I came across this article and figured I'd see what CAPTalkers thought about it...
The author of this article is proposing the thought of closing the Service Academies (in favor of ROTC programs) and War Colleges (in favor of civilian schools) in an effort to save money and produce a better product.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/16/AR2009041603483.html
I think its rediculous and just another scare tactic. What are the authors qualifications to suggest such a thing. What is his experiences with service academies. I would just ignore it and move on.
He does bring up one good point: a service academy education costs a lot more than an ROTC scholarship.
Off the top of my head, I'm guessing because with the academies, the government is directly responsible for all of the costs of the institution, whereas with ROTC scholarships, they're only paying tuition, and the costs of running the school are shared with other students, revenues from endowments, etc.
As for the staff colleges: as always, the issue here is balance. You want to teach doctrine, you want to teach the military perspective, but you also want to teach (particularly to future flag rank officers) non-military ways of thinking. To this end, a Princeton Ph.D. (as Gen. Petraeus has) would be valuable.
I think priority one is producing a better product, with priority two being cost effectiveness. Eliminating academies and staff colleges based solely on the desire to save money is a mistake, IF it can be shown that those institutions provide a better product. That said, I'm sure like the rest of the government, there are plenty of ways to cut costs without sacrificing quality.
I would go with abolishing the Service Academies, because they are not only not cost effective, but also too rank heavy (Why does it take a 3 star to train 2000 academy cadets, when a 1 star is responsible for training 10,000 ROTC cadets)?
I would keep the War Colleges. But since there is a requirement for Joint Training and service for all senior officers, I would incorporate it into the curricula.
Or they can do like the Brits: get your degree at a civvy school and then spend a year or so at Sandhurst (Army) Dartmouth (Royal Navy) and Cranwell (RAF) learning the trade. Maybe give 'em an incentive: compete and get admitted, graduate and serve a minimum commitment and we might consider paying off all your student loan debt.
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on April 20, 2009, 07:09:32 PM
Or they can do like the Brits: get your degree at a civvy school and then spend a year or so at Sandhurst (Army) Dartmouth (Royal Navy) and Cranwell (RAF) learning the trade. Maybe give 'em an incentive: compete and get admitted, graduate and serve a minimum commitment and we might consider paying off all your student loan debt.
That is similar to the OCS method of becoming a Marine Corps Officer. Basically, it involves getting a degree, going to OCS and the other Officer schools (OCS+TBS+MOS) for a total of about a year or so, incurring a minimum service obligation, and getting undergrad loan reimbursement at something like 15% paid per year of service.
The other branches also have similar OCS methods to becoming an Officer (I must admit- often with shorter training time and better educational benefits than the Marines), but this is the Officer Candidate School method of becoming a military Officer and is an alternative to Service Academies or ROTC.
I am against the idea of closing the academies simply for financial reasons. While both ROTC and the academies produce outstanding officers, the esprit de corps that is developed in the academies cannot be matched by ROTC.
Just a few months ago the Air Force Academy was rated as one of the top colleges (not sure if it was in a certain discipline or overall). I'm sure the other academies rate very highly in also.
While ROTC may be cheaper, that should not be a reason to close the academies. Both are need to turn out officers for a balanced military.
Clearly a few people (http://"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041503437.html") still strongly desire the unique educational experience a service academy can provide. (Go Navy!)
Ultimately, all commissioning sources, from ROTC to the academies to OCS, produce fantastic officers. They all produce their share of not-so-hot officers, too. Just because it doesn't matter where you come from doesn't mean that each path to commissioning doesn't have its pros and cons that will appeal to different people for different reasons. My husband had his own reasons for choosing the Naval Academy over a ROTC scholarship, and plenty of our buddies had their own equally compelling reasons for going to a different school and doing ROTC, or for choosing to live it up "real civilian college" style and not touch a thing related to the military until going to OCS. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think about the military, not everyone fits into the same mold. I see no compelling reason to strip the country of these proud institutions and, in so doing, do a disservice to those future officers for whom the academies would be the best fit.
There will never be a true "right answer". All opinions, no facts.
MY opinion.....the Service academies were created to move the Commissioning of Officers from the old system in the late 1700's (granting Commissions based on name or how much land you owned) to a more fair system.
Our nation produces Citizen-Soldiers/Airman/Marines and Sailors. Citizen being the key word. WE have a non-compulsory military establishment (no drafting, at the moment) that prides itself on being well educated and prepared.
Can we prepare our Officers for leading men and women in Battle at a Service Academy? Sure! Can we do the same at Universities......absolutely. Is one least expensive to the Taxpayer? (ROTC??)
We need both establishments......here is why. Both graduates (Academy, and ROTC) have two different mindsets that play off of each other, and in turn make our military Officer Corps one of the finest in the world. Can it be improved further.....sure.
For those that want to keep the Academies open simply for the "tradition" or the "it has always been there" reasoning, you are wrong. For those that feel one institution provides a better Officer, you are wrong.
Both produce Officers that understand, Mission first......people always. They are compassionate, empathetic leaders who make the welfare of their men and women their priority. They are men and women that have shown or demonstrated a basic understanding of what it means to be a Commissioned Officer to a superior.
Last I looked, A Commission from ROTC and an Academy have the same words on it. Don't let the "Reserve" in the ROTC name fool you. It is only a name.
The author of the article needs to do research and see why both institutions came into being and why both are needed in our modern military.
NOW.....do I think we spend too much money on educating an Academy Cadet.....YES! Should we look at scaling back costs at the academies.....yes! Should we eliminate Academy specific programs that are trivial....(Soaring at the USAFA!) YES!
What ever is offered at the University should be offered at the Academy.......nothing more. Room, board, classes, and clubs. Don't forget, many university clubs are funded by students themselves through tuition. Academy Cadets pay nothing for participating in clubs.
Do most American Citizens believe that you have to have gone to a Service Academy to become an Officer.....yes.
The guy who wrote the article is only giving you his beliefs, not the facts. Lets not base decisions on personal beliefs......but on facts. If we would make all of our decisions based on facts, instead of beliefs or wishes guiding us, the world and our lives would be a better place!
Close the Academies to save tax dollars? Lets look at shutting down other Government Institutions before that!!!!!
They are out to kill everything American, except the car companies.
Could we do just as well without them? Sure we could. Is it worth the headache and heartache to do away with them to save some money? Probably not.
or, we could shell out $1.5 Trillion for no measurable return, and while we're bankrupting ourselves we could completely defund the entire military in a vain attempt to pay for it.
That way we'll be penniless AND defenseless. Awesome.
(please ensure you put your sarcasm filter back on)
Heard the guy who wrote this piece on Talk of the Nation on NPR today.
Didn't exactly impress me with his knowledge.
The author stated that most of the staff at West Point does not have a doctorate. I know that by the time 95% of the teaching staff leaves WP, they do in fact have a doctorate, many have multiple doctorates.
You would not find any University with a higher rate of doctorate level educators.
The guy is obviously misinformed and is just throwing out his personal beliefs. I wouldn't be surprised if he got rejected by a the Service Academies at a younger age.
Can we evaluate the costs of running these institutions......sure! I would rather see one large military academy that educates all officers in the same fundamentals, then operating 3 separate Service Specific institutions. Honestly, a newly Commissioned Officer learns their services important skills at their first Officer Basic School.
There are more important things to look at shutting down TODAY than the military.
He also forgot to mention that many ROTC students do NOT receive a Scholarship and have student loans to pay off after College while serving alongside Academy graduates who have NO student loans to pay off.
Which graduate stays in the service longer? Which graduate promotes higher?
Finally......ROTC and the Academies (believe it or not) use the same curriculum!
In Army ROTC you have to prove your combative skills at a five to six week course at Fort Lewis between your Junior and Senior years, where if you fail, you most likely end up being cashiered. The entire Junior year of ROTC is dedicated to combat tactics and field work. At West Point there is a two week FTX before your Freshman year. It was stated by many Commanders at the Army's Officer Basic Courses that West Point Grads were coming into the Army unprepared for the modern battlefield. The solution was the creation of the Basic Officer Leadership Course (BOLC) where all Academy grads go to get the same material force fed to them that ROTC grads got in their Junior Year. To make it fair, ROTC grads are also part of the BOLC School. But for them it is a "refresher course".
Can we improve the Academies......yes. Can ROTC be improved......yes.
I love it when people throw out ideas and then can not back them up with solutions, processes or implementation plans.
Lets keep all Service schools open and open even more ROTC units (forcefully if need be) and produce more Officers. Lets also allow college students with no desire to join the military the opportunity to take ROTC classes, as the leadership training is better than any course anywhere else!