Warning to aspiring C/O 2029

Most C1Cs were very happy up until 18+ months ago. Leadership went to hell after that (except for the Dean. Most seem to really like her). My C1C will say his last year has been his worst for leadership. Passes needed to leave campus, (I could go on and on) as if they are prioners, not future leaders.
 
Can you tell me if it’s true that it’s hard to transfer credits from usafa to civilian schools? I heard this rumor and was curious.
From what I know, it's a crapshoot. You take a lot of USAFA basic preliminary classes your first two years (like at most schools) before getting into the core of your major. The classes are different than civilian schools so some credits do NOT transfer. I am not sure of the % of that.
 
I appreciate the candid thoughts and I'm sorry to hear the past couple years went downhill and ended up with such frustration. Certainly I wish you the best in your career going forward and hope it's a breath of fresh air when you move on to next steps.

DS had been going back and forth on USAFA vs USNA and has ultimately made the decision in favor of USAFA. He knows it won't be easy.

The reason for that is his career. He wants to be a pilot and an officer in the Air Force. Yes, there are alternate paths to get there, but he's known all along that the Academy route was better suited to him personally.

Concerns about leadership are always worth paying attention to. But nobody attending USAFA has ever had the opportunity to choose their Supt. They come and go, and things will continue to change. There was no way the proposed and enacted changes were going to be easy and unfortunately, the 25's-28's bear the brunt of those drastic changes. Hopefully the class of '29 experiences this new approach from a different and more consistent view than those who had it put upon them mid-process. Hopefully the upperclassmen, as leaders, support them in that and help build a better path forward for everyone. Hopefully leadership learns from some of their missteps and rather than pushing the issues of low morale onto cadets, owns their role in it and takes steps to do better.

Again, thank you for sharing so openly. It's important that people are able to enter this process with eyes wide open about what they are getting into.

As for the c/o 2025... finish strong and celebrate well. You're almost there!
 
Happy to answer questions.
I've got one. After you commission as an officer, and let's say you had 15 young, immature enlisted (and were still only 75% manned and desperately needing more troops) working for you who were fresh out of basic and tech school, and really did not understand AF leadership, especially at the top where things are political and resource constrained. What would you say to your enlisted troops when they started bad mouthing you and your entire organization anonymously on social media to include warning others not to join the AF?
 
I'm just a caring dad and did not attend the academy, so some of what I read here is confusing. Can someone concisely explain the difference between the good academy (from reading here, I guess that means in the past) and the bad academy (now, I guess) from military, academic, athletic, and social perspectives? This is what I think I understand from reading here, but, like I said before, I'm not confident that my understanding is consistent with the complaints here:

1. Military standards are more lax under current leadership. It seems that the primary, or one of the primary complaints, is that upperclassmen aren't allowed or able to instruct lowerclassmen like they were in the past.

2. Because of budget cuts and an increased emphasis on military instructors, civilian instructors are encouraged or asked to resign. The concern is that specific programs—particularly engineering—may suffer or even lose accreditation without a one-for-one replacement with military instructors and that other programs (especially DEI and women's studies-type programs) will be eliminated.

3. Because current leadership reduced leave passes and didn't increase food supply, there wasn't enough food for the cadets. Further, the medical staff was overwhelmed in the infirmary because, at least in part, there wasn't enough staff to accommodate the increased number of cadets on campus.

4. Unlike the other academies, USAFA leadership decided that all cadets are no longer required to attend football games. The result is lower attendance and a worsened home-field advantage. Additionally, it is a departure from USAFA's history and the practices of West Point and the Naval Academies (both of which had outstanding seasons last year), which still require full attendance.

I'm not endorsing or criticizing any of the above. I'm trying to understand the fundamental basis of the recent complaints.
 
I'm just a caring dad and did not attend the academy, so some of what I read here is confusing. Can someone concisely explain the difference between the good academy (from reading here, I guess that means in the past) and the bad academy (now, I guess) from military, academic, athletic, and social perspectives? This is what I think I understand from reading here, but, like I said before, I'm not confident that my understanding is consistent with the complaints here:

1. Military standards are more lax under current leadership. It seems that the primary, or one of the primary complaints, is that upperclassmen aren't allowed or able to instruct lowerclassmen like they were in the past.

2. Because of budget cuts and an increased emphasis on military instructors, civilian instructors are encouraged or asked to resign. The concern is that specific programs—particularly engineering—may suffer or even lose accreditation without a one-for-one replacement with military instructors and that other programs (especially DEI and women's studies-type programs) will be eliminated.

3. Because current leadership reduced leave passes and didn't increase food supply, there wasn't enough food for the cadets. Further, the medical staff was overwhelmed in the infirmary because, at least in part, there wasn't enough staff to accommodate the increased number of cadets on campus.

4. Unlike the other academies, USAFA leadership decided that all cadets are no longer required to attend football games. The result is lower attendance and a worsened home-field advantage. Additionally, it is a departure from USAFA's history and the practices of West Point and the Naval Academies (both of which had outstanding seasons last year), which still require full attendance.

I'm not endorsing or criticizing any of the above. I'm trying to understand the fundamental basis of the recent complaints.
This is my personal observation. I could be totally wrong. After talking with many many current cadets, grads, admissions officials, current officers, and even a brigadier general on the subject, the conclusion I have drawn is that somewhere along the way (especially under the leadership just prior to current) USAFA got super soft. They are now in a course correct to remedy that. It’s not popular with people who liked it soft. It’s in the early stages. It’s not easy or without mistakes. Is USAFA more an academic institution that provides a commission or is it more a military institution that provides a degree? The pendulum swings between the two and we are moving toward the later. If your goal is to serve and commission you’ll probably like it. If you have other motivations you probably won’t. But one thing is for sure, it will swing again at some point. I will personally find out if this take is correct in the next 4 years.
 
1. Standards are more lax for Freshmen. Upperclassmen are more restricted to base.

4. Is more complicated. I actually liked that cadets supported other sports in addition to football. As I understand it, half of the cadets are at attendance at every football game. The ones that aren't are supposed to be/have supported other sports teams. The ones in attendance at the football game can't be spirited like they used to be.

5. The loss of Ops AF (possibly), Club travel, Research travel etc.... The many really cool opportunities that cadets had are now apparently gone.

6. Traditions are gone such as the Spirit Weeks leading up to Recognition. The really cool Recognition traditions (I think they will still have a run to the rock and ice cream.) but not the meaningful ones.
 
Last edited:
@CFTeamMom
Standards got slack during the COVID years. Like everyone else who was Zooming in sweatpants for work, USAFA needed to return to uniform standards.

Regarding things being soft, training was actually much, much harder before. I think that's what exasperates people. It's actually softer now by far! People don't want it soft. They wanted meaningful training. Moga was not a soft guy.
 
Last edited:
1. Military standards are more lax under current leadership. It seems that the primary, or one of the primary complaints, is that upperclassmen aren't allowed or able to instruct lowerclassmen like they were in the past.
Every graduating class thinks its program was harder than the class that followed. What you are hearing is the cadet version of that...the birth of that perspective for their graduating class. If the Comm told upper level cadets to start training lower level cadets harder, the complaining would be replaced by complaints about having to give up their free time to conduct training, but in the end they would still come to believe their class had it harder.
2. Because of budget cuts and an increased emphasis on military instructors, civilian instructors are encouraged or asked to resign. The concern is that specific programs—particularly engineering—may suffer or even lose accreditation without a one-for-one replacement with military instructors and that other programs (especially DEI and women's studies-type programs) will be eliminated.
The Dean and Supt share your concern about accreditation and they are planning for the loss of civilian faculty by trying to get access to more military faculty and by creating efficiencies in the curriculum (removing excess core credit requirements, dropping unpopular majors). It is unclear if the Supt always wanted more military faculty over civilians, or if he is pursuing this because it is the only source of faculty remaining given the federal government wants to reduce the overall size of the federal civilian workforce, and USAFA is roughly a third civilian faculty. DEI programs and CRT content were removed via a combination of Congressional budget deal (during Biden) and Executive Order (Trump). There are still courses on gender and race at USAFA, but you can be certain they do not mention DEI and CRT.

3. Because current leadership reduced leave passes and didn't increase food supply, there wasn't enough food for the cadets. Further, the medical staff was overwhelmed in the infirmary because, at least in part, there wasn't enough staff to accommodate the increased number of cadets on campus.
Pass packages come and go just as Comm's come and go. If cadets act out, passes can also go. I don't know which is to blame here, maybe both. I really doubt there was not enough food. Perhaps not enough food at the right place at the right time. You would be surprised by how many cadets choose not to eat at Mitchell Hall. Some only eat their own food or delivery as upperclass cadets. I am not aware of personnel cuts to the Med Group. The clinic can be overwhelmed when USAFA behaves like a Petri dish. Mass food poisonings have happened in the past and so many people under stress with compromised immune systems mean the flu and colds rip through the doors very quickly.

4. Unlike the other academies, USAFA leadership decided that all cadets are no longer required to attend football games. The result is lower attendance and a worsened home-field advantage. Additionally, it is a departure from USAFA's history and the practices of West Point and the Naval Academies (both of which had outstanding seasons last year), which still require full attendance.
I had not heard that. Anything that is mandated will not be loved. I've seen the stands filled with blue uniforms, but folks are just sleeping, reading, or doing homework. Now the folks who want to go will go and support the team. Maybe it will turn into the fun place to be on game days since it is not mandated...like at civilian universities.
I'm not endorsing or criticizing any of the above. I'm trying to understand the fundamental basis of the recent complaints.
There at least two sides to every story. You are mostly getting one side here. Sometimes people allowe themselves to become a prisoner to their own beliefs. You can have one junior in one squadron who has one commander and is majoring in Aero Engr and he thinks USAFA is the worst place in the world. His roommate can be a junior in the same squadron with the same commander and majoring in Aero and think USAFA is the greatest place in the world. Guess which one is more likely to post on this forum?
 
This is my personal observation. I could be totally wrong. After talking with many many current cadets, grads, admissions officials, current officers, and even a brigadier general on the subject, the conclusion I have drawn is that somewhere along the way (especially under the leadership just prior to current) USAFA got super soft. They are now in a course correct to remedy that. It’s not popular with people who liked it soft. It’s in the early stages. It’s not easy or without mistakes. Is USAFA more an academic institution that provides a commission or is it more a military institution that provides a degree? The pendulum swings between the two and we are moving toward the later. If your goal is to serve and commission you’ll probably like it. If you have other motivations you probably won’t. But one thing is for sure, it will swing again at some point. I will personally find out if this take is correct in the next 4 years.
Replying to the bolded portion, it seems like those two options shouldn't be mutually exclusive. If you get a degree and commission that places you in logistics, you should aim to be the best in the Air Force and, if and when you get out, so good that Amazon wants to scoop you up and pay you accordingly. If you get a degree and commission that places you in a cockpit, you should aim to be the best in the Air Force and, if and when you get out, so good that a major airline or commercial carrier wants to scoop you up and pay you accordingly. And so on, and so on.

It just seems like a false choice that causes more division than cohesiveness. But admittedly, I am outside my lane here.
 
5. The loss of Ops AF, Club travel, Research travel etc.... The many really cool opportunities that cadets had are now apparently gone.
Do we know Ops AF is definitely being nixed? Or is this another I think I heard from someone that maybe.... Basically, do we have credible sources?
 
Every graduating class thinks its program was harder than the class that followed. What you are hearing is the cadet version of that...the birth of that perspective for their graduating class. If the Comm told upper level cadets to start training lower level cadets harder, the complaining would be replaced by complaints about having to give up their free time to conduct training, but in the end they would still come to believe their class had it harder.

The Dean and Supt share your concern about accreditation and they are planning for the loss of civilian faculty by trying to get access to more military faculty and by creating efficiencies in the curriculum (removing excess core credit requirements, dropping unpopular majors). It is unclear if the Supt always wanted more military faculty over civilians, or if he is pursuing this because it is the only source of faculty remaining given the federal government wants to reduce the overall size of the federal civilian workforce, and USAFA is roughly a third civilian faculty. DEI programs and CRT content were removed via a combination of Congressional budget deal (during Biden) and Executive Order (Trump). There are still courses on gender and race at USAFA, but you can be certain they do not mention DEI and CRT.


Pass packages come and go just as Comm's come and go. If cadets act out, passes can also go. I don't know which is to blame here, maybe both. I really doubt there was not enough food. Perhaps not enough food at the right place at the right time. You would be surprised by how many cadets choose not to eat at Mitchell Hall. Some only eat their own food or delivery as upperclass cadets. I am not aware of personnel cuts to the Med Group. The clinic can be overwhelmed when USAFA behaves like a Petri dish. Mass food poisonings have happened in the past and so many people under stress with compromised immune systems mean the flu and colds rip through the doors very quickly.


I had not heard that. Anything that is mandated will not be loved. I've seen the stands filled with blue uniforms, but folks are just sleeping, reading, or doing homework. Now the folks who want to go will go and support the team. Maybe it will turn into the fun place to be on game days since it is not mandated...like at civilian universities.

There at least two sides to every story. You are mostly getting one side here. Sometimes people allowe themselves to become a prisoner to their own beliefs. You can have one junior in one squadron who has one commander and is majoring in Aero Engr and he thinks USAFA is the worst place in the world. His roommate can be a junior in the same squadron with the same commander and majoring in Aero and think USAFA is the greatest place in the world. Guess which one is more likely to post on this forum?
Thank you for this post. It makes a lot of sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ACa
No credible source for Ops AF. I really hope that is not nixed! Club and research travel, yes, more restricted.
Thank you for the clarification. I hope Ops AF stays and they lift other restrictions. There has to be money for these programs somewhere, right?
 
Replying to the bolded portion, it seems like those two options shouldn't be mutually exclusive. If you get a degree and commission that places you in logistics, you should aim to be the best in the Air Force and, if and when you get out, so good that Amazon wants to scoop you up and pay you accordingly. If you get a degree and commission that places you in a cockpit, you should aim to be the best in the Air Force and, if and when you get out, so good that a major airline or commercial carrier wants to scoop you up and pay you accordingly. And so on, and so on.

It just seems like a false choice that causes more division than cohesiveness. But admittedly, I am outside my lane here.
The answer is always on a spectrum for sure. I’m not saying it’s all one or the other. Just where does it fall in the spectrum at any given time. Seems to be the “existential question.”
 
What is Ops AF? Again, I am showing my ignorance.
A three-week program that allows cadets the opportunity to visit an operational Air Force base and learn how the Air Force functions outside of the academy before commissioning as a second lieutenant. They travel abroad to places like Italy, Germany, Japan, Korea or within the US to Alaska, Hawaii, Georgia etc..
 
A three-week program that allows cadets the opportunity to visit an operational Air Force base and learn how the Air Force functions outside of the academy before commissioning as a second lieutenant. They travels abroad to places like Italy, Germany, Japan, Korea or within the US to Alaska, Hawaii, Georgia etc..
Yeah, that sounds awesome and worthwhile. I didn't know its name, but that program is one of the heavy selling points during football recruiting.
 
Back
Top