• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Farting in Church

scoober78

(HCDAW)
pilot
Contributor
#31
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

Wow. Wheelhouse post R1. Thanks. If you are really interested, it's a strong read.
 

Renegade One

Well-Known Member
None
#33
Chalk this up to "Things I never knew until I joined AWs":

Below is an extract from the NPS Thesis discussed above, and a "near-the-end" discussion of all costs associated with Federally-funded Colleges and Universities":

"Howard and Gallaudet receive almost the same amount of funding as all five of the service academies combined. Additionally, their funding comes close to equaling the cost of maintaining the ROTC programs for all three of the respective military services." (Emphasis by poster).

Anyone think shutting down those two institutions will ever rise to the level of public/national debate? Bueller? Bueller?
 

scoober78

(HCDAW)
pilot
Contributor
#34
Chalk this up to "Things I never knew until I joined AWs":

Below is an extract from the NPS Thesis discussed above, and a "near-the-end" discussion of all costs associated with Federally-funded Colleges and Universities":

"Howard and Gallaudet receive almost the same amount of funding as all five of the service academies combined. Additionally, their funding comes close to equaling the cost of maintaining the ROTC programs for all three of the respective military services." (Emphasis by poster).

Anyone think shutting down those two institutions will ever rise to the level of public/national debate? Bueller? Bueller?
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!

I almost posted the EXACT same quote. That blew my mind! :eek:
 

LFCFan

*Insert nerd wings here*
#37
One thing that never comes up in these debates is the GI bill. With a certain amount of service, OCS/ODS graduates can pass their benefits on to their kids. I have no idea how common that is to actually do, but I would imagine that it probably makes OCS less cheap in the long run than just a 12 week program.

As someone with some college teaching experience under my belt, I'd gladly trade all the academy cadets and mids that I've met for most of the students I've had to teach or TA/grade for. I went to a civilian undergrad with an honor code, and while people don't always follow it, the cheating culture I've seen in grad school while teaching undergrads sometimes blows my mind. Colleagues have had to do "detective work" to break up cheating rings, kids walk around on campus talking about how their roommate just gave them the answers, and so on. Students get away with lying and we are sometimes not encouraged to chase them down about it. When they are caught lying or cheating, they get a slap on the wrists and MIGHT be given an F in the course. That's it. And I don't believe they are ever punished for some of the off campus infractions that have come up in this thread, like a DUI.

Some have criticized the academies for not having enough instructors with doctorates or other issues along those lines. One benefit to the academies is that the sole job of every professor is to teach, as far as I can tell from friends and family who went to USAFA and USNA. At any other institution, the PhD toting professors are probably researchers and teach a few classes in between their time in the lab/dig site/archives/whatever. They have 1-3 office hours a week (in fact, this one comp sci prof I had used to have several 20 minute "office minutes" as I came to call them), academy profs get "most available" in some of the various college ranking guides out there. Profs at civilian colleges aren't always there to teach, they come there to do research and get it published - teaching just pays the bills when they don't have a grant. This is especially true in science and engineering, not quite as much in the humanities. To be fair, I have had and have worked with some really outstanding instructors who get accolades for their accomplishments in the lab and the classroom. Many of the instructors are graduate students, some of whom don't even have their master's degree done yet. I taught an upper level class at 23 that I had only taken about a year before when I was an undergrad. Although I received good reviews both times, I was basically given a course number and classroom and no other guidance or instruction. This is not unheard of in academia. You need more teaching/education credentials to be an assistant to a kindergarten teacher than to teach at a university. The PhD is an academic credential, not a teaching certificate.

Who do you want teaching your mids/cadets? Someone who is a few years older than the students and might not even have a master's degree, or a experienced officer who has the sole job of teaching the same course? My take-home message here is to say that the USNA prof is putting the civilian colleges and their students on a pedestal they don't deserve.
 

helolumpy

Region staff is the 7th level of hell!
pilot
Contributor
#38
lots of words...
What are the individuals teaching? A degree does NOT convey expertise. Having taught college as well, I've seen lots of folks with PhD's who have never done anything outside the classroom.
Many of these folks can speak intelligently on many topics, but they have never actually done the job they are teaching.


Who do you want teaching your mids/cadets? I want Naval Officers and civilian academics teaching the next generation so we have a good foundation of practical experience and theoretical understandings.
 

Recovering LSO

Suck Less
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
#39
Howard and Gallaudet huh? Anybody want to take a stab at why Howard's getting that level of funding? And Gallaudet, a liberal arts school in DC with more than 60% women comprising the student body. Maybe I missed the punchline earlier or need to read the report closer, but those just don't seem like the two universities I would use for a purely objective comparison. Too many reasons for them to be outliers.
 

Renegade One

Well-Known Member
None
#40
but those just don't seem like the two universities I would use for a purely objective comparison. Too many reasons for them to be outliers.
For our discussion, I agree that they are "outliers". As I recall, they were included as a part of the stats because they, too, are Federally-funded Universities, along with the various Service Academies. I found the data interesting, if not particularly germane to the discussion at hand.
 

squorch2

he will die without safety brief
pilot
#41
Pulling the thread on the data, I found this endnote (52) for the numbers regarding the academies: "Instructional costs only are included. These include academics, audiovisual, academic computing center, faculty training, military training, physical education, and libraries." Missing are facilities, salaries, room and board, etc. etc.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#42
Howard and Gallaudet huh? Anybody want to take a stab at why Howard's getting that level of funding? And Gallaudet, a liberal arts school in DC with more than 60% women comprising the student body. Maybe I missed the punchline earlier or need to read the report closer, but those just don't seem like the two universities I would use for a purely objective comparison. Too many reasons for them to be outliers.
They are both federally-chartered schools that receive the vast majority of their funding from the feds, hence their inclusion in the report for comparisons sake.
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
#45
Somewhat related but tangental topic...

Why does the military pay for college education up front at all for Officers with no initial service, but not for enlisted Sailors? In today's military, it's not like Uncle Sam really needs to front this cost to find qualified applicants to commission, and while the military has plenty of enlisted applicants thanks to a poor economy, front loading the college experience could attract more enlisted applicants in bad times.

For enlisted Sailors, they need to fulfill an inital commitment before they have the opportunity to do dedicated college coursework by utilizing the GI bill -- and to accomplish that without any other military duties, they usually have to leave active duty. The disadvantage to this is they are at least 4 years older than all of their college peers by the time that they attend. There is no way I am aware of for an enlisted servicemember to do an undergraduate degree shore duty in return for 3-4 more years of enlisted service, yet there are opportunities for graduate school for Officers. And there is no support for an enlisted servicemember to get a graduate degree if their GI bill were used on undergraduate coursework.

I realize business is good re: retention because of the bad economy, but one day that will get better. A lot of people recognize the need for a college degree because life will go on after the military, whether it be at 24 or 40. College incentives to keep enlisted Sailors serving, instead of something you can do "when you get out," could go a long way.

Someone mentioned something about service academy graduates serving longer. I don't know the current data, but for a long time up until about the 80s you practically had to be a service academy graduate if you were looking to be a career Officer wanting to make Flag or General due to a combination of the way the system was designed and the good ol'e boys club.
 
Top