Very Interesting Debate Topic

[Full Metal Bulldog]

MemberLG, when I thought of the idea, I was thinking about all of the stories of induviduals who've dropped out of a service academy or didn't even bother to apply because they felt after only a relativley limited exposure that the military is "not for them". I was thinking that AD time before attending the academy would help address that issue. It is not a fully fleshed out idea of course, just a possible solution to either A. Be a gut-check for those who really want the academy, or B. For those who aren't sure, helping them come to a decision faster. Maybe make the AD time only 1 or 2 years, or maybe make it so there's a no-questions-asked cancellation of one's contract if they decide its not for them, and now they have some AD time to put on their resume for civilian work or college. Just another one of my dimly lit light bulbs that appear on top of my head oh-so-often.

[usna1985]

Interesting debate. Bad idea.

First, Congress decides how long the military commitment should be for SA grads. In the "old days," it was 4 years AD. Now, it's 5 for most, but longer for some (e.g., pilots). Congress could, at any time, decide to increase the commitment if it thinks 5 yrs is not sufficient based on the cost of the education.

Second, the services actually need people to attrite. The military is a "move up or move out" system and, if everyone tried to stay until retirement, there would be a much higher number of non-promotes. So, better those who want to leave do so and those who stay want to be there.

Third, there is a world of difference b/t what officers do and what enlisted personnel do. I'm not sure that spending time as an enlisted would be of much benefit in trying to decide whether one wanted to be an officer.

Fourth, as someone above stated, the decision whether to stay in or get out is an intensely personal one. Many people when entering or even graduating from a SA plan on making it a career, only to find out that family or other issues make that proposal seem much less desirable. Conversely, some of those who spend their time at SAs bragging how they were going to be a "five and dive" end up making it a career.

[bjkuds]

Originally Posted by usna1985

Interesting debate. Bad idea.

First, Congress decides how long the military commitment should be for SA grads. In the "old days," it was 4 years AD. Now, it's 5 for most, but longer for some (e.g., pilots). Congress could, at any time, decide to increase the commitment if it thinks 5 yrs is not sufficient based on the cost of the education.

Second, the services actually need people to attrite. The military is a "move up or move out" system and, if everyone tried to stay until retirement, there would be a much higher number of non-promotes. So, better those who want to leave do so and those who stay want to be there.

Third, there is a world of difference b/t what officers do and what enlisted personnel do. I'm not sure that spending time as an enlisted would be of much benefit in trying to decide whether one wanted to be an officer.

Fourth, as someone above stated, the decision whether to stay in or get out is an intensely personal one. Many people when entering or even graduating from a SA plan on making it a career, only to find out that family or other issues make that proposal seem much less desirable. Conversely, some of those who spend their time at SAs bragging how they were going to be a "five and dive" end up making it a career.

this?

So true...... problem is..what 17 or 18 year old doesn't change their priorities, likes and even ambitions within 5 years?.. The years right after HS are when you change the most in life it seems. You can't really know what you've gotten yourself into with the military until you are into it first hand. Hubby was going to be a lifer.. 4 years and a baby later..OUT he wanted.. and the buddy he enlisted with that got the bonus check when he signed up, he was just looking for a way to pay for college and he just retired. Either mind set is perfectly acceptable IMO.
Going to college right out of HS is so much more easier than waiting a year..much less 4.. OMG..can you imagine the remedial classes enlisting first would entail.. If you didnt use Calc for 4 years then suddenly you are in Engineering classes.. I see a BIG problem with retention of what you learned in AP anything 4 years ago. Not to mention the girl saying my finace will be done with school when he is 28..then he can support our family..until then? I dont see too many takers for that plan.. and I would think they had issues.

[MemberLG]

Originally Posted by Full Metal Bulldog

It is not a fully fleshed out idea of course, just a possible solution to either A. Be a gut-check for those who really want the academy, or B. For those who aren't sure, helping them come to a decision faster.

A solution is needed if there is a problem. Do you think there is a problem with SA not getting "right" types of applicants?

West Point has been accepting 1300 +/- and graduating 1000 +/-. So, we could argue that losing 300 +/- is a waste of money, so we need to graduate 1300 +/-. I would argue that the cost is minimum, relative to the overall cost. West Point has a higher fixed costs than variable costs. Full time support staff is won't change too much regardless of the incoming class size. The variable cost is the cadet pay, plus some additional as most of stuff cadets pay from their pay.

If the retention rate is higher, West Point would have to accept less candidates and will quickly reach point of diminishing return as whatever screening method West Point implements, they will have to adjust accordingly.

[Full Metal Bulldog]

I didn't say that those were actual problems USMA is facing, but those are problems an SA could face at some point in time, and that the idea in question could be a solution, albeit judging from the responses I'm getting, not a very good one.

[MemberLG]

Originally Posted by Full Metal Bulldog

I didn't say that those were actual problems USMA is facing, but those are problems an SA could face at some point in time, and that the idea in question could be a solution, albeit judging from the responses I'm getting, not a very good one.

The selection process for SAs are not perfect. But sometimes, perfection is not possible. So considering the end products produced by West Point since 1802, I think West Point doing pretty good.

Another topic of the debate is the purpose of West Point - when I was a cadet it was something along the line of " leader of character " and now it evolved into "commissioned leader of character." My personal opinion is that if we just need to produce 2LTs, don't really need West Point and ROTC. However, if we want institutions that produces leaders for the country, both civilian and government, yes on West Point and ROTC.