If this descends into an academy v. NROTC v. OCS furball the thread's getting locked.
Such discussions are like trying to argue whose favorite color is best.
Such discussions are like trying to argue whose favorite color is best.
It's a lot easier to explain away attriting someone who cost the Navy $10,000 than someone who cost the Navy several hundred thousand dollars. And at some level I guarantee that is a factor.
Assuming for the sake of argument that all newly commissioned officers have the same potential no matter what the commissioning source, it's a lot easier to explain away attriting someone who cost the Navy $10,000 than someone who cost the Navy several hundred thousand dollars. And at some level I guarantee that is a factor.
I don't think you understand the concept of SUNK COSTS, because if you did, you wouldn't be saying this... To make it simple, think of it in terms of shares of stock....
Person A went out and bought 500 shares of stock in the Ford Motor Company before this recession lets say.... The 500 shares of stock cost this person $100,000...
Person B went out and bought 500 shares of the same stock after the recession, except he paid $10,000...
I think you're missing the point of this thread. It's really not easier to explain away. All expenses associated with putting gold bars on someone's collar are a sunk cost as soon as you do.
Now say you got a masters degree on the navy's dime...does that make you more valuable to the government from a cost/value standpoint?
I've sat on plenty of PRBs here at NASC. Commissioning source makes absolutely no difference to a PRB in a recc to keep or attrite. The only considerations are performance to up to that point in the Program, any human factors, and the appearance/attitude of the PRB-ee in question.
"Congressionals," those are a different animal and not always logical.
Just curious, what are you talking about?