Should We Keep West Point?

I see! Thanks. I was reading it as "the percentage selected for separation..."
 
oldcorpsdad said:
Well, I might argue with the results part. If you look at the very recent Majors involuntary separation board which was predominately based on derogatory info (DUIs, really bad OERs, reprimands, etc…) the break down by source of commissioning was: (% of Majors separated by source)
USMA: 2.6%
ROTC Scholarship: 5.4%
OCS: 7.3%
ROTC non Sch: 9.7%
Inter service transfer: 16%

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B87O4lCzt8ZDTFdlaWRoT0t0ajQ/preview?pli=1
Click to expand...

If we want to talk about numbers, there are 12 4-star Army generals, where 10 are West Point graduates. Out of 50 3-star Army generals 22 are West Point graudates.
 
Here is twist on the debate - how much does it cost each of us taxpayers to keep a cadet in a Service Academy for a year? Using the $100,000 cost per year divided by quantity of tax payers 216,000,000 (random internet search said 216M taxpayers in 2008) = .0004 for each of us to send a cadet to a SA for one year. Now multiply this by say 4,100 for the Corp of cadets and it costs $1.90 per year, per taxpayer to keep the entire Academy running. Your 4 year commitment to fully educate and train those attending a Service Academy is $7.60.

Someone showed me this illustration when combating the old adage that your child is getting a free education on the back of the tax payers. The example I read recently on FB was this person flipped a 50 cent piece to the individual and said, "Here you go, this should cover your out of pocket cost of my child attend a SA". Using my numbers above it may be closer to 2 cents for one cadet for 4 years.

I'm willing to pay a $1.90 a year to keep our Service Academies.
 
BlackKnight2016 said:
Here is twist on the debate - how much does it cost each of us taxpayers to keep a cadet in a Service Academy for a year? Using the $100,000 cost per year divided by quantity of tax payers 216,000,000 (random internet search said 216M taxpayers in 2008) = .0004 for each of us to send a cadet to a SA for one year. Now multiply this by say 4,100 for the Corp of cadets and it costs $1.90 per year, per taxpayer to keep the entire Academy running. Your 4 year commitment to fully educate and train those attending a Service Academy is $7.60.

Someone showed me this illustration when combating the old adage that your child is getting a free education on the back of the tax payers. The example I read recently on FB was this person flipped a 50 cent piece to the individual and said, "Here you go, this should cover your out of pocket cost of my child attend a SA". Using my numbers above it may be closer to 2 cents for one cadet for 4 years.

I'm willing to pay a $1.90 a year to keep our Service Academies.
Click to expand...

Well, I doubt there are 216 million tax payers.

There are many other things our taxes need to pay for, so before we know it even $1.90 a year is too much. If there are 1000 things, it is $1900.
 
If one is simply looking at the economics, the SAs are pretty costly to the taxpayer... and a bit more costly than a top shelf university. The really big difference from ROTC, as I m experiencing it right now with DS, is 'who pays.' Big chunks of an ROTC education/housing/meals are paid for by the family/individual. And if one is not a 4 yr scholarship, than the chunk is even bigger. And, believe me, I am very grateful for the big chunk the Army is paying for DS.... but it is a lot less than what is being spent at a SA. As I see it, the end result in both cases is a highly educated, competent jr military officer.
I'm all for keeping the SAs but wonder if the 'free everything' plus a stipend should continue. Would things really be different if the SAs had student fees and supply-your -own health insurance, and housing/meal plans? I suppose one would have to exempt all the D1 recruits, or things would go down hill.
 
JMS said:
I'm all for keeping the SAs but wonder if the 'free everything' plus a stipend should continue. Would things really be different if the SAs had student fees and supply-your -own health insurance, and housing/meal plans? I suppose one would have to exempt all the D1 recruits, or things would go down hill.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, exempting D1 rescruits is a GRAND idea! :rolleyes:

Remove "free everything" and "we own you for five years after these four and then a little more inactive" becomes a little more of an issue. "Pay for everything except also be subject to UCMJ" would also present a challenge.

Also remember, it's not ALL free, some of the money cadets/midshipmen make goes to books or uniforms....
 
If one is simply looking at the economics, the SAs are pretty costly to the taxpayer... and a bit more costly than a top shelf university. The really big difference from ROTC, as I m experiencing it right now with DS, is 'who pays.' Big chunks of an ROTC education/housing/meals are paid for by the family/individual. And if one is not a 4 yr scholarship, than the chunk is even bigger. And, believe me, I am very grateful for the big chunk the Army is paying for DS.... but it is a lot less than what is being spent at a SA. As I see it, the end result in both cases is a highly educated, competent jr military officer.
I'm all for keeping the SAs but wonder if the 'free everything' plus a stipend should continue. Would things really be different if the SAs had student fees and supply-your -own health insurance, and housing/meal plans? I suppose one would have to exempt all the D1 recruits, or things would go down hill.
 
I'm interested to know if ROTC cadets are under UCMJ. Anyone know?
 
Ok, feeling flameproof on a Friday so here goes...

Yes we need Service Acadamies, but do we need 5 of them?

Combine USCGA and USMMA into a single Maritime Commerce / Safety / Enforcement school.

Combine USMA, USNA, and USAFA into a single military academy and use the "prep schools" not just for prep, but also for a final phase of branch-specific training/education after graduating the Academy.


In this way we retain all the benefits that SAs bring, reduce costs, standardize practices and education, and potentially even allow "branching" to be dynamic to better serve the manpower needs of each service as they fluctuate.
 
No, they're not. Cadets and midshipmen at USCGA, USMA, USNA and USAFA are all under UCMJ. USMMA is not. ROTC is not.

The above is mostly true...

AROTC cadets are subject to the UCMJ when attending LDAC, CULP, AB,AA as well as other schools and summer internships that are sponsored by the Army. I would assume the same is true for NROTC cadets on summer cruises and AFROTC cadets attending SFT.
 
Think of USCGA, USMA, USNA and USAFA as active duty (cadets and midshipmen ARE active duty). Think of ROTC and USMMA as falling under UCMJ like reservists.

Lumping USCGA and USMMA today shows a lack of understanding regarding what each school does, and specifically what the Coast Guard does.

I'm not entire sure what combining them would do. CGA provides 45% of the officers in the Coast Guard. So you would double the size of the schools and.... what, increase the size of the Coast Guard by 33% or ditch OCS and direct commissions?

USMMA also has trimesters. How would the USMMA folks get their sea time in, and get their licenses in time to join the merchant fleet?

It's like lumping Air Force F-22 pilots in with Southwest Boeing 737 pilots and saying "what? You both fly."

CGA would more easily combine with USNA (and Coast Guard seamanship would immediately take a nose-dive.)

Services have direct commission programs to help indocrinate officers from other services. It would seem like each service is very similar, but they're not. Some (I guess I'm only excluding Air Force here) have centuries of identify.

Certainly the fact that USNA produces Navy and Marine Corps officers shows two services CAN come from one academy. But a natural question would be "Why split Army and Air Force?"

I'm not entirely sure how "ocean oriented" the Marine Corps is these days. Want to combine academies? Ditch the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy entirely. Combine the U.S. Coast Guard Academy and U.S. Naval Academy. Make the Marine Corps entirely separate from the Navy, and combine the U.S. Military Academy and U.S. Air Force Academy into one school, and have the one school the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force.
 
I certainly won't pretend to be expert with the curricula at each of the SAs. That being said, I thought for the big three at least there is not all that much role-specific stuff taught during the academic year.

For example... if you take Civil Engineering at USAFA or Civil Engineering at USNA it is fairly similar. Also similar is the kind of general (but excellent) military and leadership training you recieve at BCT, by being cadre as un upperclass etc. Since you don't even know what your AFSC/MOS will even be until you are mostly through with senior year.... how can it be very role-specific?

What IS certainly role or at least branch specific at the big three is the summer training. I totally agree that we don't need future deck officers learning to repair tanks. But then again.... if they recieve that kind of training out in the field/bases/onboard anways rather than at the Academy itself, then what's the problem?


As for CGA and MMA, my (admittedly limited) understanding was that both of those smaller schools did in fact have more "tailored" curricula pertaining to the maritime, environmental and/or maritime law for the most part. A quick review of the majors offered at those schools compared to the other SAs would seem to confirm this idea of more focused curricula. Just because schedules are different, doesn't mean one can't change to still accomodate all of the non-classroom training opportunities (ie sea year, et al) that make the SAs so amazing.

You are certainly closer to the details than most, so perhaps the groupings are off... or perhaps it's a crazy idea altogether. But with the budget situation seemingly not getting any better, maybe alternatives like this are worth thinking about.
 
MedB said:
I certainly won't pretend to be expert with the curricula at each of the SAs. That being said, I thought for the big three at least there is not all that much role-specific stuff taught during the academic year.
Click to expand...

DD will be taking a soaring class (gliders training) in the spring at USAFA. She's also required to take AF engineering (aircraft design, etc.) - seems pretty role-specific to me. :wink:
 
USAFA83GradWife said:
DD will be taking a soaring class (gliders training) in the spring at USAFA. She's also required to take AF engineering (aircraft design, etc.) - seems pretty role-specific to me. :wink:
Click to expand...

How many AFA graduates end up with positions that are AC specific right after graudation?
 
Off with her head

Remove undergrad from service academies and make them graduate programs for those who have proven or have the potential for greater responsibility and leadership positions. Why invest all that money and training on a high school kid that may or may not have the mettle to succeed. Reward those who have proven their worth. Provide full scholarships to those who would otherwise had been admitted into an academy out of high school. This would keep the tradition of service academies. You would lose the NCAA teams and cheerleaders.
 
So, basically end service academies and come up with new schools. And then, instead of having junior officers at 21 years old, ready to go, give them MORE school they don't need... so they can..... do what, additionally, as a junior officer?

Because here's a secret..... you don't need a master's degree to do JO work. You get it because it's "free."

Also, we have military grad schools..... "war colleges" and post-grad school. Those graduate "academies" exist.... and in large part, they are "awards" for good performers at the mid-grade officer level.
 
What about Senior Military Colleges with ROTC? It has the same experience as West Point but without the taxpayer cost as not everyone is on a scholarship but many still commission.


Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top