Getting rid of Annapolis & West Point?

The Renegade · Apr 20, 2009

Ran across this article in the Washington Post, Why We Should Get Rid of West Point, that talks about getting rid of service academies (West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force Academy) in order to save money and trim the DoD's budget.

I agree with the overall idea (although the upper chain would never let that happen), but I'm more interested in the war college part. Could civilians-military class mix actually provide a more well-rounded insight on military strategy then an all military class?

I say yes... how say you?

Not trying to strike up a USNA vs. NROTC vs. OCS thread, so I hope we can keep this civil

!

DanMa1156 · Apr 20, 2009

I think this has come up on AW one before and it's certainly made some rounds here. I'd point you to this NPS study (which I haven't read in quite some time), but as I recall the jist is that at least up to the 0-4 level, USNA is the most cost effective comissioning source.

I know this is actually quite different for the Marines (we've been studying it in one of my classes), but the Marines have more commissioning options for what would be considered URL Officers than the Navy does.

desertoasis · Apr 20, 2009

DanMa1156 said:
...at least up to the 0-4 level, USNA is the most cost effective comissioning source...

You'd think the opposite would be true...don't the overwhelming majority of JOs come from sources other than USNA? My assumption is the the NROTC grads are wanting the 'four and out' plan much more than the USNA grads...I could be wrong, though...at least at my old unit and the other units I interacted with, I'd say a little more than half the people weren't making it more than a 4 or 5 year thing.

Can't speak to the OCS crowd cause I don't know how they lean.

eddie · Apr 20, 2009

Do you go to a War College to "broaden your mind" in further liberal education, or do you go to a War College to train up for staff and command?

wingsB4rings · Apr 20, 2009

The Renegade said:
Could civilians-military class mix actually provide a more well-rounded insight on military strategy then an all military class?

No. If this were the case, then NROTC grads would be far superior in terms of all shades of a military officer. Both commissioning sources provide an equal caliber of officer, in my opinion.

As far as the civilian military class mix, this is a terrible argument in the name of "well-roundedness." Explain to me what insight on military strategy an NROTC midshipman gains by taking classes with your average Joe college kid, age 19-22. All he is learning from these guys is where the next kegger is (which is an important part of a coming-of-age JO, it just has nothing to do with anything related to "insight on military strategy").

nzachman · Apr 20, 2009

Ignore...math sucked....back with new numbers soon

phrogdriver · Apr 20, 2009

eddie said:
Do you go to a War College to "broaden your mind" in further liberal education, or do you go to a War College to train up for staff and command?

Caveat emptor: I haven't gone myself. I'm PME complete up to Command and Staff via correspondence and seminar and have a civilian masters' that I got going part-time.

However, the answer is: a little of both.

PME in general goes from a trade school level, and sometimes high-school level, in the junior enlisted ranks, to AA/BS level for staff NCOs and company-grade (O-1 to O-3) to a low-end masters' at the majors' level, to higher-level thought with a technical flavor at the ltcol level. As you progress, there's less of the "how" and more of the "why."

I think the war colleges are important. A civilian school just isn't going to spend a lot of time on the technical aspects of how wars are commanded and fought. They may have solid programs in military history and theory, but I don't think that many, and certainly not enough to accept the numbers we're talking about, are capable of giving the type of instruction the military needs.

There might very well be room to go more joint and reduce redundancy, but I think professional war colleges are important. That said, the fellowships to civilian programs are important, and might even merit expansion, but they can't completely supplant the in-house programs.

As far as the academy thing, I'm an NROTC guy, but they have to stay. History and tradition are important, for one. They have a lot of cachet and attract a lot of high-quality applicants, as well. The popularity of the military ebbs and flows, but the academies can be counted upon to produce a nucleus of qualified officers with standardized training.

PropAddict · Apr 20, 2009

The Renegade said:
Ran across this article in the Washington Post, Why We Should Get Rid of West Point, that talks about getting rid of service academies (West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force Academy) in order to save money and trim the DoD's budget.

Not going to happen. For one thing, ROTC is a bigger chunk of $$ overall and it's eminently more scalable in terms of budget cuts. The money there is just all spread-loaded so it's not as visible a target to civilian bean counters.

On your "academic diversity" point, I'd argue for an extension of the logic here:

"The theoretical broadening which comes from having many humanities subjects on the campus is offset by the general dopiness of the people who study these things."
-Dick Feynman

. . .but I'm just a knuckle-dragging enginerd from Shipwreck Tech.

Junkball · Apr 20, 2009

DanMa1156 said:
...but as I recall the jist is that at least up to the 0-4 level, USNA is the most cost effective comissioning source.

desertoasis said:
You'd think the opposite would be true...don't the overwhelming majority of JOs come from sources other than USNA? My assumption is the the NROTC grads are wanting the 'four and out' plan much more than the USNA grads...I could be wrong, though...at least at my old unit and the other units I interacted with, I'd say a little more than half the people weren't making it more than a 4 or 5 year thing.

Can't speak to the OCS crowd cause I don't know how they lean.

Cost effectiveness =/= greater numbers

I think you proved DanMa's point by mistake. Cost-effective commissioning means retention, and I would guess NA grads are retained at a higher rate, which equals cost effectiveness, despite the high sunk cost of their education.

desertoasis · Apr 20, 2009

Junkball said:
Cost effectiveness =/= greater numbers

I think you proved DanMa's point by mistake. Cost-effective commissioning means retention, and I would guess NA grads are retained at a higher rate, which equals cost effectiveness, despite the high sunk cost of their education.

That I did. I seem to be having an off-day today.

See the 'POTUS and Hugo Chavez' thread to laugh at me further. :eek:

e6bflyer · Apr 20, 2009

desertoasis said:
You'd think the opposite would be true...don't the overwhelming majority of JOs come from sources other than USNA? My assumption is the the NROTC grads are wanting the 'four and out' plan much more than the USNA grads...I could be wrong, though...at least at my old unit and the other units I interacted with, I'd say a little more than half the people weren't making it more than a 4 or 5 year thing.

Can't speak to the OCS crowd cause I don't know how they lean.

From what I have seen in the aviation and sub communities, commissioning source has little or nothing to do with either their performance as an officer or the decision to make a career of the Navy. Academy guys owe one more year for their education, but most post-commissioning training obligations run longer than the 5 years anyway. I would be interested to see any evidence that this is not the case.

BACONATOR · Apr 20, 2009

desertoasis said:
You'd think the opposite would be true...don't the overwhelming majority of JOs come from sources other than USNA? My assumption is the the NROTC grads are wanting the 'four and out' plan much more than the USNA grads...I could be wrong, though...at least at my old unit and the other units I interacted with, I'd say a little more than half the people weren't making it more than a 4 or 5 year thing.

Can't speak to the OCS crowd cause I don't know how they lean.

I'm pretty sure that's dead wrong. Facts notwithstanding, I remember hearing that the majority of Naval Officers come from the Academy. Next up ROTC and OCS fills in the blanks.

MasterBates · Apr 20, 2009

The breakdown in my YG is about 1/3 each

ROTC and USNA both put out pretty consistent numbers year to year, and OCS is an easy off/on spout to take care of manning shortages or excesses.

PropAddict · Apr 20, 2009

OttoWrote8 said:
I'm pretty sure that's dead wrong. Facts notwithstanding, I remember hearing that the majority of Naval Officers come from the Academy. Next up ROTC and OCS fills in the blanks.

Funny, we always heard it was ROTC first, then USNA. It just seemed like USNA was primary because there were 1000 of us from the same school, but ROTC were all from different skools.

My claim comes with data. Sort of:

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]Table 4.3. FY 1998 Source of Commission of Active Component Officer Accessions
and Officer Corps, by Service (Percent)[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]Source of Commission[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]Navy [/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]ACTIVE COMPONENT OFFICER ACCESSIONS[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]Academy[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]19.5[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]ROTC?Scholarship[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]16.8[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]ROTC?No Scholarship[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]1.5[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]OCS/OTS[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]23.7[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]Direct Appointment[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]Other *[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]13.8[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]Unknown[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]0.3[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]Total[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]100.0[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]ACTIVE COMPONENT OFFICER CORPS[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]Academy[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]19.8[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][SIZE=-1]ROTC?Scholarship[/SIZE][/FONT]