Great critique on the service academies

Chockstock

The Stars and Stripes Forever
10-Year Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
827
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Few-the-Proud-the/134830/

The U.S. military-service academies—at West Point (Army), Annapolis (Navy), Colorado Springs (Air Force), and New London (Coast Guard)—are at the center of several debates, both military and civilian. The military is downsizing, and the federal budget is under scrutiny: Do the academies deserve to continue?

They're educational institutions, but do they actually educate, and furthermore, do they produce "leaders" as they claim to? And are they worth the $400,000 or so per graduate (depending on the academy) they cost taxpayers?

After all, we already have a federal program that produces officers—an average of twice as many as those who go to the academies (three times for the Army)—at a quarter of the cost. That program is ROTC, the Reserve Officer Training Corps, which has expanded considerably since World War II, when the academies produced the lion's share of officers.

No data suggest that ROTC officers are of worse quality than those graduating from the academies, who are frequently perceived by enlisted military as arrogant "ring-knockers" (after their massive old-style class rings). The academies evoke their glory days by insisting that many more admirals, say, come from Annapolis than from ROTC. But that is no longer true. Between 1972 and 1990 (these are the latest figures available), the percentage of admirals from ROTC climbed from 5 percent to 41 percent, and a 2006 study indicated that commissioning sources were not heavily weighted in deciding who makes admiral.

Another officer-production pipeline is Officer Candidate School, which is about as large a source of officers as the academies. It gives a six- to 12-week training course for mature enlistees and college graduates who paid for their educations on their own (that is, did not participate in ROTC), and it costs taxpayers almost nothing. It could be expanded by pitching it to college students who might want to become officers when they graduate.

So the service academies are no longer indispensable for producing officers. Their graduates now make up only about 20 percent of the officer corps in any given year. It's clear that we don't need the academies in their current form—versions of a kind of military Disneyland. These institutions do produce some fine officers, even some leaders. But the students I respect the most tell me that those who succeed do so despite the institutions, not because of them.

The best midshipmen—and, as I know through conversations and written correspondence, the best students at the other service academies—are deeply angry, disillusioned, and frustrated. They thought the academies would be a combination of an Ivy League university and a commando school. They typically find that they are neither.

These are only the first several paragraphs. Read on for some brilliant writing and awesome points made by Prof Fleming that resonate highly with me, even though I do not attend USNA. One of the best articles I have read in a while. I agree with nearly everything he says and he has made one of the most professionally written rants that I have ever read.

-CS
 
Last edited:
I appreciate the author's intention to fix the academies, and his dedication to this effort as well. He made very excellent points, and while I dislike the notion of changing what I believe to be the heart and soul of the service academies, he's probably right. He certainly has a lot of experience with and understanding of Annapolis.
 
Huh.....

Very interesting. I never really thought of it the way Mr Fleming has presented. Maybe our best and brightest would be better off in an environment of competition. This would forge our best leaders.

I understand the spirit of competition in sports going against other service academies. However; if I were a gifted talented athlete, why would I ever attend an academy and have my chances of competing professionally dashed. It is difficult to attract these athletes when other educational institutes can provide so much more.

The one common thread, is those who want to attend a service academy also have the value of service and sacrifice.
 
While I respect Dr. Flemming's opinion and agree with some, I don't agree with his conclusions.

Dr. Flemming's opinoin reminds about a story of bunch of Economic PhDs and College professors creating a mutal fund based on all their expert knowledge/scientific models. The mutual fund evenutally failed.
 
That program is ROTC, the Reserve Officer Training Corps, which has expanded considerably since World War II, when the academies produced the lion's share of officers.

There is no Coast Guard ROTC.

So the service academies are no longer indispensable for producing officers. Their graduates now make up only about 20 percent of the officer corps in any given year.

USCGA produces well over 50% of the active duty USCG officers, not 20%.
 
Annapolis graduates also get an additional four years (five years if they attended prep school) counted in their retirement benefits if they make it to 20 years in the service.

Unless things have changed since my day, this statement is patently untrue. The year of prep school does count because it is considered a year of enlistment. In fact, I believe it actually counts toward your 20 years for that very reason (i.e., a NAPSter can retire 19 yrs after graduation and get credit for 20 years served). But the other four years . . . they are merely four years of your life and are not added to your service credit upon retirement.

Fleming (who is well known to USNA types) likes to stir the pot under the proetction of tenure. Somewhere in the midst of his rant are some valid points. In particular, there is a bit of treating mids -- especially the more senior classes -- like children.

OTOH, I think MOST grads look back on their USNA experience in a positive light and MOST would not have traded the experience for ROTC or OCS, no matter how great those programs may be. I would be one of those.:thumb:
 
Unless things have changed since my day, this statement is patently untrue. The year of prep school does count because it is considered a year of enlistment. In fact, I believe it actually counts toward your 20 years for that very reason (i.e., a NAPSter can retire 19 yrs after graduation and get credit for 20 years served). But the other four years . . . they are merely four years of your life and are not added to your service credit upon retirement.

Fleming (who is well known to USNA types) likes to stir the pot under the proetction of tenure. Somewhere in the midst of his rant are some valid points. In particular, there is a bit of treating mids -- especially the more senior classes -- like children.

OTOH, I think MOST grads look back on their USNA experience in a positive light and MOST would not have traded the experience for ROTC or OCS, no matter how great those programs may be. I would be one of those.:thumb:

I greatly challenge his assertion that there is no difference between ROTC and SA products. They produce very similar field grade officers. They do not produce equal company grade officers.
 
There are some good ideas in the article, but if all of them were implemented, wouldn't the SA's just be like every other university in the nation? Reading his bio, it's clear the guy is brilliant but noticably, I don't see any military service or practical leadership experience in his background - not sure if that's relevant or not for a guy who's telling one of the world's premier leadership institutions how to teach leadership, but just sayin ...

As an aside, I got a kick out of one of his students' review of him as a professor:

"Pompus windbag! Mocks the military while acting as if he knows everything about us. Disrespectfully wore uniform, belittles you w/o hesitation, grades ridiculously, btw, he won't tell you what your EXTREMELY VAGUE paper topic is until the Friday before, then tells you how terrible your writing is."

In fairness, a lot of his students really love him.
 
. . .

OTOH, I think MOST grads look back on their USNA experience in a positive light and MOST would not have traded the experience for ROTC or OCS, no matter how great those programs may be. I would be one of those.:thumb:

Had a year of ROTC before going to West Point. Although I liked my year at the ROTC a lot better than my Plebe year, my plebe experience made me a better person/officer.
 
Came across a very good rebuttal to some of Prof Flemings points:

Here's an excerpt - URL is http://rajivsrinivasan.wordpress.co...tive-point-average-rebuttal-to-bruce-fleming/

"It seems Mr. Fleming’s criteria for mediocrity rests heavily on academic metrics. But I assure my audience that there is very little that is academic about combat leadership. It is about heart. It is about fortitude, honor, and courage. Now, you may call a West Point or Naval Academy graduate mediocre…but try visiting any other college in America and collecting a thousand 23 year old kids ready to lead just as many lives into hostile fire. I doubt you’ll be successful. To produce a thousand officers with the grit and spirit of warriors and the intellectual curiosity of scholars, we need a venue of tremendous investment and concentration: this is why you need the service academies.

I wonder if Mr. Fleming would have been ready for such a calling at age 23. Even if not, I surely wouldn’t have the arrogance to call him mediocre."

Good stuff!
 
Last edited:
It would be interesting to see the stats on USMA, USNA, USAFA grads and how many stay longer than their required service term. Anyone have a link to this data?
 
To the original Poster: you may want to look into Flemming's history before reading too much into the latest article.

Like most activists in other areas, some of his observations have kernels of truth in them. It's the giant leaps he makes with them that are the issue.

My view is that he clearly has an axe to grind, and slamming the service academies is his way to stay in the spotlight.

It does not mean that occasionally he's not spot on, but you really can't count on his work to be objective.
 
Last edited:
Also, I believe Dr. Fleming was misguided in his thought that ROTC students do not receive military pay. I was interested in ROTC, and my recruiter specifically told me that I would receive some sort of pay monthly. Maybe I'm incorrect, but I don't think it's that significant of a difference between their pay and an academy's. In fact, I think the monthly amount was more, because the academy deducts some of the pay for other things such as books, right?
 
To the original Poster: you may want to look into Flemming's history before reading too much into the latest article.

Like most activists in other areas, some of his observations have kernels of truth in them. It's the giant leaps he makes with them that are the issue.

My view is that he clearly has an axe to grind, and slamming the service academies is his way to stay in the spotlight.

It does not mean that occasionally he's not spot on, but you really can't count on his work to be objective.

Hawk is accusing the professor of pleghming all over the academies to stay in the spotlight. Is that a tale of the pot and the kettle? As an ROTC cadet parent I'm going to step carefully around this debate.
 
It would be interesting to see the stats on USMA, USNA, USAFA grads and how many stay longer than their required service term. Anyone have a link to this data?

Towards a U.S. Army Officer Corps Strategy for Success: Retaining Talent

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/download.cfm?q=965

Some interesting findings based on research, not individual observation like Dr. Flemming (again I respect his opinions, but he relies too much on his personal experience/observation)

The Army had always been mindful of officer retention rates as a function of commissioning source— i.e., West Point, ROTC, or Officers’ Candidate School (OCS). Such analysis indicated that West Point officers remained in the Army at the lowest rates; ROTC officers remained at middling rates, and OCS officers remained at high rates (see the grey-shaded panel in Figure 5).

However, when officer retention rates were analyzed according to procurement program—i.e., particular commissioning programs with distinct directives, resourcing, and contractual obligations—a very different picture emerged (see the white-shaded panel in Figure 5). Four-year scholarship officers from ROTC and West Point remained in the Army at the lowest rates, followed in order by 3-year and 2-year ROTC scholarship officers, nonscholarship ROTC officers (NS ROTC), and OCS officers drawn from the enlisted ranks (OCS-IS).6 By failing to anticipate the effect that the information age would have on scholarship officer retention, Army forecasts grossly underestimated the downturn in junior-officer continuation rates that would begin with those commissioned in the late 1980s.

If we follow Dr. Flemming's logic, we should also get rid of 4 year ROTC scholarships.

Consider. Beginning with those commissioned in the mid-1980s and continuing through today, West Point and ROTC’s 3- and 4-year scholarship officers have remained in the Army at about two-thirds to half the rate of OCS officers from the ranks and ROTC officers without scholarships. Years of peacetime and wartime performance data, however, clearly demonstrate that, once commissioned, the scholarship officers [also include West Point] are disproportionately likely to possess the conceptual and problem-solving talent demanded by jobs such as commander, executive officer, or operations officer. Because high-quality education amplifies experiential learning capacity, this talent advantage grows as these officers move from company grade to field grade assignments of increasing scope and complexity

This begs the question of what's the purpose of West Point/ROTC/OCS is, just to produce 2LTs or to produce officers that will become future leaders of the Army. It is what is, as of 10+ Army 4 stars, West Point has more than its share if we go by number of officers commissioned.
 
Pay

Also, I believe Dr. Fleming was misguided in his thought that ROTC students do not receive military pay. I was interested in ROTC, and my recruiter specifically told me that I would receive some sort of pay monthly. Maybe I'm incorrect, but I don't think it's that significant of a difference between their pay and an academy's. In fact, I think the monthly amount was more, because the academy deducts some of the pay for other things such as books, right?

Sciswim. You need to be careful with words like "Pay". It is, in fact, a term of art. Pay, as received by cadets, is taxable. The "stipend" that ROTC students receive is not taxable. As a legal term of art Dr. Fleming is correct and I'm sure that's how he intended to use the term.
 
He is also wrong about the DUI's. A DUI is a one way ticket out of both ROTC and the SA's. Also they both have the same alcohol policy. Its 2 strikes and your out. Also it makes sense that SA cadets get paid a lot more because they are always training and doing things whereas ROTC has their class period, their one uniform day, and their summer training once out of four years. He makes some good points especially about the Prep school but he does make a bunch of unfounded statements.
 
Back
Top