Well- this thread has apparently become more about USMA than the proposal to change ROTC which is kind of too bad as I really thought that the idea of subbing extended concentrated training periods in the summer for weekly limited classroom time is worth discussing.
But to continue with the previous post: MemberLG- we are going to have to disagree about the mission of West Point. IMO- If all you are doing is producing "leaders of character to serve the nation" that's a pretty nebulous concept that is:
A.
not the mission of the Army that funds and resources it, and
B.
It's not the responsibility of the US Governmentto run an exceptionally expensive institution of higher learning for generic reasons that can and is met by aq number of private and state resources already.
If USMA isn't producing career Army Officers as its
first and primary product, then
it has no business being the US Military Academy. It's too expensive, it is hugely manpower intensive to run and takes hundreds of serving field grade Army Officers and sticks them into jobs as college professors -(at a time when the Army is sending Reserve Field Grade Officers on multiple tours to a combat zone - which indicates that it is strapped for manpower), and generally devours something to the tune of 1/2 $Billion annually for O&M and salary to include the AD salaries of the assigned personnel. That's an awful lot of resources to devote to an institution with no calling other than to produce generally good guys who will do well in generic endeavors. Fortunately for West Point the Previous Supe changed the mission statement back to one closer to what existed up until the mid 1970s and one which reflects what USMA is really about and what it's real reason for existence is: preparing Cadets for a career of professional excellence and service to the Nation
as an officer in the United States Army.
Not a career as stock brokers, or management consultants, entrepreneurs or bankers or anything else- - Officers in the United States Army. Not my words -
theirs. BTW - here's an AOG white paper on the subject from 2004 when the retention rates were significantly higher- in which the author says better than I can why this is an issue for USMA:
"I will assert up front that the retention situation is dangerous and/or damaging in two major ways:
1. The situation begs the question: Why should the public subsidize such an
expensive educational and developmental operation only to find that its output is diverted, early on, from its primary purpose?
2. The egress from the active duty Army of so much talent and presence, long before its useful service period has expired, is a loss of huge proportions which can be ill afforded at any time."
http://www.west-point.org/publications/retention-whitepaper/RetentionPaperRev3.pdf
USMA never had 100% retention of its graduates past their initial obligated period of service, and that was never a goal or expectation- for years has been in the 55% range. But if the statistics on retention rates in the Jan 24 Army Times are accurate and are anything other than an anomoly, then it and the Army have a crisis. Keep that up very long and there will be no valid justification for the USMA . Arguments that the country benefits by military officers in civil life are confusing the primary objective with "nice to have" side benefits to the country. Yes the US benefits a lot from having former military officers walking around in civilian life. Good citizenship, resourceful managers and leadership in the private sector are side benefits for sure. But they are not the reason that the military resources Officer training programs and especially not why the Military Academy exists. We don't spend a veritable fortune training officers so that they can do well and make big wads of cash on their own. To use one of Pima's examples: yes the airlines have lots of qualified pilots thanks to former Air Force Officers and that is certainly a benficial unintended consequence. But while United Airlines benefits from the AFA training that many of its pilots received - would the Air Force justify more dollars to funding the training of pilots for civilian airlines because it is "in our best interests" to have good pilots flying my cattle car from Logan to OHare? Of course not. We spend the money to reap the benefits
to the US Military of a well trained and committed professional officer corps. Yes- some of them will leave because it's not right for them and will do well on the outside as a credit to the USMA that first helped form them (and some will leave because they are not living up to the standard we expect of them). But they are side shows. USMA effectiveness- its primary mission -lives and dies by the value it provides to the US Army (hence the mission statement). That 65% of officers leaving on completion of the initial term of service statistic quoted in the Jan 24 print edition of Army Times should scare the heck out of you.