Cross posted from politics.
Interested what you guys think. Ya'll have earned an opinion and can speak from experience.

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/05/lets_abolish_west_point_military_academies_serve_no_one_squander_millions_of_tax_dollars/

1) it's the Salon. Terrible. 2) he's a disgruntled English prof from USNA that has been suspended before and feels that all the engineering and sciences aren't as important as liberal arts. Saw this floating around and, though he may have some vague, decent points, he comes across as scorned.

I've been discussing on the Politics board. I think it would be a terrible idea.

quote:

---

I've been discussing on the Politics board. I think it would be a terrible idea.

---

Your arguments are basically, "I liked it there, even though I knew a lot of ****bags and the training wasn't any better." What would make it terrible?

As a faculty member, I had access to every cadet's SAT/ACT scores. I can assure you these are not America's best and brightest. And the sheer level of coddling makes them weaker lieutenants. Literally, I would have to get permission from the department head to fail a student.

And the emphasis of athletics over sports is completely accurate. I wrote a white paper illuminating the obvious artifacts and espoused values (Schein, 1996). It would make you physically sick to know what your $430,000 tax dollars per cadet went

Parting shot:

The Army is cutting up to 100,000 Soldiers by 2019, and it projects to need only 5,200 new lieutenants per year at those troop levels (compared to ~7,500 per year now). This year, the Army has begun construction of a $2billion barracks expansion project, despite the fact that all signs point to needing fewer cadets in the near future. There is more to the academies' wastefulness than just cost per lieutenant

My comment about my roommates was just an example that not everyone who comes out of the academies is the gleaming example of what an officer should be. For every ****bag I knew, there were hundreds of outstanding cadets.

I never said the training wasn't any better, I said the commissioning source becomes largely irrelevant once the LTs hit active duty. The training was far more intense than anything else I've been through, and it was an incredibly rewarding experience for me academically, physically, and militarily. I had access to training I would never have been through anywhere else.

Things were different when only academy grads received a regular commission instead of a reserve commission, but that changed some years back after I left. Maybe it's a lot different in more ways now than when I was there in 1997-98, but I still think it's a great place that does a fine job of producing quality officers. That being said, I will reiterate that commissioning source becomes largely irrelevant, so I can see how the cost factor per commissioned officer could support the argument for closure of the academies.

This dude writes this same article every couple years and says the same thing. I can't understand why he would want to work at a place he hates...oh, I know because teaching English is all one can do with an English degree (aside from joining the military).
Here's the 2012 version:
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Few-the-Proud-the/134830/
Here's his 2010 version:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/opinion/21fleming.html?emc=eta1&_r=0
While he isn't wrong in all regards, I think it would be challenging to get rid of them. Like someone suggested on the politics board, maybe get rid of athletics and create a longer commitment for the money we pay.

Tango, the USMC commissions about 65% of its officers via the PLC and OCC program for a fraction of the cost of ROTC. Would you support the Army getting rid of ROTC if it could save money?

My thoughts... My squadron is about 1/4 service academy grads. Service academy grads are just like any other officers. Some are really good, some are terrible and most are average. It's no different from A&M grads (it took me a while to come to terms with that). Why are we spending half a million per student, when seem to not be getting any notable return on that investment? Besides, if most of them hadn't gone to the academy they would have ended up doing ROTC anyways.

quote:

---

Tango, the USMC commissions about 65% of its officers via the PLC and OCC program for a fraction of the cost of ROTC. Would you support the Army getting rid of ROTC if it could save money?

---

What is the cost savings for PLC? You still get money for college, right?

I've written several studies recommending overhauling the ROTC scholarship program. The fact is, there are significant data that show OCS graduates do not perform as well as their ROTC peers (on average, I know there are always "I worked with a guy..." anecdotes), even through battalion command selection. As the Army moves into the Force 2025 operating concept, it will require ever-more intellectual officers (even stated as such by the CSA) to "win in a complex world". This requires broad, STEM-based educational development - which is precisely what ROTC at 4-year institutions provides. I have all the love in the world for the SGT who earns his own degree online in the evenings, but a bachelor's in interdisciplinary studies from Excelsior College is not the same as a bachelor's in engineering from Texas A&M. (but, in reality, these degrees are paid for by the Army through tuition assistance, etc, so it's not as much of a savings as one might think).

Other than that, I'm not sure what your point is. It's more of an operational capacity problem than anything else. The Army's OCS has a fixed capacity, and very limited surge capability. It would require enormous capital expenditures to expand the capacity. ROTC programs provide the throughput capacity and are easily expanded with zero capital expenditures on the Army's behalf.

But, yes, there is room for significant improvements to how we fund/allocate Army ROTC scholarships, cadre, and school sites.

First thing they need to do is shut down the non producing ROTC programs, and send those allocations and scholarships to those that do produce. HBCUs do not produce, but god forbid if you close one of those programs.

As I posted on the other board, make the PL an SFC, and the PSG a SSG. Each company/troop/battery/detachment will have a Commander, XO and an "assistant XO". The two LTs are groomed for command. There will still be enough officers to hold staff jobs and compete for and hold a command. Keep open the USMA, the SMCs and only your best producing ROTC programs to meet the LT needs. You could then close most of the ROTC programs out there, which would free up tons of officers and NCOs to return to the force, and you could cut a large number of DA civilians at the same time.

NCO education will have to change some, but those schools are already in place. In a time of national emergency, you can expand and surge OCS. As we know, after there is no longer a need for the larger force, there will be a drawdown, and those OCS dudes will be the first to go, leaving us right back where we are with college graduate officers.

quote:

---

Other than that, I'm not sure what your point is. It's more of an operational capacity problem than anything else. The Army's OCS has a fixed capacity, and very limited surge capability. It would require enormous capital expenditures to expand the capacity. ROTC programs provide the throughput capacity and are easily expanded with zero capital expenditures on the Army's behalf.

---

There is no arguing that the academies provide a mostly equal product for a really high rate. I suppose my point was that the USMC makes great officers at an even lower cost than ROTC. PLC Marines can receive some money if they elect, but the max is about $30k and they have to add 6-12 months of active service to qualify for that money.
IMO there isn't much disparity in the quality of USMC officers because of the TBS requirement. After thinking about it though, TBS is a significant cost for all Marine officers.
I was wondering about your thoughts on the army doing something like PLC to save costs, but with nothing in place already beyond OCS and no capacity to increase throughput I suppose it would not be cheaper. Plus you guys commission 2-3x more lieutenants per year.
I can't speak for USMA graduates, but in my experience USNA Marines are top notch (none of them had below a 600 SAT score; that is ludicrous). However, I don't know that they were "worth the money" when compared to PLC or ROTC Marines. I would welcome some improvements/changes to the academies and ROTC programs, but never advocate their abolition.

I have felt for a long time that the Academies, if maintained, needed to be a finishing school. Bring in graduates who already have a degree. Let them focus on just being in the Corps/Brigade and learning to be officers for 18-24 Months. At the end you commission a more mature and focused 2nd LT/ENS.

I believe the British have a similar program at Sandhurst and it seems to work well for them.

quote:

---

Bring in graduates who already have a degree. Let them focus on just being in the Corps/Brigade and learning to be officers for 18-24 Months. At the end you commission a more mature and focused 2nd LT/ENS.

---

You mean sort of like a Talpiot?

As a retired Marine "Mustang" Officer, I'd like to comment. The Marine PLC/OCS pipeline is a very productive tool for the Corps, with the PLC being an outstanding program that the USMC has had in place since the 1930's. The final piece of the puzzle that ensures the quality of Marine Officers sent to the Fleet is the BASIC SCHOOL. Those six months are the key to training and providing a finished product and put a Marine 2ndLt far ahead of his contemporaries in the other services. Even in the time of war (WWII,Korea, and Vietnam) the length of the Basic School remained very close to the six month schedule. That's a lot of intensive training. Academy, PLC, OCS, and ROTC grads, all inclusive, and non have proven to be heads and shoulders above the other.
Why do I say that, well I went through the 12 weeks of PLC summer training and did not take my commission because of possible Pro football, so was not given an extension by the Corps and was put in the USMC Reserve as a "private". Months later I asked to be assigned to active duty, where I had to go to Boot Camp for 12 weeks. Yep, I love punishment! But meritorious promotions from Boot, ITR, specialty school, and Assigned Unit and I was a Marine Sgt within 18 months. Then the Commanding Officer recommended me for OCS, which I was assigned to within less than 30 days. Yep, another 12 weeks of boot training.
Then Commissioned and off to Basic School.
Now, I was an athlete in the Corps at A&M, 2 years, (meet military class twice a week and drilled once a month) and had our own company, so had some touching base with ROTC.
Had outstanding Officers from all commissioning sources and there were those that had the minimum requirements. The use of multiple sources of commissioning give the USA a very good cross section of the US population and provides the strongest and most viable leadership for our Officer Corps ( also right down to our enlisted ranks).
The Academies may only provide 20% of our Officers, but they're icons that are a strong backbone to our military and are looked upon by the citizens of the USA as proven educational institutes for our Officers.
They are necessary, even with their cost, are a requirement that we must have.

Looking back over my training, the best instructors I had, college or military, were military officers and enlisted. The PLC training during the summer was the most intense of (PLC,OCS,Boot Camp).
Boot Camp was to break you down and make you a Marine (PLC was tougher).
OCS was intense, but already been through PLC & Boot, made it a lot easier.
The finishing touch was Basic School and when I took command of my first platoon in Vietnam and into the heated combat in less than 24 hours, I knew I was ready.
We need to keep our multiple sources of commissioning Officers. Tried and true, we do still have the citizen soldier.
My two sons ( '91,'93) are Marine Officers with one through PLC and one through OCS.

quote:

---

As a retired Marine "Mustang" Officer, I'd like to comment. The Marine PLC/OCS pipeline is a very productive tool for the Corps, with the PLC being an outstanding program that the USMC has had in place since the 1930's. The final piece of the puzzle that ensures the quality of Marine Officers sent to the Fleet is the BASIC SCHOOL. Those six months are the key to training and providing a finished product and put a Marine 2ndLt far ahead of his contemporaries in the other services. Even in the time of war (WWII,Korea, and Vietnam) the length of the Basic School remained very close to the six month schedule. That's a lot of intensive training. Academy, PLC, OCS, and ROTC grads, all inclusive, and non have proven to be heads and shoulders above the other.
Why do I say that, well I went through the 12 weeks of PLC summer training and did not take my commission because of possible Pro football, so was not given an extension by the Corps and was put in the USMC Reserve as a "private". Months later I asked to be assigned to active duty, where I had to go to Boot Camp for 12 weeks. Yep, I love punishment! But meritorious promotions from Boot, ITR, specialty school, and Assigned Unit and I was a Marine Sgt within 18 months. Then the Commanding Officer recommended me for OCS, which I was assigned to within less than 30 days. Yep, another 12 weeks of boot training.
Then Commissioned and off to Basic School.
Now, I was an athlete in the Corps at A&M, 2 years, (meet military class twice a week and drilled once a month) and had our own company, so had some touching base with ROTC.
Had outstanding Officers from all commissioning sources and there were those that had the minimum requirements. The use of multiple sources of commissioning give the USA a very good cross section of the US population and provides the strongest and most viable leadership for our Officer Corps ( also right down to our enlisted ranks).
The Academies may only provide 20% of our Officers, but they're icons that are a strong backbone to our military and are looked upon by the citizens of the USA as proven educational institutes for our Officers.
They are necessary, even with their cost, are a requirement that we must have.

Looking back over my training, the best instructors I had, college or military, were military officers and enlisted. The PLC training during the summer was the most intense of (PLC,OCS,Boot Camp).
Boot Camp was to break you down and make you a Marine (PLC was tougher).
OCS was intense, but already been through PLC & Boot, made it a lot easier.
The finishing touch was Basic School and when I took command of my first platoon in Vietnam and into the heated combat in less than 24 hours, I knew I was ready.
We need to keep our multiple sources of commissioning Officers. Tried and true, we do still have the citizen soldier.
My two sons ( '91,'93) are Marine Officers with one through PLC and one through OCS.

---

Nothing you wrote has anything to do with the need to keep or close the service academies. All I got was because you were a marine, you're convinced that marine 2LTs are the best (though you provide nothing to back this up)

Tribe,
No where did I say Marine Lts were better from their commissioning source. I did say the 6 months of Basic School put them ahead of their contemporaries in the other services.
Also, the following was stated about commissioning sources and the Academies:
"Had outstanding Officers from all commissioning sources and there were those that had the minimum requirements. The use of multiple sources of commissioning give the USA a very good cross section of the US population and provides the strongest and most viable leadership for our Officer Corps ( also right down to our enlisted ranks).
The Academies may only provide 20% of our Officers, but they're icons that are a strong backbone to our military and are looked upon by the citizens of the USA as proven educational institutes for our Officers.
They are necessary, even with their cost, are a requirement that we must have."

Yes , I am a Marine and no where did I state they were better, but since you want to make it a bone of contention, you darn right we are better!!!

quote:

---

The use of multiple sources of commissioning give the USA a very good cross section of the US population and provides the strongest and most viable leadership for our Officer Corps ( also right down to our enlisted ranks).
The Academies may only provide 20% of our Officers, but they're icons that are a strong backbone to our military and are looked upon by the citizens of the USA as proven educational institutes for our Officers.
They are necessary, even with their cost, are a requirement that we must have.

---

This is the political/military equivalent of saying a losing coach should be kept around because he's a "good guy" and "wants to be here".

If a product does not provide value, it should be discontinued. We don't live in a direct democracy - the people don't get a say (if they want this kind of voice in the military budget, they should move to Switzerland). It is Congress's job as the representative body to determine what is fiscally responsible for the nation and to deliver that to the military.

If the academies don't provide 10x better officers, how could you possibly justify a 10x higher cost per officer?

OK, it is $$$$.
Let us get our pilots trained at the locate airport, the cost is way cheaper than military flight schools!!!
Just have to transition into whatever type aircraft. Is that about the same, about 20X less.

quote:

---

If the academies don't provide 10x better officers, how could you possibly justify a 10x higher cost per officer?

---

I can completely see this as a valid question. One of the things that could be reviewed or eliminated is some of the the fluff training and gee-whiz programs that are available to cadets.

Example - How many Air Force officers really need jump wings? It's basically a perk of going to the Academy that pretty much just adds a piece of flair to their uniform. If it is really that important to have cadets go to jump school, why not send them on a short TDY to Benning instead of spending all the money on a full jump program and aircraft at USAFA?

quote:

---

OK, it is $$$$.
Let us get our pilots trained at the locate airport, the cost is way cheaper than military flight schools!!!
Just have to transition into whatever type aircraft. Is that about the same, about 20X less.

---

No personal offense meant, but you've lost your argument train. We were discussing educating officer candidates at an extraneous institution, and now you've jumped into getting rid of training hyperbole. Training pilots at the local airfield is nothing remotely similar to educating future officers at civilian universities. You know that, you are just lashing out trying to win an internet argument

Ha! Tango you're the expert on the subject.

quote:

---

OK, it is $$.
Let us get our pilots trained at the locate airport, the cost is way cheaper than military flight schools!!!
Just have to transition into whatever type aircraft. Is that about the same, about 20X less.

---

You're kidding me

Some were saying the cost of the academy officer was so high and producing less than stellar officers as compared to other sources. So, since it was about $$$, then pilots/navigators could be trained a lot cheaper at the local flight school. This whole topic of 'close the academies' is absurd.

So you're equating a good ROTC program to the local flight school???

quote:

---

So you're equating a good ROTC program to the local flight school??

---

Most arguments for keeping the academies are silly arguments. Tradition, politics, and money would fight against the closure regardless of any cost-benefit analysis. If your strongest remaining argument falls into Reductio ad absurdum, you're probably not thinking about it rationally and aren't worth debating.

Some of you can not read. A statement was made about the COST of Academy Officer being so much more than ROTC and the product not being much different. I stated if it was all about $$$ then we could train pilot at the local flight school. Keeping the Academies is not about $$$ and flight school is not about $$$.

We can read. The problem is that your argument makes no sense.

READ. It was a response to someone else's comment about cost. If you do one for cost, why not the other.
Understand?? I do not advocate that course of action.

I do believe the Military Academies are meant to matriculate career officers who intend to stay for the duration of their working lives/careers - and thus are trained with that focus and intention - as a lifetime career officer.

ROTC - RESERVE OFFICER Training Program - is to train "militia" - i.e., reservists and national guard, etc. as a main focus - with "assignment to the active forces" as necessary, required, and as opportunity permits. For instance, ROTC offers a much broader range of coursework/degree programs that may or may not be what the military specifically needs - but, if the timing is right, allows an ROTC grad to perform active service commitment(s). Obviously, if a "reserve officer" proves his mettle and chooses to apply to become a "regular officer" they often, and are excellent lifetime career officers as well.

These are two totally different purposes, The issue of "reserve officer" vs "regular officer" is a huge factor in assignments AND who gets riffed when the time comes.

Graduates of Citadel, VMI, VaTech, A&M, etc., are often considered top of the mark from the ROTC ranks, but still have a lot of ground to make up to be the equivalent of an Academy grad.

Look at the selection process if no other reason - to receive an Academy appointment is a rigorous - yes political - but the process is very selective. That's jut the way it is...

To somehow think that the academies are irrelevant and a wasted expense is the same as deciding that the military in general is a waste of money and we should just pow wow with all our enemies and hope the UN works everything out for us... the Service Academies are the training ground for those who choose to put their lives on the line for a lifetime career - they should be thanked, and not scorned.

And, for what it's worth - the PLC or prior enlisted officer often is among the very best - as he/she has "worked their way up the ladder of success" and understand what each level of responsibility and rank entails. Whereby all too often officers who received commissions from the Academies or through ROTC forget who does the dirty work when the rubber meets the road.

quote:

---

I do believe the Military Academies are meant to matriculate career officers who intend to stay for the duration of their working lives/careers - and thus are trained with that focus and intention - as a lifetime career officer.

ROTC - RESERVE OFFICER Training Program - is to train "militia" - i.e., reservists and national guard, etc. as a main focus - with "assignment to the active forces" as necessary, required, and as opportunity permits. For instance, ROTC offers a much broader range of coursework/degree programs that may or may not be what the military specifically needs - but, if the timing is right, allows an ROTC grad to perform active service commitment(s). Obviously, if a "reserve officer" proves his mettle and chooses to apply to become a "regular officer" they often, and are excellent lifetime career officers as well.

These are two totally different purposes, The issue of "reserve officer" vs "regular officer" is a huge factor in assignments AND who gets riffed when the time comes.

Graduates of Citadel, VMI, VaTech, A&M, etc., are often considered top of the mark from the ROTC ranks, but still have a lot of ground to make up to be the equivalent of an Academy grad.

Look at the selection process if no other reason - to receive an Academy appointment is a rigorous - yes political - but the process is very selective. That's jut the way it is...

To somehow think that the academies are irrelevant and a wasted expense is the same as deciding that the military in general is a waste of money and we should just pow wow with all our enemies and hope the UN works everything out for us... the Service Academies are the training ground for those who choose to put their lives on the line for a lifetime career - they should be thanked, and not scorned.

And, for what it's worth - the PLC or prior enlisted officer often is among the very best - as he/she has "worked their way up the ladder of success" and understand what each level of responsibility and rank entails. Whereby all too often officers who received commissions from the Academies or through ROTC forget who does the dirty work when the rubber meets the road.

---

There is an extraordinary amount of inaccurate information in this essay. Regular Army vs Reserve commission plays no role in any assignments, promotions, or separations. In fact, every officer converts to a RA commission at captain. The rate of officers leaving after 5 years from USMA is higher than the rate of officers leaving from ROTC.

And nobody is arguing to shut down the military. What a silly, hyperbolic strawman argument

The reserve vs. regular commission was a thing "back in the day". But I'm not sure they even give reserve commissions any more.

They switched the academies to reserve commissions around 2000, give or take a couple years, iirc.

While I may stand corrected in the current use of Reserve vs Regular officer from a CBPO point of view, I believe the rest of my post to be correct. The Service Academies are primarily for career officers and ROTC is primarily not. And, prior enlisted who become officers have a distinct advantage over a new Lt who is still wet behind the ears in military protocol and how to get things done.

quote:

---

The Service Academies are primarily for career officers and ROTC is primarily not.

---

What are you basing this on?