Perhaps enforce the "old" standards. My frustration with the standards discussion is other than certain standards, i.e. Conduct, UCMJ, Army, and etc, the Supe can establish new standards. It's should not be when I was a cadet. I know certain classses didn't have to pass the IOCT to graduate. Or has passing time for IOCT changed at all. I am sure class of 1850 didn't take the IOCT. Has the minimum SAT/ACT score for a candidate to be consider at risk changed recently even SAT has been revised. when I was cadet Honor Code was administered by cadets, was there a mandate from the Supe change or Cadet Honor Committee change things? Certain things are absolute, but an institution has to change non-absolute things with time.
LTC Heffington's Open Letter
- Thread starter brovol
- Start date
Perhaps enforce the "old" standards. My frustration with the standards discussion is other than certain standards, i.e. Conduct, UCMJ, Army, and etc, the Supe can establish new standards. It's should not be when I was a cadet. I know certain classses didn't have to pass the IOCT to graduate. Or has passing time for IOCT changed at all. I am sure class of 1850 didn't take the IOCT. Has the minimum SAT/ACT score for a candidate to be consider at risk changed recently even SAT has been revised. when I was cadet Honor Code was administered by cadets, was there a mandate from the Supe change or Cadet Honor Committee change things? Certain things are absolute, but an institution has to change non-absolute things with time.
The thing that matters most is how our cadets show up at their first duty station and that is dependent on how much they apply themselves while at USMA. The opportunities are there, the access is there and there is no excuse for not taking advantage.
Will there be cadets who don't live up to all the expectations? Yup. But though they may be the most visible, they will be overwhelmingly outnumbered by those who represent the best of USMA. Great day the sky isn't falling people....
Will there be cadets who don't live up to all the expectations? Yup. But though they may be the most visible, they will be overwhelmingly outnumbered by those who represent the best of USMA. Great day the sky isn't falling people....
Thank you for this information and I appreciate the time you took to clarify your viewpoint.. You attended W.P. so I'm sure you have a lot of insight. I am, on the other hand, a general public person who grew up in a family all attending traditional colleges, with no military background so all I've ever known is what I've seen and heard about the service academies. I have always been impressed and respected the heck out of the young people choosing that path and I suppose I bought into the glamour of it. Hearing that things aren't as "perfect" as advertised is honestly------a bit disappointing. I am more sad than disappointed. I hope this all works out and West Point's reputation doesn't take too hard of a hit. And you're right, the Superintendent sets the standards and no one else---I would, however like to see him address even ONE of LTC Heffington's concerns because I refuse to believe he risked his own reputation and lied about every single thing in that open letter just for the hell of it.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,197
****taking off moderator hat....****
Uh...I don't know of ONE reserve 0-6 that was passed over for 0-4, at least not in the AFRC that I served 18 years of my 32 years of service in. If you didn't make 0-4...you were pretty much done. I do know ONE officer that didn't make 0-5 in active duty but did in the AFRC. I read his records, I sat on his board...active duty made a huge mistake. It was rectified by the AFRC.
But...to put a comment that says "many a reserve 0-6 was passed over for 0-4..." I'd love to see your statistics/evidence, because my career doesn't show that.
The AFRC Colonel...
Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
14 years active, 18 years active reserve
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2010
- Messages
- 895
Not everyone agrees with the change from the attritional model that USMA operated under to the developmental model it currently operates under now. Where before, if you messed up once in any pillar (i.e. failed a class), you were gone, now there is more room for cadets to improve weak areas. In my opinion, this model is better. Cadets coming in are incredibly young, and while they think they might have a clue about life, they're still just really figuring it out. There should be room for growth. Let me give two examples from two different pillars.
First, one of my classmates who were offered the right to retest after being academically separated for failure in military movement, one of the DPE courses. This cadet had been extremely weak physically, filling the role of "that new cadet" who couldn't keep up running or do anything to help the squad physically. When you looked at this cadet at the end of our plebe year, the typical sentiment was this cadet would not be able to fulfill the role of being an Army leader because of the failure in PT. Why would anyone follow someone who couldn't take care of themselves? This cadet went home that summer, with that academic board serving as the kick in the butt needed, to completely change their lifestyle. Upon graduation, and now having been a PL and XO in the Army, I don't know many of my classmates that are better, more effective leaders than this current officer in our year group. That cadet took the wakeup call, got in shape, and more importantly, learned a lot about how to help others finding themselves in similar positions so they can develop their own subordinates and make the unit better. Under the old model, this cadet would've been kicked out, no questions asked, and the Army would have lost a great leader, the time, and the cost of training with absolutely nothing in return.
Second example, I know a cadet found on honor second semester their firstie year. The decision was to give this cadet the Army mentorship program versus separation and requiring him to pay for his schooling. As a result, this cadet went out into the force, had to learn some incredibly hard lessons, deployed, before coming back to school and graduating. The experience was an extremely humbling one for him and from what I have seen, has only made him a better person and better leader for it. The point being, this cadet was given the chance to redeem himself, and now the Army only has a better product than they would've had they just decided to cut him completely. Both of these stories are just anecdotes, but hopefully they serve as a snapshot into the reason why the developmental model exists.
Now for some of the other grads, firstie year is definitely past the time for any kind of cut off that folks should know right and wrong for the honor code, developmental model or not. I agree, and there were some extenuating circumstances going on with that cadet that allowed for him to be given the second chance, but that's the point. The Academy doesn't look at cadets as needing to be strong in one area. Its a whole person concept. Both of the cadets that I used as example had some great strengths in other areas of their lives and folks advocating that they could turn things around that allowed the boards they were coming in front of and ultimately the Supe to look at them and think they were worth the time and investment to continue. That cadet who was found on honor turned himself in, knowing the consequences of doing so. He didn't let one mistake define him, and he went to go fix it. Honor is black and white, but people's lives are not.
I'll end by saying, I'm still incredibly thankful for the institution that I graduated from, and I truly believe it will continue to produce great leaders for our military as it has been for the last two centuries. Are there folks who graduate from USMA that shouldn't? Yes, its not a perfect institution. It never will be. Talk to female grads from the 80's or when you look back at how racial integration played out for the first African-American cadets and how shamefully the Corps acted then. While I was at school, I saw weaknesses in the institution around me (and still do both at school and in the force as whole), but it seems to still be doing a good job overall. I meet just as many of my peer group and those younger than me that impress me for what they are doing on a continual basis for our nation and its Army as the old grads that I meet so I would argue that the output hasn't changed: the majority of officers that graduate USMA will serve the Army honorably and effectively. Just because something was done one way in the past does not mean its bad. Tradition is great, but it needs to serve a purpose. I have trust and faith in the current leadership at the Academy to continue to work through the modern issues the Academy faces today and make progress while staying true to its roots as one of the premier leadership institutions in the world.
First, one of my classmates who were offered the right to retest after being academically separated for failure in military movement, one of the DPE courses. This cadet had been extremely weak physically, filling the role of "that new cadet" who couldn't keep up running or do anything to help the squad physically. When you looked at this cadet at the end of our plebe year, the typical sentiment was this cadet would not be able to fulfill the role of being an Army leader because of the failure in PT. Why would anyone follow someone who couldn't take care of themselves? This cadet went home that summer, with that academic board serving as the kick in the butt needed, to completely change their lifestyle. Upon graduation, and now having been a PL and XO in the Army, I don't know many of my classmates that are better, more effective leaders than this current officer in our year group. That cadet took the wakeup call, got in shape, and more importantly, learned a lot about how to help others finding themselves in similar positions so they can develop their own subordinates and make the unit better. Under the old model, this cadet would've been kicked out, no questions asked, and the Army would have lost a great leader, the time, and the cost of training with absolutely nothing in return.
Second example, I know a cadet found on honor second semester their firstie year. The decision was to give this cadet the Army mentorship program versus separation and requiring him to pay for his schooling. As a result, this cadet went out into the force, had to learn some incredibly hard lessons, deployed, before coming back to school and graduating. The experience was an extremely humbling one for him and from what I have seen, has only made him a better person and better leader for it. The point being, this cadet was given the chance to redeem himself, and now the Army only has a better product than they would've had they just decided to cut him completely. Both of these stories are just anecdotes, but hopefully they serve as a snapshot into the reason why the developmental model exists.
Now for some of the other grads, firstie year is definitely past the time for any kind of cut off that folks should know right and wrong for the honor code, developmental model or not. I agree, and there were some extenuating circumstances going on with that cadet that allowed for him to be given the second chance, but that's the point. The Academy doesn't look at cadets as needing to be strong in one area. Its a whole person concept. Both of the cadets that I used as example had some great strengths in other areas of their lives and folks advocating that they could turn things around that allowed the boards they were coming in front of and ultimately the Supe to look at them and think they were worth the time and investment to continue. That cadet who was found on honor turned himself in, knowing the consequences of doing so. He didn't let one mistake define him, and he went to go fix it. Honor is black and white, but people's lives are not.
I'll end by saying, I'm still incredibly thankful for the institution that I graduated from, and I truly believe it will continue to produce great leaders for our military as it has been for the last two centuries. Are there folks who graduate from USMA that shouldn't? Yes, its not a perfect institution. It never will be. Talk to female grads from the 80's or when you look back at how racial integration played out for the first African-American cadets and how shamefully the Corps acted then. While I was at school, I saw weaknesses in the institution around me (and still do both at school and in the force as whole), but it seems to still be doing a good job overall. I meet just as many of my peer group and those younger than me that impress me for what they are doing on a continual basis for our nation and its Army as the old grads that I meet so I would argue that the output hasn't changed: the majority of officers that graduate USMA will serve the Army honorably and effectively. Just because something was done one way in the past does not mean its bad. Tradition is great, but it needs to serve a purpose. I have trust and faith in the current leadership at the Academy to continue to work through the modern issues the Academy faces today and make progress while staying true to its roots as one of the premier leadership institutions in the world.
Sledge
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2014
- Messages
- 755
You sure did an assiduous job of avoiding gender specific pronouns in the first example. Yet you didn't mind sprinkling them throughout the second. Curious.
To correct any misconception, cadets in the "old corps" were not automatically separated for failing to meet a standard. Those who deserved a second chance often got it. Those who didn't were out. STAP is not new. Retaking a failed course in summer school has been the savior of many a cadet, old corps and new corps. This is not unique to USMA. I got a laugh during a civilian college visit when I learned that, for a particularly difficult course, students were allowed only four attempts to pass the course.
Honor was the exception. A plebe might have been given a little leeway and substantial punishment depending on the circumstances, but offenses involving upperclassmen almost always resulted in separation.
Honor was the exception. A plebe might have been given a little leeway and substantial punishment depending on the circumstances, but offenses involving upperclassmen almost always resulted in separation.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2010
- Messages
- 895
I wrote that post at 0100 my time overseas. No intentional of hiding anything. First cadet was female. Nothing to hide there...
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2011
- Messages
- 869
I read the open letter. I don't know enough about the current state of any of the academies to speak to whether or not it's accurate. To me a lot sounds like hyperbole. There were things that sounded a little familiar to me from my time at USNA, but to a much greater degree than I ever saw. Maybe it is that bad and I now have ammunition to talk **** to my USMA grad husband for months.
I had to roll my eyes at the part about intro to American History. I'm not there, so maybe it's as bad as the LTC says. Or maybe cadets are just being challenged with some unsavory parts of American history that goes contrary to what they learned in high school, and have to analyze the sources and draw their own conclusions, like adults and college students are supposed to be able to do. Learning about women and race! Quelle horreur.
Disciplinary and honor issues also do not happen in a vacuum. If mids and cadets were kicked out for having bad haircuts, wearing civilian clothes when they weren't supposed to, or having unsat uniforms there would not be enough to have service academies. These are "problems" that have existed since these institutions were created.
People in the 18-22 year old age group, whether they are Midshipmen/Cadets, enlisted Marines/Soldiers, or college students, are going to push the boundaries of whatever limits are imposed on them. The purpose of a disciplinary system is not necessarily to kick people out, it's to establish what boundaries matter and maintain them. Mids and Cadets get disciplined by either each other via peer leadership or the administration, figure out what matters and what doesn't, get better, and move on. This is a valuable lesson for time in the active military, where now as officers former Cadets and Mids will have the authority to use their judgement and discretion when their Soldiers/Sailors/Marines inevitably end up doing mind-numbingly stupid things. A knee-jerk overly harsh reaction is not always the answer, though obviously it sometimes is.
I can think offhand of probably a dozen major conduct cases where the mids in question could have been kicked out and it would have been jusitifed and not considered extreme. In these cases, their chain of command stood up for them, they got their bags smashed, they took it on the chin, and they moved on and are better officers for having made a mistake and learned from it.
To wit, these cases I'm thinking of include a mid breaking a cane over someone's head at croquet, two plebe summer detailers hopping the wall to get back onto the Yard after drinking on liberty, a mid throwing a jar of bodily fluids at someone, about a million people drinking underage, and buying alcohol for minors.
I had to roll my eyes at the part about intro to American History. I'm not there, so maybe it's as bad as the LTC says. Or maybe cadets are just being challenged with some unsavory parts of American history that goes contrary to what they learned in high school, and have to analyze the sources and draw their own conclusions, like adults and college students are supposed to be able to do. Learning about women and race! Quelle horreur.
Disciplinary and honor issues also do not happen in a vacuum. If mids and cadets were kicked out for having bad haircuts, wearing civilian clothes when they weren't supposed to, or having unsat uniforms there would not be enough to have service academies. These are "problems" that have existed since these institutions were created.
People in the 18-22 year old age group, whether they are Midshipmen/Cadets, enlisted Marines/Soldiers, or college students, are going to push the boundaries of whatever limits are imposed on them. The purpose of a disciplinary system is not necessarily to kick people out, it's to establish what boundaries matter and maintain them. Mids and Cadets get disciplined by either each other via peer leadership or the administration, figure out what matters and what doesn't, get better, and move on. This is a valuable lesson for time in the active military, where now as officers former Cadets and Mids will have the authority to use their judgement and discretion when their Soldiers/Sailors/Marines inevitably end up doing mind-numbingly stupid things. A knee-jerk overly harsh reaction is not always the answer, though obviously it sometimes is.
I can think offhand of probably a dozen major conduct cases where the mids in question could have been kicked out and it would have been jusitifed and not considered extreme. In these cases, their chain of command stood up for them, they got their bags smashed, they took it on the chin, and they moved on and are better officers for having made a mistake and learned from it.
To wit, these cases I'm thinking of include a mid breaking a cane over someone's head at croquet, two plebe summer detailers hopping the wall to get back onto the Yard after drinking on liberty, a mid throwing a jar of bodily fluids at someone, about a million people drinking underage, and buying alcohol for minors.
Sledge
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2014
- Messages
- 755
A female who had sisters at USMA already, perhaps? And should have known what was required? But, ooh, the propaganda value of all those sisters at USMA when we are trying to reach our quota. Don't think people didn't notice. I think these are exactly the kinds of exceptions that Heffington was talking about.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2010
- Messages
- 895
The cadet you are talking about wasn't the only cadet offered separation with a right to retest coming out of that academic board by a long shot. There were male and female cadets who were both offered it for various reasons (one was math that I know off the top of my head, a couple others also related to DPE). Were they all being given it because of family ties? I really don't think that's the case considering I know two of the other cadets had zero ties to the Academy and were first generation military, but hey, propaganda goes both ways doesn't it? I'd rather like to look what they're doing with the opportunities that they're given and see if they're making anything out of it or if they're wasting it. From that group that I know were offered retest that year, a couple did, some failed and were ultimately separated. It ended up being on the individual to figure it out and now like I said, I see them in my peer group running around as fully competent LT's and I think they're contributing just as much, if not more, than any of the typical average cadet to come out of the Academy. How is that bad for the Army?
Obviously hit a nerve there... sorry. Surely as the "AFRC Colonel", you can find the stats. Also take a look at how many officers separated due to RIFs but were promoted in the reserves (active or inactive) to O-6... to the point: it's easier to obtain reserve rank than regular active duty... that's why I'd put more stock into an active-duty regular LTC (or MAJ); now back to Heffington's letter...
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,197
*******Moderator Hat Still off ******
Again, you're incorrect; specifically your last statement about "it's easier to obtain reserve rank than regular active duty..." Also...I know of no "RIF" officers in recent history that was "RIF" from active duty and ended up making 0-6 in the reserves; I've only known a few to make it past 0-4. Mind you, I'm speaking specifically of the AFRC. I can't speak for any other service. As for "easier" I don't know where you get that belief. The requirements for promotion in the AFRC, again for officers as that what I was, are pretty much the same as active duty: you have to have held the correct jobs, done your PME, sought higher education, deployed with your unit, served in career broadening assignments, etc.
Reserve promotions are unit allocated; that means there has to be an opening for a specific grade for one to be promoted into it. Example...in active duty, since 1989, the promotion rate to 0-6 for "the line of the air force" has stayed fairly stable between 50%-55%. It dipped in 2013 to 48% but has since returned to the "normal" range. This year a major's board was held and the promotion rate to 0-4, again of line officers, was 94%. The challenge with a reserve career (and one of its benefits, honestly) is that you're not moving to different bases unless you want to and a unit agrees to it. The only time a "move" typically comes up is when you're eligible for 0-6; unless things have changed, you have to sign a document with HQ/ARPC saying you'll agree to move to any assignment as an 0-6 selectee to fill the grade.
Now...let me give you an example of the 0-6 selection rates in the reserve. I pulled up the 2015 Line and Non-Line 0-6 selection board results from AFRC. In the line of the AF reserve, participating airmen, the selection rate was 77 officers selected out of 325 eligible; a selection rate of 24%. These officers were in their primary zone for selection. From the line officers ABOVE the primary zone, participating airmen, there were 755 considered and 32 were selected for a selection rate of 4%. Please remember; if you are selected for promotion in the AFRC, you must have a position available for that promotion. Several years ago there were a bunch of officers in the AFRC selected for 0-6; too many for available 0-6 jobs. Those officers that didn't find a position did not pin on and remained as 0-5's.
Hit a nerve? Not really; I'm just about full disclosure and accuracy. And one comment you made was disparaging to individuals: "I'd place a reserve colonel right there next to an active-duty captain, hence, I wouldn't put much stock in what he/she has to say." That is denigrating to those individuals that serve and shows ignorance of their roles. I don't think there's an active duty captain that's ready to command a combat flying wing; but that's what reserve colonel's and brigadier generals do. They also command joint wings; with both active duty squadrons and reserve squadrons. In fact, the only real difference between a reservist and an active duty member is that the reservist might have another job besides their military one; but not all do, there are some full-time "active duty" and "technician" reservists but that's another discussion.
Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
Steve, I definitely hit a nerve, sorry; agree to disagree and we can discuss errors in the points you wrote above if you like... Anyone with 20+ years in the active service understands... For now, suggest we press on and get back to the point, Heffington's letter...
Posting this article here because it definitely ties into Heffington's open letter.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/16...tary-academies-become-disneyland-politicians/
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/16...tary-academies-become-disneyland-politicians/
Wow, a couple of interesting topics in this one....
I have to say that I am pretty disappointed in the quality of this conversation, very negative. I can only surmise that these two professors are disgruntled and fail to understand the environment they were/are in and the big picture they were/are part of. Sometimes you can be so close to a situation that you can't see the forest through the trees. I suggest that the Academies are better now than they were in the past, more dynamic, probably less robotic. This may not be comfortable for everyone, especially people that liked the old ways. Life is a struggle, so is serving in the military whether deployed down range OR at the Academy. I am sure in the aggregate things have improved at the Academies.
To break things down a bit, the Academies are well funded, staffed and resourced. They get some of the best students available (probably better than in the past). In the end, the Academies reflect the culture they represent. The US is going through some hard times. Maybe that is what we are really talking about here?? We should be thankful that these institutions are here and that "some" of the graduates will be there when we need them as leaders in the future both on and off the battlefield. The Academies continue to teach good values and have an impressive curriculum. Whether the professors take ownership OR "all" of the students are taking advantage of their respective opportunities.....who knows, they reflect the culture. Enough of them will rise to the occasion and will excel after graduation. The Academies are not an END, they are a MEANS to an end. It is what the students do after they graduate that counts.
In my 28 years in the military service from Infantry Private to Infantry Officer, and then as a Special Forces Officer, I have learned one great lesson, you normally learn more from bad leadership and experiences than you do from good leadership and experiences. Once learned and subsequently applied, it is all good! I have faith in the system and in this generation of cadets that will learn from everything around them and they will be better for it.
Although I am not an Academy graduate, the Academy represents history, tradition and serves as an example to the officer corp, especially the young ones. The Academies serve a valuable purpose, they are proven institutions.
BTW......changing the subject, I guess this is my opinion (But clearly not only my opinion) based off of intimate observation and experience, simply put, a Reserve/NG Colonel has about as much experience as an Active Duty Captain.
Generally speaking, officers are a major weakness in both the Reserves as well as the National Guard. Although there are rare exceptions, this has shown true time after time. Examples from Desert Storm and more recently GWOT are plenty. I can't tell you how many times RES/NG units were mobilized only to have the units split up and farmed out due to the officer leadership/Commanders of those units not being up to the task. The truth is it is just very difficult to get officers above the rank of CPT/MAJ educated/experienced to a level equal to their active duty counterparts. Unfortunate truth.
I have to say that I am pretty disappointed in the quality of this conversation, very negative. I can only surmise that these two professors are disgruntled and fail to understand the environment they were/are in and the big picture they were/are part of. Sometimes you can be so close to a situation that you can't see the forest through the trees. I suggest that the Academies are better now than they were in the past, more dynamic, probably less robotic. This may not be comfortable for everyone, especially people that liked the old ways. Life is a struggle, so is serving in the military whether deployed down range OR at the Academy. I am sure in the aggregate things have improved at the Academies.
To break things down a bit, the Academies are well funded, staffed and resourced. They get some of the best students available (probably better than in the past). In the end, the Academies reflect the culture they represent. The US is going through some hard times. Maybe that is what we are really talking about here?? We should be thankful that these institutions are here and that "some" of the graduates will be there when we need them as leaders in the future both on and off the battlefield. The Academies continue to teach good values and have an impressive curriculum. Whether the professors take ownership OR "all" of the students are taking advantage of their respective opportunities.....who knows, they reflect the culture. Enough of them will rise to the occasion and will excel after graduation. The Academies are not an END, they are a MEANS to an end. It is what the students do after they graduate that counts.
In my 28 years in the military service from Infantry Private to Infantry Officer, and then as a Special Forces Officer, I have learned one great lesson, you normally learn more from bad leadership and experiences than you do from good leadership and experiences. Once learned and subsequently applied, it is all good! I have faith in the system and in this generation of cadets that will learn from everything around them and they will be better for it.
Although I am not an Academy graduate, the Academy represents history, tradition and serves as an example to the officer corp, especially the young ones. The Academies serve a valuable purpose, they are proven institutions.
BTW......changing the subject, I guess this is my opinion (But clearly not only my opinion) based off of intimate observation and experience, simply put, a Reserve/NG Colonel has about as much experience as an Active Duty Captain.
Generally speaking, officers are a major weakness in both the Reserves as well as the National Guard. Although there are rare exceptions, this has shown true time after time. Examples from Desert Storm and more recently GWOT are plenty. I can't tell you how many times RES/NG units were mobilized only to have the units split up and farmed out due to the officer leadership/Commanders of those units not being up to the task. The truth is it is just very difficult to get officers above the rank of CPT/MAJ educated/experienced to a level equal to their active duty counterparts. Unfortunate truth.
You're a little late to the game with this link. The annual Bruce Flemming editorial has already been deeply discussed in the off topic thread.
2 Great points MFREEFALL! Absolutely spot-on.
This appears to be a constant thought of the DOGs (Disgruntled Old Grads)..."it wasn't like that when I was at WP" ...note the date of this article
http://www.nytimes.com/1970/07/05/archives/west-point-cadets-now-say-why-sir.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1970/07/05/archives/west-point-cadets-now-say-why-sir.html