Shortage of Army Officers

*****Time out from our regularly scheduled program*****

RitcheyRich - what have you contributed to this forum?? Nothing, save for a one liner last January. So who are you to talk?

No one has to agree with USNA69 - most regular posters here knows he is just being provacative..... looking for a discussion ....er - I mean argument.

(He knows he is wrong ...... just playing devil's advocate.)
 
(He knows he is wrong ...... just playing devil's advocate.)

I would rather get a couple days of good argument er discussion out of it before you come to this conclusion.

Hey, does the fact that I have thought of two very logical reasons against which I could not defend make me a devil's advocate. But on both, I think I can put up such a smoke screen that you will back down.
 
Last edited:
USNA69, Does the USNA offer the same USMA type graduate school/branch choice option (in exhange for extra years of active duty) for its academy graduates?
 
"No one has to agree with USNA69 - most regular posters here knows he is just being provacative..... looking for a discussion ....er - I mean argument."

So if someone were to say, "youngsters join the navy because they get all of the benefits with none of danger", that would be ok? And is this the tone we want on this forum; if so, count me out.

Sorry, Mom. I know your intentions are honorable, and you're a great moderator, but how many other posters on this forum do you have to make similar excuses for?
 
So if someone were to say, "youngsters join the navy because they get all of the benefits with none of danger", that would be ok?

If that is the opinion of members of this board, sure, would love to debate it. Since this is a service academy forum, I assume you are referring to youngsters attending the academies.

Why do you feel this is true? Give us something to start with.
 
USNA69, Does the USNA offer the same USMA type graduate school/branch choice option (in exhange for extra years of active duty) for its academy graduates?

A simple 'no' would be easy. Anything beyondthat, I am going to demonstrate my antiquity and total lack of knowledge. Hopefully, someone more knowledgable and current will step in and fine tune (correct) my statements.

VGEP allows a select few, around 25 graduates, commence a graduate degree their senior year and are allowed the fall semester to complete it Since it only involves a few months, I think the Navy looks the other way as to any additional obligation.

Another select few, again 25 or so, are selected for medical school. KP2001 can step in here. I think the payback is 2:1.

Maybe a few other select grads receive scholarships and fellowships to obtain a graduate degree, no fixed program, just individual applications, Fullbright and Rhodes type scholarships, maybe a half dozen per year. Again, my speculation would be a 1:1 payback.

The remainder of the Brigade goes straight to the fleet. Aviation and submarines, both voluntary career paths, will have an extended obligation due to the time and cost of initial training.

But in direct answer to your question, no, there is no program what USNA grads may promise extended service in exchange for graduate school.

Schools further on in the career depend upon the type of school. Military schools such as Staff and War Colleges, Test Pilot Schools, etc. have a 1:1 payback while conventional masters programs may have a 2:1 payback, I am not positive. Historically, anyone with a 3.0 undergraduate GPA in a relevant major and decent fitness reports could almost be guaranteed post graduate study somewhere in their career.
 
Day after tomorrow, thank God. I will have more time to sit at my computer.
 
If that is the opinion of members of this board, sure, would love to debate it. Since this is a service academy forum, I assume you are referring to youngsters attending the academies.

Why do you feel this is true? Give us something to start with."

I think Mom understands the point. If you're having difficulty with the concept perhaps she'll explain it to you.
 
Ummmmmmmmmmmmm - well then - was hoping the little darlins' would need you to be teaching -

About the article -
USNA69 - your assessment was inaccurate and flippant. Anyone with a basic statistics course should understand that correlation does not equal causation.

In any case - it is true that the war has decimated the rank of junior Army Officer and the ranks of the Army as well.
Keep in mind that West Point grads who were lured into the private sector began at West Point during peace time. No other Service Academy has lost as many servicemen and women to the was as West Point has lost.

How can you begrudge someone who served their duty in the Army - who is in their late 20's, perhaps starting a family and looking at getting deployed to a war zone for perhaps the 2nd or 3rd time the opportunity in the private sector that USMA grads have?

How can you begrudged the Army for offering incentives to keep junior officers?
The Army is in dire need of soldiers and officers.
For every potential cadets that you attempt to lure away to the relative safety of a career at sea - you are potentially denying this country a soldier that is needed to fight the ground war.

For you to maintain that all USMA cadets are there for the "free Ivy-League" education is irresponsible and irrational. Most of those who are the "cream of the crop" - could get plenty of scholarship dollars from many very fine schools without incuring a debt to serve the American people in a war.

By the way - USNA grads get plenty of bonus dollars for going subs but I haven't heard about any sub casualties lately.
 
JAM, I think you missed the whole idea of my comment. We know there is a war, we know soldiers want to start families, we know the Class of 2000 signed up in peace time. What we don't know is why The West Point Class of 2000 attrition is 7 times the ROTC Class of 2000 attrition. I don't begrude at all the Army doing what it has to do to retain officers. The submarine bonus that you mention is to retain qualified officers. That happens all the time all across the board.That 89% of those who accept the incentives are WP grads, is the question. The Service Academies are there to train career officers. From the article which I posted which was from the WP PAO arichives, it appears that ROTC is training the career officers and WP is training the 5 and dives. A 30% spread in attrition demands an explanation. Apparently I am not the only one who feels this way. From the article:

and, in the view of many senior officers and West Point alumni, owe the nation and the Army a debt of loyalty beyond the initial five years of active duty
 
JAM, I am honestly surprised in you. I basically quote an article from the West Point Public Affairs Office archives and express the same conclusions implied by the article that is being expressed by senior military officers and West Point grads. In your response, you attempt to deflect the question totally, but somehow manage to call me the following:

inaccurate.......flippant..........irresponsible.......... irrational

What is totally incredulous, is that these descriptors more than apply to your own comments with which you have attempted to divert the focus of the article:

No other Service Academy has lost as many servicemen and women to the was as West Point has lost .................................................... For every potential cadets that you attempt to lure away to the relative safety of a career at sea - you are potentially denying this country a soldier that is needed to fight the ground war...................................................i haven't heard about any sub casualties lately.

I cannot believe that you have stooped to the level of smiley and are pandering on the lives of our fallen heros, those whom we should daily be thanking God that they were there, to defend our country, prepared to give the utmost.

First off, I have never attempted to "lure away" a candidate from West Point. Perhaps you have the BGO mission confused with that of his WP counterpart? :smile: I simply work with those interested and ensure their questions are answered.

"the relative safety of a career at sea". When one looks at WP, approximately two thirds of each graduating class selects combat arms. If you look at the typical USNA graduating class, the same percentages will select one of the following: USMC, SEALs, EOD, or aviation. The first three speak for themselves. Aviation is extremely unforgiving. As unforgiving in peacetime as it is in wartime. In my day, if one spent a career in Naval Aviation, they had a 50% odds of being involved in a Class A mishap, one that either destroyed the aircraf, claimed one or more lives, or, usually, both. Things are slightly better today. But still inheritently more dangerous than the Army on their peacetime camping trips. :smile: And not to be accused of ignoring the surface sailors, being at sea is a dangerous business. Unreps, flight deck ops (nearly every ship in the Navy has a flight deck, and when a helo starts coming apart, the safest place to be is inside the aircraft), and the many other daily evolutions take more than their share of lives annually. Another aside, with each day the war in Iraq continues, there is a proportionalte increase in the number of volunteers who are turned away from the ever-increasing pool that is allowed to go Marine option.

" I haven't heard about any sub casualties lately". JAM, where do you get your news? Remember our fallen sailors who were washed overboard recently on the boat coming out of Holy Lock, I think? Remember the Soviet boats that have gone down with all hands a few years ago. There but by the grace of God, went American sailors. The families of the 3500 US sub sailors who have given their lives for our country would beg to differ with you. It takes a special breed of person to drive around below the surface of the sea, his life depending on a single weld, a single possibly flawed casting. Sure, our shipyards are more professional, our inspections more thorough, our sailors better trained. But someday there will be reduced federal funding, and we, as always, will try to do more with less, and we will lose another boat. It is a dangerous business, JAM.

Naval Academy grads will initially go to sea duty. They will then rotate basically three year periods of sea-shore-sea, etc duty for their JO careers. Because of the shortage of Army officers, overall, two thirds of our sailors, including Naval Academy grads, during their precious shore duty assignments, where they have seen very little of their families during the previous sea duty assignment, will spend a one year augmentation, augmenting either the Army or a joint staff, somewhere in the Middle East. They will go in harms way. JAM, I think you yourself posted the article about one of the many sailors, on Individual Augmentation, who has given his life fighting for our country.

If you go into Memorial Hall at the Naval Academy, you will see the names of the grads who have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanastan. Their proportions are that of West Point.

So bottom line JAM, just because WP is carrying their fair share of the load, no, I don't buy your uninformed, inaccurate, flippant, irresponsible, irrational observations. And I do indeed find it very distasteful to compare the lives and risks of all our heroic young men and women. I would have thought you would, also.

Let's get back to the article. Why are WP grads 7 times more likely to exit the service, given no retention incentives, than their ROTC counterparts?
 
Last edited:
Let's get back to the article. Why are WP grads 7 times more likely to exit the service, given no retention incentives, than their ROTC counterparts?

Back in my college days I was a frequent visitor to the tables manned by military recruiters in our campus union building. I remember a conversation with a Naval Officer who worked as a meteorologist. He was a USNA graduate, probably from a class in the late 1960's. I asked him about how officers from different commissioning paths are treated, academy vs. ROTC. I was curious if ROTC graduates were considered inferior to academy grads.

He told me something to the effect that very early in the officer's career the generic academy graduate will likely receive more favorable treatment compared with the generic ROTC graduate but later on treatment is based solely on merit and accomplishment regardless of where they received their commissions.

The reason for the early difference, he said, is that the academy graduate is perceived as having made a deep commitment to military service when they were 18 years old and by virtue of the academy education spent four years in a demanding military lifestyle/environment that cannot be approached by the typical civilian college or university ROTC experience.

If what he told me is true then it follows that the WP grad has sacrificed much more to achieve the same rank and opportunities available to the ROTC grad. It's possible that the WP grad reaches a point in the career where the cost/benefit ratio of continued service levels out sooner than the ROTC grad. Maybe WP grads are seven times more likely to 'burn out' or desire to 'expand their horizons'. Whatever the reason, the first rule of economics still applies even to WP grads and apparently the Army recognizes that by their offering of incentives.
 
He told me something to the effect that very early in the officer's career the generic academy graduate will likely receive more favorable treatment compared with the generic ROTC graduate but later on treatment is based solely on merit and accomplishment regardless of where they received their commissions.............................................. Maybe WP grads are seven times more likely to 'burn out'

I can't buy your "burnout" theory. Your cause does not support your effect at all. Actually, I see it as just the opposite. If this were the case and academy grads had it easier, which I neither agree or disagree with, ROTC grads would have to work harder and, thusly, be more subject to "burnout". I think a more plausable continutation of your causes would be that the ROTC graduates work harder and, thusly, become more career-oriented officers. My assumption was that you considered the post graduate portion as a cause for burnout. If I was wrong and you were referring to undergraduate stresses, that is an entirely different story.

As for your cause-effect theory, if you are saying they are treating the whole experience as an economic model and feel that their five year payback more than compensates for the four years education that was received, I, along with their seniors and fellow graduates, as per the article, disagree. The SAs are there to train career officers, not economics analysts.

You briefly mention "expanded horizons" but give no reasons to support why this might be different than that of a ROTC grad.
 
Last edited:
Okay, let's try this one more time:

Agree or disagree? The generic service academy degree requires more demands on the graduate than the generic civilian college degree.

Agree or disagree? The generic service academy educational experience is unique compared to the generic civilian college experience.

Agree or disagree? The average service academy student has a higher potential of graduating from nearly any civilian college than his/her civilian college student counterpart has of graduating from any service academy.

Agree or disagree? The effort required to graduate from a service academy is greater than the effort required for a ROTC student to graduate from nearly any civilian college.
 
Agree or disagree? The generic service academy degree requires more demands on the graduate than the generic civilian college degree.

Disagree

Agree or disagree? The generic service academy educational experience is unique compared to the generic civilian college experience.

Agree

Agree or disagree? The average service academy student has a higher potential of graduating from nearly any civilian college than his/her civilian college student counterpart has of graduating from any service academy.

Neutral to possibly disagree

Agree or disagree? The effort required to graduate from a service academy is greater than the effort required for a ROTC student to graduate from nearly any civilian college

Agree
 
Why do you disagree on the first point?

Please enlighten me here, but do academies routinely allow their students more than four years to get a degree like civilian colleges do? Do academies allow students to take reduced course loads as long as they are progressing toward a degree?

Do civilian colleges require their students to train during summers?
 
Why do you disagree on the first point?

To put a statement to an agree/disagree position is similiar to defending a proof. It must meet all situations for me to agree. Therefore, limiting my responses only to pertinent situations, I will say that the demands of a SA degree are absolutely no different than the demands of a civilian degree from a ROTC student.

Please enlighten me here, but do academies routinely allow their students more than four years to get a degree like civilian colleges do?

Of course not on a routine basis. But occassionally it does happen.


Do academies allow students to take reduced course loads as long as they are progressing toward a degree?

Sure, so long as the reduced load allows 140 semester hours of credit within 4 years.

Do civilian colleges require their students to train during summers?

Many degrees from many colleges require summer internship periods, but as a rule, no.
 
"JAM, I am honestly surprised in you.............I cannot believe that you have stooped to the level of smiley and are pandering on the lives of our fallen heros, those whom we should daily be thanking God that they were there, to defend our country, prepared to give the utmost."

Let me see if I understand you correctly USNA69; are these the same fallen heroes whom you claim most of which entered West Point "... just looking for a free Ivy-League-quality education"?

Would you tell the father or mother, husband or wife, brother or sister, son or daughter, friend or comrade, of a one of the more than fifty deceased West Point graduates that their loved one was killed because they were probably "just looking for a free Ivy-League-quality education"?

Would you enter any one of the dozens of hospitals across the nation and tell any one of the hundreds of permanently maimed West Point graduates that they were wounded because they were probably "just looking for a free Ivy-League-quality education"?

Normally the answer would be, "of course you wouldn't." However, and with regard to you, under the circumstances you'll forgive me if I find the answer isn't entirely obvious.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt for a moment. How is it then that you post in a public forum specifically for and frequented by potential, serving, and former members of the military and their families, and make the claim that "many, if not most, high cost WP grads are just looking for a free Ivy-League-quality education."?

Is it unconceivable to you than any of those friends, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, spouses or comrades of a fallen West Point graduate will ever see your post? Just what do you think their reaction to your claim might be? Do you imagine that any of them will agree with your hypothesis?

And so you cast aspersions on the motivation of these fallen heroes and by doing so denigrate their sacrifice. But for you that's not good enough; when someone comes their defense you feint umbrage and claim that they are pandering. Imagine that someone would add the one and one of your argument together, discover the answer is two, and come to their defense.

Somehow, USNA69, I don't think you're fooling anyone. Nor do I think that in light of your scurrilous attack on their motivation to serve that that any of those from the United States Military Academy who have sacrificed on behalf of our nation need, or will be grateful for, your defense.
 
Last edited:
As we speak, the forums are replete with young men and women being offered LOAs to West Point. Offers to young men and women who have not yet completed the application. Offers to young men and women who have only completed a very basic preliminary application. Offers to young men and women who in no way, shape, or form have indicated to anyone why they completed the preliminary application. We have no clue as to why they did the initial application. All we know is that they will show up next summer as members of the Class of 2012. They were able to "fog" an academic mirror. No more. No less. West Point is doing a disservice to those who have diligently gone through all the admittance procedures by throwing these unknowns, these potentially bad apples, into the class. You don't know their motives, I don't know their motives, and of the greatest concern, West Point doesn't know their motives. This has been going on way to long for way too many cadets.
 
Back
Top