VADM Fowler's response to Fleming (NYT)

Since Fleming is tying the admissions process to identifying the "wrong" candidates to become midshipmen - one should realize that Marcus Curry, Kyle Eckel and Adam Ballard were NOT offered admission on Fowler's watch. They came in under previous superintendents.
Seems the ship was leaning heavily before Fowler arrived.
 
Seems unfortunate that Adm Fowler contributed to the problem rather than "righting" the ship.
 
Fowler ducked and dodged Professor Fleming's conclusions without presenting one shred of contrary evidence.
Give me a specific example where you felt Adm Fowler "ducked and dodged" and maybe I can help you understand his point.
 
Folks- if you can't keep this thread on track talking about the subject as opposed to having personal exchanges- it will be shut down.
 
Read Admiriral Fowler's response "Military Academies: A National Treasure" and I will take Fowler's opinion over Flemming's any day.:biggrin:
 
Just as I suspected. You are unable to provide any specifics.

My posts have been made about Fowler's non-addressing of Fleming's points.

As per the Forum's rules and moderator warnings, I will no longer respond to you no matter which screen name you are using these days.
 
My posts have been made about Fowler's non-addressing of Fleming's points.

As per the Forum's rules and moderator warnings, I will no longer respond to you no matter which screen name you are using these days.

I'm really confused here....:confused:

So is Admiral Fowler being replaced because of this, or is his tour as the Superintendent up?
 
He is retiring because his tour as the Superintendant is up and this assignment is by law a terminal assignment at all of the academies.
 
My posts have been made about Fowler's non-addressing of Fleming's points.

Exactly. Perhaps if you gave examples of where you feel Adm Fowler's responses are not adequate, we could discuss them. I, on the other hand, feel that Adm Fowler covered all of Fleming's accusitions thoroughly. He debunked the dual quaqlifications thoroughly. He explained the value of athletics. He pointed out the overall quality of the midshipmen today. He discussed the unique values of SAs as opposed to ROTC. I thought it was a very good rebuttal.

Did you even read it?
 
Pima said:
Was he stating repayment was 170K and hiding the fact that the true cost is closer to 400K or is it 170K and at hs scholarship night they inflate the cost to boast/recruit ?

It only bothers me because if the numbers are being shaved to defend their position, than I find that wrong.

Nothing out of order. Adm Fowler was responding directly to Fleming’s charge, something Luigi refuses to admit.

Fleming:
at an average cost to taxpayers of nearly half a million dollars per student

“Cost” and “value”, two completely different things. “Overall costs” and “cost to taxpayers”, two completely different things.

Alumni and others donate money which contribute to the value of the overall experience. The Willie Brown Field House and the new sports complex across the river cost the tax payers nothing. Yet they both provide value to each and every midshipman. The old field house probably cost 2 mil back in 1962. Yet it continues to provide value. No cost at all to the taxpayer and totally depreciated cost to the alumni. Alumni contributions and mid store profits fund extracurricular activities. They provide value but don’t cost the taxpayer a cent. The NAAA budget, funding all the non-revenue producing sports, provide value to the midshipmen but don’t cost the taxpayer anything.

Sitting in a freshman Calculus class of only twelve other midshipmen probably costs the taxpayer much less than it costs Harvard to do the same. Military officers are probably funded differently and tenured USNA profs teach a lot more than do profs at most other universities.

Adm Fowler was simply responding to a rebuttal. Don’t try to make it into something that it isn’t. Fleming said it cost tapayers nearly a half million dollars. The DON says it costs taxpayers $170,000. That is a fact.

The Master Card commercial comes to mind. Costs-$170,000, value-priceless.

And the reason one normally sees payback numbers, for those who do not complete their commitments, in the $85,000 range is that this is half of $170,000 and the first two years (half) carry no commitment.
 
Last edited:
I can understand the value v cost, but still to me that is playing fast and loose with the facts.

Traditional universities don't give you 50K scholarships, but only apply 15K to the bill because that is the true cost.

If the true cost is 170K, say it, no need to amp it up to 400K when presenting the award at the hs ceremony. Most people are in awe to start with because of the allure of an SA, and understand the rarity of being admitted.
 
Back on topic.

Maybe Fowler is using this time to fall on his sword. He is using the opportunity to defend the USNA without damaging his own career. Nothing is wrong with that, and I think sometime in every one's military career, they will step up and risk the repercussions.
 
How can Fowler damage his career - he is retiring. His legacy? That remains to be seen.
I think in 10 years he will be remembered more for not allowing Herndon to be greased than for the Marcus Curry debacle.

Was he stating repayment was 170K and hiding the fact that the true cost is closer to 400K or is it 170K and at hs scholarship night they inflate the cost to boast/recruit ?
he wasn't hiding anything. 170K is the cost of tuition.
the 400K is the total cost to employ a midshipman including their tuition. They are full time active duty members of the military. You make a good point - on scholarship night they really should put the total "scholarship" as the cost of the education. Semantics really, though.
Parents should be comforted by the fact that if their child separates after the first day of the third year - they *only* have to pay back the tuition. Not the entire 400K 'scholarship'. That would be like getting fired on the job after two years and being made to pay back your salary.
 
JAM,

I agree with you top to bottom except for one thing
They are full time active duty members of the military

They are not full time active duty military members.

Yes, if WWIII breaks out, they will be the 1st to go, but they are not ACTIVE duty as a cadet.

This idea of full time AD military has come up before. In the end, it always comes out the same. Cadets are not full time active duty members of the military.

One summer tour in a squadron will prove that on their 1st day. They are cadets, future AD military members, but in the end of the day they are not AD as a cadet. Simply put, they are just cadets, our future leaders in the military.
 
JAM,

I agree with you top to bottom except for one thing


They are not full time active duty military members.

Yes, if WWIII breaks out, they will be the 1st to go, but they are not ACTIVE duty as a cadet.

This idea of full time AD military has come up before. In the end, it always comes out the same. Cadets are not full time active duty members of the military.

One summer tour in a squadron will prove that on their 1st day. They are cadets, future AD military members, but in the end of the day they are not AD as a cadet. Simply put, they are just cadets, our future leaders in the military.


Cadets and Midshipmen at the SAs, with the exception of USMMA, are active duty military. They are subject to UCMJ at all times.

In case you would like a legal source, 38 USC 101, which defines "active duty" for the purposes of establishing veteran status, includes section (21)(D). In the provision, "service as a cadet at the United States Military, Air Force, or Coast Guard Academy, or as a midshipman at the United States Naval Academy" meets the definition of the term "active duty."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top