way before they even got to the academy, most prefer to be LEAD by coaches and others, compared to being held totally responsible. I.e. fighter pilot with 100% control over the final results. (Just a theory).

Your theory makes no sense to me, especially given the very high percentage of those who were athletes, recruited or not. It doesn't look at all motivated by wanting to be more of a "team" player/support but to reduce the service time. IC teams are just one of many ways people are LEAD as cadets.

Another theory is that because MANY of those who attend the prepartory school were because of "Academic Deficiencies", it's quite possible that after another 4 years of college "The academy", the last thing they want to do, is to go through another 18-24 months of school to be a pilot. Especially with the possibility of failing. Maybe they've always had to work harder for their grades?

Disagree. The regressions and data support that those who were on academic probation did not actually fair worse in their career. The number of falcon foundation preps - a group that is much more consistently put in prep for academics - faired much better than prep schoolers and still went on to operational assignments at high rates. The academic deficiency theory does not measure up to the data. Especially when looking at the flat rate for non-minorities who almost equally chose operational assignments at a rate independent of academic success.

The biggest variable of course is; "Some prep-school academy cadets, DO go to flight school." "Some DO go on to Grad School". What makes them different. I know a couple personally.

Probably non-recruited athletes if I were to take an educated guess.

I'm becoming less and less willing to accept the "too many variables" arguments or even the "diversity" arguments on the USAFAPS. Anecdotes only go so far and you can't make great decisions on them. But with the amount of information I've now seen on the USAFAPS that track those people over their cadet careers and AF careers, it looks like the USAFAPS has lost its original mission and should probably refocus or go away.
 
Agreed. The 2 individuals I'm speaking of were athletes. Played all 4 years. But you are correct As for my theory on the recruited athlete, my point was, they tend to be a lot more into their athletics than the majority of cadets who played varsity high school sports. They took their skill to the next level. Maybe they prefer the "Larger" team environment than they do the individuality of being a pilot. But it was just a theory. I haven't studied or done any research on this matter at all. Simply taking a finding and trying to theorize a cause.

But you are quite correct. You can't make decisions based on anecdotal evidence. There's exceptions to all rules. I also agree that the academy/prep-school has probably lost focus on their original goals. While I support diversity, because I've seen first hand the benefits of it, I've also said a number of times that in my opinion, a lot of the diversity the academy/military in general do, is for political reasons more than anything else. In the 70's and 80's, many of us saw a big surge in "Affirmative Action". In an attempt to level the playing field for everyone, the quotas became more important that the goal. It didn't take long for quotas and numbers to be more important than the original goal. Thus, standards were reduced and quality suffered.
 
I've now seen on the USAFAPS that track those people over their cadet careers and AF careers, it looks like the USAFAPS has lost its original mission and should probably refocus or go away.

I have heard from a few recruited athlete parents that the coaches attempt to minimize the military aspect of the academy. The parents I spoke with were proud of this fact. I was biting my lip when I heard these stories. It was as if the parents seemed to be slightly embarrassed that their DS was in the military. So it seems at least some students go to USAFA to focus on sports and they are "sold" that they don't have to do the same military rigor as other students.

Therefore I'd be interested in hearing about the overall washout totals (IC versus non-IC as direct entries). Hornetguy, did anybody at RAND study this topic?

It should go without saying that there will several examples of IC's that really want to be there and do everything in their power NOT to dodge the military aspects of USAFA etc. I'm sure there are hundreds or even thousands of incredible IC's turned future leaders. Heck, the USAFA 1st female superintendent (and a Rhodes Scholar mind you) was an IC athlete. IMHO, she is an impressive AF Rock Star! So I am not speaking in absolutes.
 
I have heard from a few recruited athlete parents that the coaches attempt to minimize the military aspect of the academy. The parents I spoke with were proud of this fact. I was biting my lip when I heard these stories. It was as if the parents seemed to be slightly embarrassed that their DS was in the military. So it seems at least some students go to USAFA to focus on sports and they are "sold" that they don't have to do the same military rigor as other students.

Therefore I'd be interested in hearing about the overall washout totals (IC versus non-IC as direct entries). Hornetguy, did anybody at RAND study this topic?

It should go without saying that there will several examples of IC's that really want to be there and do everything in their power NOT to dodge the military aspects of USAFA etc. I'm sure there are hundreds or even thousands of incredible IC's turned future leaders. Heck, the USAFA 1st female superintendent (and a Rhodes Scholar mind you) was an IC athlete. So I am not speaking in absolutes.

The second report/dissertation I quoted was about how cadet line positions (like being a flight commander or on group staff) impact retention to O-5. He looked at how different demographics impacted getting those positions. So you can do some indirect correlation from that. If you trust doing an indirect correlation, being a recruited IC means they were less likely to stay in. Don't know about wash-out rates though.
 
Back
Top