Farting in Church

[HokiePilot]

Back then, there were a lot less students dependent on FedGov via student loans, Pell Grants, etc.. Nevermind the things the school gets funds for directly from the feds.

Much bigger club to beat them over the head with now.

I don't consider that a good thing. You?

 

[insanebikerboy]

My opinion, kick shitbags out. Plain and simple, if the Academy would boot Mids that have shitty performance, can't hack the academics, or get into a bunch of trouble, a lot of these problems I think would fix themselves.

Instead, the Academy leadership would tell us that we were the "best of the best" and in the very next breath keep the Mid that got a DUI, or the Mid that stole a computer program from a classmate for a project. That breeds cynicism and it's cyclical between the students, instructors, and leadership, so it becomes the ultimate negative self-licking ice cream cone.

 

[BackOrdered]

Sadly, I remember a small number of classmates really biting off on it (a 3-day Naval History class with a 50 question multiple choice "exam" is really equivalent to a semester-long college class? Really?). OCS is really great bang for the buck, it crams a lot of material into a little bit of time, it is by no means an easy program, and it turns out a decent product... but let's be honest about what is possible within three months.

Having taken NROTC classes and finishing OCS, yes OCS classes are about the same as a semester in an NROTC class. NROTC classes are mad easy and most like it that way so you can focus on important stuff like a hard science major or the mando calculus/physics requirements.

I'd say the only value gained in ROTC academics vs. OCS academics is the open discussions and you can optionally retake the moboard/NAV classes during your senior year to get it down before you hit the fleet.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Bruce Fleming has been doing this for years. It's kind of his thing to get up on his soapbox and complain about how USNA doesn't meet his standards for an institute of higher learning. They coddle the athletes, let in too many football players/minorities who can't hack the academic standards, don't respect women, blah blah. It's all based on "middies I've seen in my class" and stats he can cherry pick. He's never helped run the place, nor is he a grad, former officer, college administrator, or what have you.

I'm not sure what college he has seen that doesn't have to make some compromises in order to satisfy all its demands. The Boat School isn't some small private Quaker liberal arts school.

Don't get me wrong, I am a grad and I'm the LAST guy to say Canoe U does everything - or even most things - right. But disbanding the place (or turning it into a Sandhurst style expanded OCS) just ain't going to happen. The Professor's bleating is kinda academic.

 

[Pugs]

He's never helped run the place, nor is he a grad, former officer, college administrator, or what have you..

No dog in this fight at all but as I look at his bio at http://www.usna.edu/Users/english/fleming/vita.htm it seems to me he has spent a lot of time at other academic institutions here and abroad and at least understands what a decent education is about. I also can't imagine he hasn't spent quite a lot of time discussing these issues with active duty and retired officers as well in his 25 years there and doesn't just restrict his time to middies.

I can't picture the Academy going away nor should we consider doing so for what is, in the big picture, a temporary funding challenge but to dismiss him as "he always does this and has never been anywhere else" seems a bit shallow to this AOCS grad.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Mr. Fleming's teacher rating. Seems to have mixed reviews; people either like him or hate him.

-ea6bflyr

Bruce Fleming has been doing this for years. It's kind of his thing to get up on his soapbox and complain about how USNA doesn't meet his standards for an institute of higher learning.

All that being said....What exactly about his latest article is incorrect or should be discredited because anonymous students bitched about him on line?

 

[phrogpilot73]

All that being said....What exactly about his latest article is incorrect or should be discredited because anonymous students bitched about him on line?

If I must...

We announce that they're the "best and brightest" and then recruit students who would be rejected from even average colleges, sending them, at taxpayer expense, to our one-year Naval Academy Prepatory School. (About a quarter of recent entering classes over the last decade or so has SAT scores below 600, some in the 400s and even 300s. Twenty percent of the class needs a remedial pre-college year.)

He doesn't really get into the article about WHO makes up the people who go to NAPS. Three groups comprise NAPS attendees: prior enlisted Sailors/Marines, recruited varsity atheletes, and minorities. I won't defend the recruited varsity athletes, but he's completely off his rocker thinking that they're NOT going to send minorities to NAPS, even if they aren't qualified for USNA. After all, diversity is the number one priority of the CNO. Prior-enlisted Sailors/Marines may not have the high SAT scores, but they have matured since they took the test, and also have proven their worth to the military - and therefore are generally sent to NAPS to get them back into the studying/school frame of mind. Doesn't mean the rest of the class entering isn't capable of being selected to, and attending a different school. The powers-that-be have decided to increase diversity, and that we're willing to invest in our Sailors and Marines.

Although free time is granted or withheld based on GPA, an atmosphere exists in which studying isn't "cool," and freshmen, or plebes, aren't allowed to take the afternoon naps that would allow them stay awake in class. (Sleep deprivation is used to "teach" students how to stay awake on the job—except there is no evidence that working while sleep-deprived is something you can get better at.)

Umm, no. Plebes are not allowed to sleep between reville and taps, that is correct. It is not to teach them how to stay awake during the job - it is to teach them time management skills, by mandating when they sleep and wake, and when they eat, participate in sports, etc, so that they can learn how to cram the proverbial 10lbs of shit in a 5lb bag - so that when their credit load increases over the next 4 years, they can manage their time more effectively. Again, this is a demonstration of plebes whining to him.

We also claim that students are "held to a higher moral standard," which suggests zero or low tolerance of wrongdoing. But the current emphasis on reducing attrition means that, as many midshipmen have told me, students get one "freebie," such as a DUI. Held to a higher moral standard? The students know that's a joke.

First, everything is on a case-by-case basis there. I've seen guys kicked out for relatively minor infractions, and others retained for seemingly eggregious infractions. It all depends on your overall performance at the Naval Academy, and the responsibility you take in the instance. The guys kicked out were marginal performers who tried to blame the system. The ones retained were generally good performers who blamed no one but themselves. I have no problem with allowing latitude to make mistakes and recover from them. Mr. Fleming, without having served a single day in the military - and only knowing what whiny students tells him, clearly would not. I would argue that the students at USNA ARE held to a higher moral standard than a lot of other schools.​

​

The theory behind student-on-student "leadership" is that students become better leaders when they have younger students to organize and be responsible for. But students complain constantly to me about being ordered around by midshipmen only a year further along who have real power to punish without any corresponding competence. There is no evidence that students practicing "organization skills" and "decision making" on younger guinea pigs while still immature and incompetent does much to create better leaders. As far as I know, ROTC officers, who do no such play-acting, are perfectly adequate.

Again, as someone who has NEVER been in a leadership position ANYWHERE, he's going to question the methods? Midshipmen are (supposed) to be in positions of leadership, mentored by officers/senior enlisted with experience. This gives the midshipmen the opportunity to experiment with their leadership, so that they have some level of experience when they leave USNA and hit the fleet. So I see no problem with this model (and notice - he used the word "complain" which reinforces my point that he has students whine to him), with the exception that orders to USNA aren't exactly considered "competitive" so you may not get the best, most motivated officers to go there and mentor. That's where the failure is... Not with the institution or the system itself. And that's something that he might be able to pick up on if he actually, I don't know, has been in the military.​

​

I could go on and on, but again - it's some guy pontificating about what he sees (via whiny midshipmen), without having a fucking clue about what needs to be produced. Do I think the Academies have bloat and need to change? Absolutely. Do I think they need to go? No. Why? Because as Flash pointed out - what happens 15 years from now when the military isn't riding the wave of popularity it is now, and ROTC units are shut down. You can't turn on the OCS spigot quick enough - and again, you have a guaranteed comissioning source.​

 

[Uncle Fester]

What phrog said.

That's my beef with Prof Fleming. He gets attention every time he puts out an article based on his being a "USNA insider". But he isn't. Something most people outside the Academy don't get is that the academic faculty has little to nothing to do with the 'military training' side of the Yard, any more than the 'Dant's Staff (company officers and the rest) run the academic side.

Doesn't mean he's always wrong. He does make some cogent arguments. But his central argument - and his articles always boil down to "USNA produces lousy officers for how much it costs" - isn't based on any particular data or insight into the process. Dude works there. That's all. Prof Fleming has no more insight into the goods and ills of how USNA produces officers than the guy who cuts the grass on Stribling.

 

[scoober78]

Doesn't mean he's always wrong. He does make some cogent arguments. But his central argument - and his articles always boil down to "USNA produces lousy officers for how much it costs" -

So what about it? As you say this isn't about Fleming, almost all of the previous posts to the contrary...So, three blunt questions:

1. Why is an Academy grad so expensive?
2. How is that price a good value for the taxpayer?
3. Could we produce a 98% product from the Academy for half the cost?

 

[phrogpilot73]

1. Why is an Academy grad so expensive?

The way they figure the cost of an Academy grad is including summer training, travel to and from, meals, support staff, YPs, Admirals, their staffs, etc...

2. How is that price a good value for the taxpayer?

Is there fat that can be trimmed? Yes. I would argue there is fat across the DoD that could be trimmed. I don't think that means that you should just do away with it, much like I wouldn't argue you should do away with the DoD.

3. Could we produce a 98% product from the Academy for half the cost?

This thread devolved into a discussion about that. When you compare ROTC scholarship students, JUST their tuition (not including room & board, meal plans, etc) ends up being half the cost of a USNA mid... Throw in summer training and all the other stuff and I'd argue that it's probably a similar number to USNA...

 

[scoober78]

The way they figure the cost of an Academy grad is including summer training, travel to and from, meals, support staff, YPs, Admirals, their staffs, etc...


Is there fat that can be trimmed? Yes. I would argue there is fat across the DoD that could be trimmed. I don't think that means that you should just do away with it, much like I wouldn't argue you should do away with the DoD.


This thread devolved into a discussion about that. When you compare ROTC scholarship students, JUST their tuition (not including room & board, meal plans, etc) ends up being half the cost of a USNA mid... Throw in summer training and all the other stuff and I'd argue that it's probably a similar number to USNA...

Thanks for the link. Good read. I'd definitely be interested in seeing an intelligent, in the know breakdown. Summer training would be a wash I would think...same cost whether USNA or ROTC...

No axe to grind here, just asking questions.

 

[PropAddict]

When I was there, we were always told that once you got past the initial sticker shock, you realized a USNA education was actually a steal of a deal for the country.

I don't remember hardly any of the elements of why that was so, but one of them was that most ROTC kids spent less time on AD than Academy types, so when you amortized the cost over more years of service. . .

 

[Renegade One]

A good friend and former Naval Aviator here in town who currently heads up the County Public Defenders Office tells me they have an "unofficial motto" which might also serve for OCS:

"A Reasonable Defense at a Reasonable Price!"

 

[LET73]

Whether the sentiments in the article are original or not, I think he does raise a fair point: Why have service academies? As plenty of previous posters have mentioned, most of what he has to say is obviously coming from the perspective of someone with zero military service listening to the whining of 18- and 19-year-olds. These same kids will eventually grow up and be grateful for the benefits of being part of the ringknocker mafia. Wherever they end up in their careers, they'll run into and work with people they know from the Academy, and that's a bond that will serve them well. The question is, how does it benefit the Navy? If a significantly higher percentage of Academy grads stays in significantly longer than ROTC/OCS types, that's one thing, but do they? I know there's a longer active duty commitment, but beyond that is there a difference? I don't think anyone's going to argue that one particular commissioning source produces better officers. No one learns how to be a leader in a military accession program, whether it's four years at the Academy or 12 weeks at OCS; that's what being an ensign is for (and in my experience* so far, a JG and LT, as well). I'm not saying the Academy needs to go away or be reformed to the point where it's unrecognizable, but it's at least a valid question.

*Yes, generally a dangerous phrase coming from a JO.

 

[Renegade One]

This thread devolved into a discussion about that...(and more)

Thanks for the link. Good read. I'd definitely be interested in seeing an intelligent, in the know breakdown.

Don't recall if "this thread" actually has a link to the NPS Thesis same subject. I found it a very good read...but it's long...and needed to be to tell the story of "how we came to be what we are...Officer Accessions-Wise". Good table of contents, however, which can help focus your specific interests:
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
THESIS
AN ANALYSIS OF NAVAL OFFICER ACCESSION PROGRAMS
by William D. Lehner March 2008
Cut and Paste: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA479949