Just curious to see what everyone thinks about this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/27/AR2011012706168.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/27/AR2011012706168.html
They take courses from faculty almost invariably less prepared and experienced to teach college courses, many of which do not count for credit and cover material more akin to military training than undergraduate education. Weekly drills and other activities dilute the focus on academic education.
The most recent survey showed that USMA grads are leaving at as soon as their obligated service commitment is up- at a 65% rate; 55% for ROTC graduates and 35% for OCS graduates
It's a serious proposal that ought to be discussed seriously even if you don't reach the same conclusions.
The most recent survey showed that USMA grads are leaving the service at an alarmingly high as soon as their obligated service commitment is up- at a 65% rate; 55% for ROTC graduates and 35% for OCS graduates. That should certainly at least spark some conversations about how the Army is finding it's Junior Officers.
A dirty little secret about USNA. There is a reason that history majors are the most likely academic major to make the Navy a career, they cannot find a job on the outside. In general, the better one does in a technical field, the more likely they are to at least investigate another career after their initial obligation.
Bruno: Forgive me for inserting Mongo's post (from a different thread) ahead of yours, but it may have some relevance.The most recent survey showed that USMA grads are leaving the service at an alarmingly high as soon as their obligated service commitment is up- at a 65% rate; 55% for ROTC graduates and 35% for OCS graduates.
"Nor will the Pentagon be eager to send uniformed personnel - who are in short supply - to costly locations where they will recruit and train what is likely to be a small yield of new officers."
They take courses from faculty almost invariably less prepared and experienced to teach college courses, many of which do not count for credit and cover material more akin to military training than undergraduate education.
In a national competition similar to ROTC scholarships, students should be recruited for four years of active duty and four years of reserve service by means of all-expenses-paid scholarships to the college or university of their choice. Many would no doubt take these lucrative grants to the nation's most distinguished schools, where they would get top-flight educations and could devote full attention on campus to their studies.
Youths would gain their military training and education by serving in the reserve or National Guard during college (thus fulfilling their reserve obligation).
Good for them, but is the Army better for that?
It may be that it is good for the country to have lots of ex Army officers running around- and in fact that's pretty much exactly what VMI and Norwich both claim in their mission statements and the premise upon which they were founded: train graduates who are valuable as civilians and can step into a role of military leadership when the country needs them to do so. But that isn't what USMA exists to do and the reason that the Army funds it is because it is supposed to be the core of the professional Officer Corps. The Army is spending multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars manning and running a Service Academy ostensibly to provide the base of the Career Professional Officer Corps. The USMA mission statement reads in conclusion:If there is a RIF going on, doesn't it help the Army if headcount is reduced? "Five and divers" actually provide career-military types a greater chance to stay on active duty in the middle of a RIF.
I personally think it is a good thing for our country, on a macro level, to have folks with military experience out in the civilian economy.
. If they only retain 35% of them beyond their initial committment - it's a waste of an asset and they are failing in the mission. The ROTC and the OCS grads are supposed to be "the temporary help"- it's why there used to be a distinction between RA and USAR commissions for active duty officers. That was a silly distinction that's now gone, but that doesn't mean that the basic function of USMA has changed to one of nonspecific "service to the nation in some capacity after a short stint in the Army.""prepared for a career of professional excellence and service to the Nation as an officer in the United States Army"