Military Academies - Infantilised Universities or Laboratories of Leadership

[hobbitcid]

https://chronicle.com...oud-the/134830/

Interesting article by an English Professor at USNA. The primary points and recommendations seem to be as follows

1. Academies are superfluous because more officers are generated from ROTC and OCS/OTS than from the academies themselves. Comment: It is true ROTC and OTS provide more officers than the academies. It is also true that Lts from the academy are generally no better than those from ROTC or OTS. Based on my own experience, the most effective JOs are prior service from OTS, ROTC and/or the academy. Largely because they are more mature (age) and more committed. By the time they reach Capt/Lt they all kind of even out. So yes, I think the author has a valid point here.

2. The author infantilism as the often childish and inane way cadets are treated. The rules, regulations and traditions do not match the level of the “alphas” that have been selected to attend the academy. Comment: The author despite teaching at USNA for 25 years, has no clue about how these childish and inane regulations and traditions work. First, they are the great equalizers. The alphas have all come from the very top of their schools and need to be brought to the same level in order to bond as a class. Yes very much a part of leadership. Second, these traditions and regulations increase pressure on the cadets or midhipment. This in turn forces them to adapt, prioritizing their tasks (military, physical, academic, personal) in a dynamic environment. This is critical to the development of military leaders. Live operations do not allow time off to collect your thoughts. Officers need to get used to prioritizing and decision making under pressure.

3. Cadets and midshipmen are unhappy and constantly bitch about their existence so the rules should lighten up to give them a more collegial experience. Comment: get real; cadets and midshipmen would bitch about a TDY to Hawaii, first class travel and an upgraded oceanfront hotel room. Why? Because they bitch about everything. It’s their nature so unless something is really wrong, it should be a positive sign of engagement.

4. Too many rules – cadets and midshipmen don’t follow them anyway, so just dispense with them and all will be well in the happy world of military academia. Comment: The rules are there for a reason. If they are being broken the organization needs to know why. If the rules are valid they should be enforced – not deleted to make the unhappy cadets or midshipmen happy.

5. Military professionals have no business running a university; academies should be divided into two equal elements – military training and academia. Academia should be led by a professor, preferably a woman. Comment: Typical academic elitism and wrong at that. The dean (academic commander) of an academy is normally a General Officer with a PhD. Does the author infer that just because a PhD has a military background they are somehow not qualified? I preferred professors with real world experience. Career academics often have problems translating academic research to real world application. Academic snob…

6. Academies should be more like college, with off campus accommodations and transfer of credits from other accredited institutions. Comment: Many non-military universities require on-campus accommodation, mostly for the first one or two years. The reason most often cited is the desire to help the student assimilate into the university experience (e.g. study hours, access to classes, libraries, labs, etc). The academies have far more activities than civilian universities and far more classes. Imagine a cadet who must attend drill, classes, specialty training (e.g. flight training, seamanship), intramural sports, military training (e.g. marksmanship, survival) and must show he or she can maintain an organized living space and military appearance. Now imagine said cadet leaving campus at 1800 and returning the next day at 0600 each day… Not going to happen. Those previously mentioned events are part and parcel of a cadet’s training. They are also part and parcel of an ROTC or an OTS cadets training as well, albeit on a shorter schedule.

7. The current academic level of the student body is diminished by those who have been selected to attend for reasons other than academic achievement. He takes special interest in the military’s use of prep schools to groom cadet athletes, enlisted personnel and yes, those chosen for reasons of affirmative action. Comment: Once again, more academic snobbery. The academies are not only about academics, they are about the whole person. They are also attempting to be inclusive, basing their student bodies on those achieving high marks, those who can excel athletically and those who wish to move up the ranks and have the aptitude but not the marks. Most states already have a program similar to this. In Florida, it is very difficult to get into FSU or University of Florida as a freshman without being the very top of the class. But after successfully attending junior college for one or two years, acceptance is automatic. Does the author feel these students as well are less qualified? Seems a bit prejudiced to me...

So basically, of the author’s main points, the only one that seems to have validity is the fact that officers from the academy are largely the same as officers from ROTC and OTS. So why not dispense with academies altogether. I don’t agree, there is a need for military institutions that breed leaders. Academies used to do that and likely still do. They probably need to be tightened up a bit and their programs reviewed for currency (academic and military). But I think they do provide a valid resource.

As to his other points, I would have to raise the BS flag. Despite his 25 year tenure at USNA it is obvious the author has never understood his institution or the methods by which it grooms officers. He seems to think that traditions and regulations are inane and stupid in this environment of alpha achievers. Moreover, they must be protected and nurtured in ways that enhance their academic qualifications. All other activities, issues and requirements are superfluous and should be abandoned. Further, he complains vociferously about the “pollution” of the academic gene pool by interlopers being foisted upon the academy by prep schools for reasons other than academia. Finally he seems to think that like most of the rest of academia, the culture of all academies should change with the norms.

In short, the guy simply has no clue… While reading this article, the following warning from Sun Tzu came to mind:

“There are three ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army: By commanding the army to advance or to retreat, being ignorant of the fact that it cannot obey; This is called hobbling the army. By attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army; This causes restlessness in the soldier's minds. By employing the officers of his army without discrimination, through ignorance of the military principle of adaptation to circumstances. This shakes the confidence of the soldiers.”

By making the academy conform to civilian modes of academia, the author is advocating the civilianization of the military, making the institution more like the civil population than a military force that fights on behalf of the nation. This seems good in an abstract sense, but not particularly effective when dealing with a dynamic and determined threat.

[Guest]

ZZZzzzz....

[Rokke]

His first point is more fact than opinion. Currently, there is little to no evidence that Academy grads outperform their ROTC or OTS counterparts. Yet, it costs hundreds and thousands more dollars to produce an Academy grad than an ROTC or OTS grad. For that reason alone, it is negligent to argue the Academies should simply continue their current mode of operation. Our military can't afford it. Taxpayers shouldn't be asked to pay for it.

[HossHarris]

so says the OTS grad ...

[Rokke]

Ha. That would be too easy. I graduated from one Service Academy and spent the last 7 years of my career working at the Prep School of another. Both experiences were fun, rewarding, and eye opening. Especially my experience at the Prep School. I'll just say that the USNA English professor raises some valid and accurate points. The Academies (all of them) risk further declines into obsolesence if they don't take a hard look at not only how they do things, but exactly WHAT they are trying to do.

[PushItUp]

The Academy teaches us how to push through all kinds of BS and still function and get stuff done. Not many people here do that, they just resort to video games and Season 4 of Breaking Bad to get past their school work.....especially if they're a management major (i have tons of buddies who are management and we just give each other shit). For me, the place is a means to an end for getting into a cockpit. Same goes for most people, even though it may not be their goal to fly they have some sort of agenda which most of the time involves the good ol' 5 and dive. Maybe we should have longer commitments to attract the right kind of people to be the "better leaders" the Academy should be producing? Just my $.02.

Anyways, I think the points this guy brings up are correct but only for a small sample of cadets.

[Dupe]

A service academy accession costs somewhere between three and ten times as much as a ROTC/OTS grad. Unless somebody is seriously arguing that service academy grads are three to ten times more effective out of the gates, we owe it to the tax payers to really look at why these places cost so much and what could make them more cost effective.

[Guest]

A service academy accession costs somewhere between three and ten times as much as a ROTC/OTS grad.

Way to narrow it down.

[Magellan]

Way to narrow it down.

Really?

The cost of an academy cadet to figure out is easy. Total cost to operate per year/number of graduates that year averaged over a period of time.

The cost of OTS should be able to use the same formula.

ROTC however is a hell of a lot more complicated. Some people do the program and aren't on scholarship the whole time in which case the Air Force pays them peanuts for getting their degree the upside is that it is the easiest way to get a commission. If you are on scholarship then the question becomes what type? When I went through the Air Force would pony up either 7,000 a year for state schools, 15,000 a year for private schools, 80% of actual tuition costs, or all of your Tuition costs.

So even within the ROTC program the Air Force could make some cuts to really lower costs, but then you would be eliminating a lot of ROTC cadets that go to a lot of the "better" schools by looking merely at cost.

It is really hard to make an apples to apples comparison when you are looking at apples, oranges, and grapefruit. Especially when at the end of the day we all still entered AD as clueless 2nd Lts. Not to mention every last F-22 would have to be auctioned off to China before the AF would seriously look at changing very much at the USAFA.

[Danger41]

The Academy teaches us how to push through all kinds of BS and still function and get stuff done. Not many people here do that, they just resort to video games and Season 4 of Breaking Bad to get past their school work.....especially if they're a management major (i have tons of buddies who are management and we just give each other shit). For me, the place is a means to an end for getting into a cockpit. Same goes for most people, even though it may not be their goal to fly they have some sort of agenda which most of the time involves the good ol' 5 and dive. Maybe we should have longer commitments to attract the right kind of people to be the "better leaders" the Academy should be producing? Just my $.02. Anyways, I think the points this guy brings up are correct but only for a small sample of cadets.

If that's the case, GTFO of there, turn left out of the main gate and snap 360 to Boulder or something and enjoy yourself, then go to OTS (LIKE A BOSS)!

[Breckey]

The 500 or so pilot slots give even the most mediocre cadet a very good chance at a cockpit. Try that at a "normal" school.

[GearMonkey]

The 500 or so pilot slots give even the most mediocre cadet a very good chance at a cockpit. Try that at a "normal" school.

I haven't run the math but I suspect that the advantage may not be as high as people think it is. At USAFA you're working with (on paper at least) a population of pretty high speed folks. While the pilot numbers out of ROTC are certainly lower the USAFA folks would probably be ranked pretty high within this more varied population.

[Beaver]

I got drunk 42 nights in a row, skipped class at will, had hot chicks spend the night in my room without violating any regs and never once had to march tours. And I got a pilot slot. Try that at the academy.

I didn't have any classes on Friday for four years. Thursday night is big in Tallahassee.

[Guest]

Really?

Yes, really.

[matmacwc]

The 500 or so pilot slots give even the most mediocre cadet a very good chance at a cockpit. Try that at a "normal" school.

And then watch the bottom 100 flounder and/or fail out of UPT.

[Dupe]

Really?

The cost of an academy cadet to figure out is easy. Total cost to operate per year/number of graduates that year averaged over a period of time.

Except that its not simple at all. Hence Rainman's (valid) spear. Just figuring out USAFA's total O & M costs (your "cost to operate" number) divided by the number of grads is one way. However, that ignores all the funding that went into the facilities and all of the personnel costs. Do you roll in retirement costs into your personnel number, or just use current-year cost? Quite a bit of the military faculty had AF-funded PhD programs exclusively due to accepting a USAFA teaching position...do you include that cost as well? ROTC and OTS have similar issues, just not as pronounced.

The thing is that getting each year's crop of 2Lts is cheap compared to the rest of running the Air Force. It's equivalent to just the operations costs of one fighter squadron for the year. I hope the personnel and money guys in AF/A1 are having the cost vs value debate for the academies...I just don't think it's on the scope of anyone with any kind of tactical knowledge. We're all too busy trying to get the most out of our aging Air Force amid growing threats and funding challenges.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Dupe

[sputnik]

And then watch the bottom 100 flounder and/or fail out of UPT.

Any data to back that up?

[ThreeHoler]

Any data to back that up?

Funny...our CSAF barely graduated with his 2.01 GPA and all. Guess those bottom 100 are terrible.

[HercDude]

Any data to back that up?

I've got no data, but I'll throw out personal observation after 3 & 1/2 years as a T-6 IP:

I can count 11 American students I had that I would classify as "full retard." The type of guys I just had no way of contemplating how they convinced anyone that they were capable of doing anything remotely as complicated as flying an airplane. I'm talking about guys that were so bad I wondered why we even bothered with IFS. 7 of them (64%) were AFA grads. I don't know what the percentage of UPT students who graduated from the Academy is, but it's not anywhere near 64% is it? Overall I never really saw a difference between the quality of student pilot between ROTC/OTS/AFA guys, but I considered it bizarre that a majority of the guys that were way out of their league came from the Academy.

Don't know if this adds anything useful to the discussion, but it's always fun to make fun of UPT students.

[Danny Noonin]

but it's always fun to make fun of UPT students.

and academy guys

[Breckey]

and your mom

[Winchester]

His first point is more fact than opinion. Currently, there is little to no evidence that Academy grads outperform their ROTC or OTS counterparts.

Edit...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Winchester

[sputnik]

I've got no data, but I'll throw out personal observation after 3 & 1/2 years as a T-6 IP:

I can count 11 American students I had that I would classify as "full retard." The type of guys I just had no way of contemplating how they convinced anyone that they were capable of doing anything remotely as complicated as flying an airplane. I'm talking about guys that were so bad I wondered why we even bothered with IFS. 7 of them (64%) were AFA grads. I don't know what the percentage of UPT students who graduated from the Academy is, but it's not anywhere near 64% is it? Overall I never really saw a difference between the quality of student pilot between ROTC/OTS/AFA guys, but I considered it bizarre that a majority of the guys that were way out of their league came from the Academy.

Don't know if this adds anything useful to the discussion, but it's always fun to make fun of UPT students.

Interesting, I didn't have that experience as a Tweet FAIP. What I had was a bunch of guy who'd never flown an airplane before (T3 grounding) and were talked into attending UPT by an O7. We had one class where 7 dudes SIE'd the first month of Tweets. Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. For the morons you mentioned, I'd be curious what their graduation standing was, the implication was that the bottom 100 out of USAFA did poorly in UPT.

In my time we washed out an MIT grad, and I saw guys with PE degrees from schools I'd never heard of fly the hell out of the jet. I concluded college performance had little to no bearing on ability to fly an aircraft. For that matter I've never understood why you have to have a college degree to be a pilot in the first place, but that's another subject.

I've got some quibbles, but as both a grad and an instructor, I can't argue against his criticisms. Just my opinion. I find his proposed solutions a little bizarre, but it's a conversation worth having.

And no one [who matters] will. Self-licking ice cream cone.

[stract]

I don't know what the percentage of UPT students who graduated from the Academy is, but it's not anywhere near 64% is it? .

one data point: my class had 862 graduates. 6 of these were not commissioned, there were 7 foreign cadets, and a total of 7 who cross commissioned to another service (3 USA, 3 USN, 2 USMC). There were 561 pilot slots given out that year at USAFA, which equals 65% of the total class size (67% if you don't count the 20 who didn't enter the USAF).

[10percenttruth]

As a grad and an IP to many a USAFA grad, I have steadily reinforced my theory that the Zoo is a personality force multiplier. (Blanket STS)

If you enter the academy as a fairly well-adjusted, normal person, you'll come out just fine.

If you are a sheltered introvert with nerdy tendencies & high marks in school, you will come out of there a massive turbodork.

In between these extremes, fairly minor personality flaws can be amplified to major issues; i.e. the desire to skate around inspections & parades & such often translates into an aversion to checklist discipline, chairflying, & studying. For others, UPT ends up being an extension of the college experience they never had, so they go a little crazy.

With all that being said, I can honestly say I haven't seen more USAFA grads wash out than any other demographic, but it seems like the really spectacular washouts are zoomies. However, that may be a perception flaw in that some folks tend to be predisposed to expect a certain level of professionalism from academy kids, so the ones that wash out are often more remembered.

Edited October 12, 2012 by 10percenttruth