Bruce is at it again

NavyHoops said:
. . .

As I said before I don't disagree with all his points, but he provides zero data to support any of it. I suppose its an opinion piece, therefore not needed, but these types of articles are hard to take seriously without it. [. . . ] He keeps recycling the same exact opinion piece year after year. Heck at least an NPS post grad student uses some statistics to either support or defend if a USNA grad is "worth the money."
Click to expand...

Agreed, whole-heartedly (my emphasis added). In exchange for my tenure (that we can talk about later! :cool:) I need to make scientific arguments about justifying my college's Board of Trustees paying my salary, and that means claim plus evidence - which a good history major like you also learned! He is not doing that in any of his recent articles, and I suspect his lack of support for his claims ticks people off almost as much as the claims themselves.

Also, I can't figure out if he's being unimaginative or just obstinate by refusing to consider other ways of valuing service academy experiences and graduates besides the $$ we all fork over. But there again, I think USNA could do a better job of describing exactly how USNA grads are different in the Fleet and potentially later in public life. What does 47 months of exposure to excellent commissioned and NCOs do to shape future officers and citizens? How do USNA graduates compare in motivation, leadership potential and execution, and self-efficacy? (I mean, I can guess, but I'm saying I want USNA to be more transparent about these things.)
 
NavyHoops said:
As I said before I don't disagree with all his points, but he provides zero data to support any of it.
Click to expand...

Professor Flemming cannot provide any data to support his claims because USNA won't release the data. Also even if USNA release complete admissions data, it will probably require a graduate level analysis and additional data collection to determine any patterns. I also agree with some of Flemings points, but since I don't have all the data, I won't make any public claims about the how the admissions process works.

Not related and don't know the final result, but a women's rights group sued the DoD to release admissions data

"Rights groups sue over release of military school admissions, claim women discriminated"

"The Naval Academy responded to the FOIA request by disclosing some records, but it withheld others, the groups said. The Army and Air Force academies produced no documents at all."

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/righ...admissions-claim-women-discriminated-1.327658

I believe Flemings also sued under FOIA for information.

If SAs have nothing to hide, why not release the data. Private information can be protected.
 
LG, yes and no. He might not get the full set of admissions data, but there is tons of graduation data to work with and NPS grads work with it often to produce studies if SA grads are worth the value vs ROTC vs OCS. He has a PhD, I would hope he could take data and produce a report with it. And I am well aware of the woman's group who requested that information. Although (and I have no data to support this), I do not think they would like the women's data if they got it. And yes, the SAs should open up their data.
 
NavyHoops said:
LG, yes and no. He might not get the full set of admissions data, but there is tons of graduation data to work with and NPS grads work with it often to produce studies if SA grads are worth the value vs ROTC vs OCS. He has a PhD, I would hope he could take data and produce a report with it. And I am well aware of the woman's group who requested that information. Although (and I have no data to support this), I do not think they would like the women's data if they got it. And yes, the SAs should open up their data.
Click to expand...

I have read some of those NPS and CGSC grad works. From what I remember from studies about USMA, there is a separation after O4 is terms of performance and promotion between USMA/ROTC/OCS. A PhD means that you are expert of specific area. I am sure Fleming's PhD is liberal arts/English, not areas related to science/analysis. You wouldn't ask a Doctor of Philosophy to do an open heart surgery. Also, data mentioned in those studies didn't address admissions stats. I remember another study linking higher admissions stats (i.e. SAT/ACT, class rank, etc) to higher graduation rate at USMA.

Probably if I ever meet Dr. Flemming and talk to him, I probably wouldn't like him. What I support is his right to express his opinions. I equate to some of the opinions about Dr. Fleming on this board (i.e. I don't like him, so I am not going to break down what he says in detail to give subjective evaluation) to how Trump supporters thinks - I like what I am hearing (i.e. make Mexico to pay for the wall on the border) so I support him (i.e. most rational people will want details how Trump is going to make Mexico pay before supporting him).

p.s. I have access to partial admissions data of applicant in my state to support or dispute Dr. Fleming's assertion. But I don't discuss them because I only have access to partial data. I can form certain positions, but can't support it in public as I don't have all the data to make conclusive positions and no authority to put that data out.

I guess a difference between Dr. Fleming and myself is that I am not bold/stupid enough to make my OPINION known publically with very limited data.
 
Last edited:
Every time I open the newspaper and see a photo of Hillary or Trump, or now Fleming I grind my teeth and remember an old Arab proverb:
"Allah, I thank you for my enemies for they tell me things about myself my friends will not."
 
^^^ Good article. The fact that Salon refused to even publish this tells me they really don't want to have an objective dialog and will only publish articles which support their view of the world.
 
I logged on especially to say three things. First, thanks for that article, Hoops. Second, CAPT Westerbrook provided what Fleming himself has yet to provide or imagine: data and evidence to support his position. In fact, over my lunch this afternoon, I did some similar arithmetic with our college's operating budget and found that our own college's fully-burdened cost of attendance is about $115,000 per year, give or take $10K. (We're a small, private, selective liberal-arts college.) I'm surprised I didn't think about the calculus that way myself.

Finally, and remember this is coming from your token liberal here: every news outlet out there practices selective publication - whether you are a Salon person (I'm not) or an Economist or NYTimes or Fox News person. To me, what elevates a news organization from self-serving echo chambers (cough cough lookin' at you, Salon, Slate, and Fox News, cough cough) is their willingness - or not - to consistently and sustainably engage multiple points of view. That Salon would not publish CAPT Westerbrook's counterpoint just weakens their reputability in my eyes. If they won't publish that, what are they leaving out of their other articles - however well-written?
 
As a Navy grad, I read Flemming's articles with amusement and get a little defensive. I, too, wonder why someone who dislikes the place he has worked for almost 3 decades would continue to work there. I think if he truly feels the way he does, he must be miserable. I know grads who have fantastic records of leadership both in and out of government service. I also know grads who have fallen far short of the "mission" to produce leaders for the nation. I'm sure this is true of any institution producing military officers - SAs, ROTC, OCS. One thing I have learned over my past nearly 3 decades since graduation is that each source produces some top-notch officers and that it's the person, not the institution, who has the character to be a leader.

As a taxpayer looking at all of the waste in government, I wonder if Flemming is on to something. Are the SAs still needed for the America of the 21st century? What value do they provide that can't be achieved at far less cost via OCS. Even the idea that the government should pay for any scholarships via ROTC to some of America's top schools can be mind boggling to those opposed to the military, or even to those looking at our nation's budget from a completely objective viewpoint. Then again, we think nothing of spending a billion dollars on a single aircraft that might be obsolete or simply not necessary to our nation's defense - but I've digressed.

While I do believe there is a place for the SAs in our society today and that they serve a purpose, there is room for improvement. Take for example the plebe year, which I thoroughly enjoyed BTW. Does it still serve a purpose? Should the Plebe Summer be the end of the "indoc" phase with academic year the beginning of how junior officers should be treated? There's absolutely no place in the service for leaders to ever treat subordinates like plebes are treated - especially in today's military. That system is so antiquated that it no longer serves any purpose other than a continued tradition of hazing. Should tuition be charged? Should there be grad courses taught at USNA? Should the shipboard training be extended much like it is at USMMA where mids spend a year at sea throughout their four year stint.

I'm sure there are other professors at USNA who offer their suggestions - when asked. Others who would like to, but are afraid to speak up. While I don't believe a lot of what Flemming has to write about, at least he's generating some discussion on what should be important issues that could result in positive change for our SAs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top