Something about him always rubbed me the wrong way...

[Swanee]

And that's fine. I'm an Ensign by the way, not a firstie. With that said, I was in no way saying that birds/stars automatically correlates to superb leadership. But, as far as the Navy's return on investment goes, those are the people who weight that average in favor of the Academy. Not taking sides here, just stating it how the study said so. I think there are plenty of merits and downfalls to all commissioning sources.

And as far as scandals go, come on, let's be honest, I'm sure NROTC mids do as much or more stupid crap than Academy mids, but the spotlight is not on them nearly as often and if the Academy ceased to exist, they would focus on NROTC mids doing dumb stuff all the more often.

If you are talking sexual harassment, cheating, rape etc. I would say no. If you mean stupid shit ala I got drunk on an away regatta just like every other college sailor, then maybe. You can't compare the two, what is (or maybe was) stupid at the Academy is perfectly acceptable in the real world University.

 

[cfam]

This entire argument sounds eerily familiar. Oh wait...we have it every 6 months or so. Let's not go down that road again.
1) People from every commissioning source do stupid shit, both during and after their time at school.
2) Every commissioning source has it's pros/cons, which doesn't necessarily make one better than the other.

For the record, I am a USNA alum, and I don't agree with the current policies in place. I'm also pretty happy to see this supe on his way out. Still, that doesn't mean the Academy has suddenly ceased to be an effective commissioning source, just as it doesn't mean that ROTC is suddenly that much better. Both are effective, for different reasons.

 

[Pags]

And as far as scandals go, come on, let's be honest, I'm sure NROTC mids do as much or more stupid crap than Academy mids, but the spotlight is not on them nearly as often and if the Academy ceased to exist, they would focus on NROTC mids doing dumb stuff all the more often.

Going out and getting loaded just doesn't carry the same stigma at a normal school. If the Academy ceased to exist, I highly doubt NROTC Mids would be in the spotlight as much. There's just not as much of an agenda with a unit of ~100 people per school.

 

[RotorHead04]

Make Vapes, I'm with you ... the option that makes the most FISCAL sense should be the option chosen. I have no current data to support a claim, but I do know what the numbers were when I was a ROTC MIDN. The estimated cost of educating a USNA MIDN was a quarter million, and my paltry, 4 year, out-of-state tuition at Purdue cost Uncle Sam just shy of $90,000. At the time, ROTC MIDN stipend was ~$150 a month. Not saying this was the case at all ROTC schools, but come on, that's a pretty staggering financial difference.

I'm not going to say anything about quality of officers from one commissioning source or another -- everyone on here knows plenty of good / bad examples from each source. As far as commissioning sources vs. career longevity / higher-ranks, this seems to me to be a false indicator of success at USNA. There will always be a group of people desiring long, prosperous careers in the Navy / Marine Corps. Whatever route they have to take to get there, ultimately they will take it. If ROTC was the de facto way to go, then I'm guessing you would see a rise in the number of birds / stars on ROTC grads collars.

 

[MAKE VAPES]

This entire argument sounds eerily familiar. Oh wait...we have it every 6 months or so. Let's not go down that road again.
1) People from every commissioning source do stupid shit, both during and after their time at school.
2) Every commissioning source has it's pros/cons, which doesn't necessarily make one better than the other.

For the record, I am a USNA alum, and I don't agree with the current policies in place. I'm also pretty happy to see this supe on his way out. Still, that doesn't mean the Academy has suddenly ceased to be an effective commissioning source, just as it doesn't mean that ROTC is suddenly that much better. Both are effective, for different reasons.

Measure of effectiveness: knucklehead into machine, Ensign out of machine 4 years later
Measure of cost effectiveness: cost of putting said knucklehead through the machine, getting same quality butter bar either way.

You are correct, lets take the "quality" issue out. We all have our opinions, folks will always cite the history of self licking ice cream cone. Pointless.

DOD is looking to cut cost _drastically_ through the FYDP, most of the savings gap appears in 14/15. You make the choice, continue cost recockulous officer production due to old school bullshit allegiance and become a brown water 200ish ship Navy (if we continue this mentality in all our programs), OR find ways to cut FAT and continue to kick ass and take names around the world? I vote for the latter.

 

[exhelodrvr]

There is a lot of value in tradition; that does need to be considered in this discussion.

However, I would say that during my time in the Navy, I did not see a difference in the quality of the officers I served with that correlated with their commissioning source.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Why not just shrink the amount of officers produced from the Naval Academy substantially and use the unused buildings gained from reduction for other training schools? Just a thought.

 

[statesman]

It's an interesting argument for the sake of money...

But in practical terms there is NO POSSIBLE WAY the Defense Department will consider getting rid of the Academy. Because if they get rid of USNA that means USMA and USAFA have to go as well... Far to many powerful people are alumni of these institutions.

Interesting argument, but not at all feasible

 

[SynixMan]

I'll also chime in that OTCN was getting pretty full while I was there. I got kicked out of Nimitz Hall the last week as there was a new class coming in. If you're going to up the accessions from OCS, you're going to need more space/facilities there. It's not just a push of a button.

And this is all a bit of a pipe dream. The USNA isn't going away, there's too much power behind it. That being said, how about we stop making it totally free? 10k/yr tuition sounds about right, if this education they're getting is so comparable. Scholarships for the people with financial need, just like a normal school. Prior? Use your GI Bill.

 

[insanebikerboy]

You already take out several thousand in loans to start with when you get to the Academy. You then pay that back out of your pay over the course of the four years. If there is any leftover (held pay) you get that distributed periodically. I want to say it was once a year but I never got any extra money back because I had to take out the entire amount of the loan required.

 

[statesman]

That being said, how about we stop making it totally free? 10k/yr tuition sounds about right, if this education they're getting is so comparable. Scholarships for the people with financial need, just like a normal school. Prior? Use your GI Bill.

Or USNA could just learn to live inside of a budget...

 

[phrogpilot73]

Or USNA could just learn to live inside of a budget...

Why bother? What with the stellar example being demonstrated by the civilian leadership in Congress...

 

[statesman]

Trust me Phrog I knew the ridiculousness of that statement when I typed it... Government entity operating within a budget?! Wishful thinking I know...

 

[RotorHead04]

It's an interesting argument for the sake of money...

But in practical terms there is NO POSSIBLE WAY the Defense Department will consider getting rid of the Academy. Because if they get rid of USNA that means USMA and USAFA have to go as well... Far to many powerful people are alumni of these institutions.

Interesting argument, but not at all feasible

When it comes to cutting costs, the issue has to be examined without prejudice. When you think about the other extreme ends the Navy has gone to to cut costs (to name a few in my own community: drastic reductions in flight hours, only enough ammo to punch the currency card vice the arguably more pertinent proficiency card, etc.), it doesn't seem unreasonable to make similar arguments for commissioning programs -- especially if there is an order of magnitude difference in the costs of the various sources.

 

[statesman]

I see the pragmatism in what your saying... but in order to see REAL results, you're going to have to wage a very convincing campaign in Congress, that's focussed like a laser beam.

I guess what I am saying is that the service academies are well entrenched, well connected, and well institutionalized in this country. Further causing problems for trying to cut their funding, or their existence entirely, is the fact that these schools are HIGHLY respected in the civilian world.

My guess is that if someone were to say there is a problem with USNA the likely reaction from Congress would be to provide more money, not look at whether or not the school should exist.

You could have the most rock solid, empirically proven argument in the world, but many times Congress just doesn't have time to be bothered with that sort of thing.