Tom Ricks, Washington Post journalist, Yale graduate, author of “Fiasco: the American Military Adventure in Iraq”, “Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq” – he is no doubt hard at work on “Victory: I guess Bush was Right All Along in the American Military Adventure in Iraq” – has a modest recommendation to save the military a little money: Shut down the service academies.
After covering the U.S. military for nearly two decades, I’ve concluded that graduates of the service academies don’t stand out compared to other officers. Yet producing them is more than twice as expensive as taking in graduates of civilian schools ($300,000 per West Point product vs. $130,000 for ROTC student). On top of the economic advantage, I’ve been told by some commanders that they prefer officers who come out of ROTC programs, because they tend to be better educated and less cynical about the military.
So, cost is a part of his concern, but there’s more:
This is no knock on the academies’ graduates. They are crackerjack smart and dedicated to national service. They remind me of the best of the Ivy League, but too often they’re getting community-college educations. Although West Point’s history and social science departments provided much intellectual firepower in rethinking the U.S. approach to Iraq, most of West Point’s faculty lacks doctorates. Why not send young people to more rigorous institutions on full scholarships, and then, upon graduation, give them a military education at a short-term military school?
Well, part of the reason we don’t send young officer candidates to “more rigorous institutions” is because so many Ivy League schools refuse to host them, Tom. And from what I’ve seen, Ivy League schools may be hard to get into – no harder than the federal service academies, I should point out – but once you’re there true intellectual excellence or grandfathered mediocrity is largely a matter of personal choice: At Harvard, we have learned, 8 of 10 students graduates with “honors.” The same cannot be said at the federal service academies, where no student is more than one “F’ away from dismissal, and where courses may not be dropped.
Hour for hour, day for day, year over grinding year it’s hard to imagine a more rigorous education than those provided by the federal academies, unless one includes the penetetial Gulags maintained by certain southern states that still maintain quaint martial notions, but which are far too small to provide sufficient graduates to staff the force.
Ricks appears to place great stock in the value of a PhD – although I do not see one listed in his own bio – and I don’t know how it us up on the Hudson (inside joke: What do Naval Academy midshipmen, Air Force Academy cadets, and West Point cadets all have in common? They were all accepted at West Point), but at the Boat School, fully half the professorship are career civilian academics, nearly all with PhDs. The other half are military (some of whom are “permanent military professors, all of whom have PhDs), most have Master’s degrees and teach the kinds of necessary things (navigation, seamanship and yes, leadership) that are woefully underrepresented in the broader academy. The academies are very highly technical: As a political science major, I did not have a semester with more majors courses than core until the second semester of my junior year. I do not know that a political science student at Princeton, say, has much to speak about when it comes to electrical engineering or the steam cycle, and if he learned piloting and navigation, he probably did so on his father’s yacht.
Ricks is a journalist who writes about strategy. The senior commanders he writes of operate at a level that no more than a handful of the entire officer corps apsire to - few have the desire or, frankly, intellectual or political ability to reach so high. I agree that truly brilliant officers like General Petraeus – who received the George C. Marshall Award for academic excellence while earning his master’s degee at the Army Command and General Staff college – are well-served by exposure to civilian institutes of higher learning. But Petraeus got his start at West Point, and it is there that he returned to as a teacher.
We need a dozen or so strategic thinkers at the top of the force, but we need thousands of junior officers every year to stand the watch, lead young people effectively, provide staff support to realize the strategic vision, fight and die if called upon. We get them from many sources.
As a Naval Academy graduate whose beloved son is about to graduate from a civilian institution under an NROTC scholarship, I have strong personal feelings both ways. My son has flourished at his school, commands his NROTC battalion and has received what I believe to be a first-rate education in electrical engineering. I doubt that I could have done so well (and didn’t, at the Naval Academy – I am, in many ways, the lesser man). But the academies do serve as a sort of referential center for the entirety of the officer corps’ education and training, not to mention serving as a repository of history and tradition, things that mean a great deal to an effective military, and which would be atomized among the several hundred civilian institutions that would have to take their place. It would take a generation for the loss of that center to permeate, but once manifested it would be irreplaceable.
As a squadron commander who led Naval Academy graduates, NROTC officers and those from the Officer Candidate Schools, I learned that you cannot tell the capabilities of any individual officer by the ring he wore. In time, through trial and observation, I would know what I was getting, and brilliant leaders come from all educational walks of life; the cream always rises to the top. What I did know about my Naval Academy graduates as a whole was that they had been well-rounded students in high school, people who performed well academically and on standardized tests, people who had probably played sports, or taken on other leadership responsibilities. I knew that they could have gone to practically any school that they could afford – nearly all of them came from solidly middle class backgrounds, and neither daddy’s yacht, nor Ivy League schools like Tom Frank’s Yale formed any part of their culture or expectation set.
These were accomplished young people who had decided to forgo the liberties available to college students everywhere else and immerse themselves within storied, first-tier institutions dedicated to national service, places where quaint notions such as personal honor and selfless sacrifice were expounded upon unironically, and they had exposed themselves to a regime of grueling personal discipline and rigorous academic education for four hard years. And they had stuck it out.
That’s not nothing.
Hour for hour, day for day, year over grinding year it’s hard to imagine a more rigorous education than those provided by the federal academies, unless one includes the penetetial Gulags maintained by certain southern states that still maintain quaint martial notions, but which are far too small to provide sufficient graduates to staff the force.
Do I detect just a slight bit of envy for those of us who had proper military educations?
Not out of this corner. Although I was something of a black sheep within my extended family for heading to that federal university rather than VMI.
I was rebellious, that way.
Didn’t realize that I was living within a stone’s throw of a Gulag. It’s a nice counter balance to all the liberals at W & L.
Comparisons of The Citadel and VMI and the service academies are not always apples to apples. The state supported military schools do not have a mission of producing commissioned officers like the academies do. Both VMI and The Citadel only commission about 40-50% of their graduates. A lot of people don’t realize that.
I had a chance to go to USNA and turned it down to attend The Citadel-its a decision I have never regretted.
Citadel and VMI are actually ROTC institutions from a commissioning standpoint. I worked with another Engineer at NCDOT who was a “gulag” grad from The Citadel and was not in ROTC. He had no interest in serving. I asked if not, then why go to Citadel? He didn’t answer. I was poking to see what he would say, and he said nothing. That’s his choice and I didn’t mind as I was just curious.
He went to the Citadel for the connections.
Small correction, there QM. Four years of ROTC classes is an academic requirement at The Citadel. Accepting a commission is not. The leadership lessions learned there, and at other similar institutions, are life lessons, not only applicable to the military. Were they, then the good citizens of SC and VA should insist on shutting the places down, as their taxes shouldn’t go to support adjuncts to the service academies. The demonstrated leadership of graduates of both schools, in all walks of life, are what give both meaning, and relevancy.
[...] Muqawama with more thoughts on the subject. Neptunus Lex with some of the same abovementioned thougyts and a lot of [...]
I detect someone who just had his nose tweaked.
Here something I’ll throw out there for comment. IIRC, during their early years, neither Annapolis or West Point granted degrees. They were more like Sandhurst, institutions that trained officers and did so in an intense, highly disciplined environment that emphasized traditions of the service and the academic subjects necessary to be a good officer. Maybe our service academies should go the Sandhurst route, with cadets/middies who have degrees prior to admission.
First, I’m in support of the academies–so please, don’t anyone jump on me about that–but I have to say that my nose gets tweaked every time there is an assumption that the great universities of this country are the ivy league schools. Those are the best endowed schools, not the best research and teaching institutions–so the entire premise of comparing an undergraduate Annapolis education in poly sci with one at Princeton (or any other ivy) is flawed.
The PhD vs. no PhD argument may be a bit of a red herring, and is really related to how the academies see themselves–training soldiers in practical, lived experiences, providing specialized technical training, while training military thinkers who will bring the strengths of a classical education to command, etc.
The advantage of faculty with PhDs is more a matter of the prestige of the research wing of a university and whether students will be working directly with researchers–the PhD represents the ability to complete an in depth, major research project–for those who continue in the academy, the doctoral project is merely the first such research project in a career. For those who are truly committed to both undergraduate education and their research, PhD faculty offer a more holistic and integrated educational experience for undergraduates.
Now, in professional schools, many professors of management, journalism, and similar fields have MAs and a great deal of world experience.
I would expect most academies, if trying to balance the goals I described above (and these were goals communicated to me by recruiters back in the day when each of the academies approached me–they needed women who had high math scores on SATs, apparently), should have a mixture of faculty, civilian and military, with a range of different intellectual and experiential credentials.
The argument that West Point is lacking in PhDs seems a bit spurious to me…
I agree with you on the definition of “elite,” Laurie. I suppose I made an intuitive leap that when a person like Mr. Ricks says “elite,” he’s thinking more of places like his own alma mater than, say Berkeley or UCLA.
And for what it’s worth, my poly sci professors at the Boat School were the most liberal people I had met, up until that point. And probably since then, too.
If I had to choose between Lex and Ricks as to whom I would entrust my life, there is no question that I would throw in my lot with the former rather than the latter.
I have gone the PhD route and am surrounded by PhDs. A PhD only indicates that you have completed a course of academic training geared to a specific discipline. That training made no attempt to build your character or enhance your ability to lead. The military academies do make that attempt in the process of their educating heir cadets. They may not always succeed, but at least the attempt is made.
And Lex is right about the loss of that core of tradition if the military academies were closed down. Our nation should be proud and thankful that we have a military tradition as espoused by our services.
I read the piece this morning and figured it would get a rise. The whole idea is stupid for all the reasons cited but for another on the face of it. The argument that it is a good place to save money is idiotic. The money spend on the Academies is one of the few of an ever shrinking list of things the Federal Government spends money on I feel is a good investment.
Hardly worth the time you invested rebutting it.
The idea that the service academy’s suffer from a lack of PhD.s is laughable. That’s like saying that only post-squadron command aviators can teach primary and basic flight.
It is a baccalaureate only program. If you go to an elite university as championed by Mr. Ricks, there’s a very good chance most of your classes are actually taught by a student going for either his MA or PhD.
If you want to see where the PhD.s are in the service school system, perhaps you should look to their post-graduate education programs.
Hour for hour, day for day, year over grinding year it’s hard to imagine a more rigorous education than those provided by the federal academies,
Well, part of the reason we don’t send young officer candidates to “more rigorous institutions” is because so many Ivy League schools refuse to host them, Tom. And from what I’ve seen, Ivy League schools may be hard to get into – no harder than the federal service academies, I should point out – but once you’re there true intellectual excellence or grandfathered mediocrity is largely a matter of personal choice: At Harvard, we have learned, 8 of 10 students graduates with “honors.”
Well, the manner of stress production is a little different, but overall an education at my alma mater has it’s own rigors. You sure won’t see 80% of the class graduate with honors. Plus, we don’t have to worry about stepping into the mess that Notre Dame has – we don’t award honorary degrees. We tend to be able to find world leaders and notables that have earned one on their own.
Oh, but we DO have an ROTC batallion (Army, Navy and Air Force). We even invite the kids from Harvard and the rest to play. And it’s one of the highest-ranked batallions there are.
Do they teach spelling there?
batallions
Sorry, not often I get to pick on an MIT grad…
What? Spel chek is werking fine on my masheen.
Said battalion, BTW, seems to be good enough for General Petraeus’ son.
Not really sure how to respond to Mr. Ricks, but I will be spending the afternoon applying to Yale. I figure I should augment my community college education if I want to be as good as the ROTC officers. I’m also writing a letter to my GMCS SEL that I regret him breathing down my neck while I was in Bancroft Hall; I would have learned more about leadership in my free time at a “more rigorous institution.”
I agree with OLDT6, hardly worth Lex’s time–but you know the story about old retired fire-house horses always reflexively answering the bell..
This is all nothing new. There have been several studies through the years which analyzed the officer corps and all have come to the same conclusion:
namely that it terms of effectiveness and who eventually reached flag rank there was no difference as between ROTC and Academy grads–therefore it would indeed save money to close them on that basis alone.
But as an AFROTC grad, whose Father was a WWII Army OCS product, and who has three West Point grads for relatives I say all three paths have their relative merits. To me the academies set the “tone” for the services, and while there is indeed some truth to the “ringknocker” take-care-of-their-own fraternity of selective support and favoritism within the officer corps in regards academy grads, it’s more or less inevitable. When I was in pilot tng
our Wing Co at Laughlin (who would ltr become CG, ATC at Randolph) kept a list of the names of all of we students who had relatives in the service that were of flag rank under the glass covering the top of his desk (don’t ask how I came to know.) There will ALWAYS be inside “politics”in ANY organization.
One further note. Lex accurately notes that most cadets (the males, at least) had an athletic background as well as an academic one coming out of HS. My Father, a Hall of Fame college coach and a highly decorated WWII officer used to say that that in most situations (there are always exceptions) when crunch time comes, he’d rather be surrounded by B-student athletes than A-student non-athletes. He noted he felt this way for two reasons: First, many B-student athletes would really have been A students were it not for time taken away from their studies devoted to sports, and, Secondly, the entire “playing fields” ethos that MacArthur spoke of–of personal discipline, sacrifice and dedication to joint efforts in a competitive atmosphere that puts a premium on thinking under pressure despite supreme physical fatigue, etc., served to really create the sort of person that the “whole man” concept of the armed services talks about. (And Dad advocated this view years before the term “whole man” even existed or was codified within the military.)
SO—-I’m a big believer in the Service Academies for the very reason that it’s defenders within the active duty establishment usually defend them–they set the tone which is transmitted through the ranks at all levels and commands and provide a base-line core around which the officer corp may be built.
But there are a couple of hidden agendas behind most attacks on the Academies, neither of which has ANYTHING to do with “cost savings” and EVERYTHING to do with the anti-war left. PRECISELY because these organizations are seen as “exclusive’ and “selective,” “elite,” mainly male bastions of privilege, they are a hated concept on general egalitarian principles alone and would ordinarily be singled out for destruction for that reason. Pressures for the feminization of these institutions were based largely (but not exclusively) on this line of thought.
A second and perhaps the primary reason the service academies are hated by the left is the belief that, once destroyed, the inevitable radicalization of civilian universities’ faculty and student bodies will gradually whittle down the numbers of upper echelon, non-Ivy publicly supported schools who will accept ROTC, and thus deny the hated warmongers both the numbers and high caliber grads that the armed services need to force Amerika’s Imperialist designs upon the downtrodden of this world.
To frustrate the designs of these kinds of people the academies would be worth it at twice their current costs.
Addendum: Any university, like Harvard, which sees 60% of it’s under-grads receiving a grade of A- or better, has a diploma not worth the paper it’s written on. A certificate of completion from a welding school has more academic heft
and academic rigor behind it by comparison…
Virgil,
The joke around Boston was that newcomers to the area were warned to always ensure that their automobile windows were rolled up when passing by Harvard.
It kept the faculty from tossing a degree onto their front seat as they drove past…
The idea of closing the service academies is ridiculous-period.
However that said, the Academies and their parent services would do well to go back and take a look at how they have jumped the tracks on accomplishing their primary mission: The production of the core of commissioned officer accessions for any given year. OCS and ROTC numbers are supposed to ebb and flow with demand-but the academies are supposed to remain constant at about 1000 officers per year.
Several changes would help the Academies get back on track:
1) All graduates of USNA should become URL officers or Marine Officers. The school should not be commissioning staff corps officers or restricted line officers except in unusual circumstances.
2) All USNA grads should come in as USN. (With the attendant service obligation that goes along with it). The “commission everybody as USNR” was a bad idea.
3) The Academies need to find a “core” curriculum and then build their major programs around that. As a suggestion I could think of nothing better than at least two years of college English -because all officers need to know how to write- mandatory four years of language education, a course in the history of Western Civilization and a course in Military History.
4) Expand and make more use of programs such as the permanent military professor program-right now the problem with it is that officers have to choose too early to apply for it, before all the prizes have been handed out. The 30 year statutory retirement should be waived for those who are accepted. Don’t underestimate the value of being taught by someone who has been to the institution itself.
Almost surprisingly
I find myself in complete concurrence. Especially on the Western Civ and History courses. Our engineers make brilliant engineers. Many of them can’t write or express themselves very well, and we in the Navy too often get our asses handed to us by the Air Force in Congress because we can’t effectively tell a compelling tale.
Can’t speak to 4, but 1 and 2 already exist – the only people going restricted line are medical disqualifications or the handful of people going med corps each year, and everyone gets USN commission now.
I agree with 3, mids need more humanities, but it’s tough to find a spot to fit it in the matrix, especially for the engineers. Even us Group III majors would have been hard pressed to find room for more classes, especially plebe and youngster years.
When did the law about USNR commissions change?
Actually, the truly smart Mids can get commissioned directly into the medical corps (and many go straight from USNA to med school). Also, there are a select few (Trident Scholars) who are allowed to pursue post graduate schools right after graduation.
Yah, the med corps guys are truly a handful (if I remember, roughly 10-15 a year). The few who go to post-grad immediately (not necessarily, but usually including the Trident Scholars) still go URL, just delayed a year or so depending on the program.
I had the opportunity of talking with a high school dropout, who taught himself computer science and math. His assistants all had Ph.D’s, but they always came to him to solve the problems. One of his managers got curious as to how much he knew. So the company he was working with at the time decided to do a “no warning” testing program. He went in to work, the company administered their complete battery of tests. This included tests in math on all levels. After a few weeks, for grading the tests, they called him into the office to tell him his scores. They said, “We have two problems, first, you had the highest scores in the company. Second, you completed the actual testing in half the time, then you simply went back to work. Now, these scores will go into your ‘jacket’. We will go out and tell your co-workers and all of management of your accomplishments, including the Chairman of the Board. It is important because this shows your *real* ability to produce, that is not just a perception.”
I can’t speak to this issue with Colorado Springs, or, as it’s often called in the Army, “South Hudson Institute of Technology,” But I’ve had classmate who were grads from the boat school. Many states refused to license Annapolis grads in Engineering. The two I met at Tennessee Tech were there to make up deficiencies in their training so they could be licensed in Tennessee. Both were alright as students, but neither of them burnt up the boards.
The PhD criticism is just credentialist BS and not worthy of a response. PhDs, alas, are a dime a dozen. They supposedly learn the tools of scholarship, but when I see what passes for scholarship these days I’ve come to believe most of the PhDs aren’t worth the 4 oz of C-4 it would take to blow them to the hot place and most would be rejected from there.
One of my academic regrets is that I didn’t take the EIT following NNPS. Between NNPS and prototype I was the heaviest in theoretical multi-disciplinary engineering I have even been.
Lex, you left out the Dirty Little Secret.
Strategic acumen often requires a VERY eclectic education. One not available at the undergraduate level. The Naval War College is a good start…but an intensive study of history helps a lot. Twenty years worth is a good start.
About Mr. Ricks’ opinions, they are like a rectum, everybody has one. The question is this, is it practical? There are two things today’s young military officer should be, *educated and trained*. Do these words mean the same thing? But like Ricks, I have both an opinion and a rectum, the problem happens when we try to pull the former from the latter. No, they are not the same. *Educate,* means, to me, a mind information processing system including both theory and application. *Training*, again means, to me, a behavioral response system to various triggers. What other factors need to be considered to have *some* grasp of the issues on this subject. We need to look at our society, it has the tension of being both *dynamic* and yet *very traditional*. Therefore, I believe this is not in the best interests of this great Nation. My personal position on this subject to leave things as they are.
…I’ve worked for several Citadel grads (including the current Commandant, who is one of the finest officers I’ve ever known) and USAFA grads alike, and I have to kind of give the edge to the Citadel guys. For some reason they have tended to be more flexible and creative…
Mike Kozlowski
It could be the creativity developed to get over the fence and down to the local pub, or…better yet, the College of Charleston, without the benefit of a Charleston Pass….but then, I date myself to “pre-diverse” days, without being apprehended..and back in time for “All in.”
On USS FIRSTSHIP, I had my ring, LT Cliff Barnes was a West Point grad (Dad had been a retired CPO…and he couldn’t get into the USNA), ENS Tom Hartmann was an Aggie, and then we had LT Randy Rice and LCDR Frank Mueller to represent the USNA. My roomie was an ex-ET1 NESEP, Harry Watkins III, whom I continue to admire for his excellence, these many years later. Lots of LDOs and Warrants, too. Ergo, three of us with officer khaki, but an Army “education.”
Don’t forget “trunk leave”.
As I was walking across WP, by the parade ground, I was surprised to see my son walking alone and frowning. I stopped him and asked what was causing the frown…he explained that he had just finished the final in his Cow english class and it was 100% of his grade (later WP tweaked the requirements). They had written nine papers during the semester for practice. His essay question was to discuss whether there should be secret sororities and fraternities at WP and …keep in mind your answer will be read by a 3 star general and holder of a Phd…WP wants officers that can communicate effectively…written and oral…it does have a core of subjects each cadet must take …beyond the five semesters of some engineering discipline….I’m currently reading “Soldier’s Heart by Elizabeth D. Samet, Phd and teacher of literature at WP since 1997…btw my son pulled an A for the course…of the 24 firsties retaking the course 12 passed and 12 failied and found themselves privates in the Army…no degree for them… I had driven an extra vehicle to WP since he was a rising firstie and firsties had vehicle privledges during their firstie year.
One of the benefits of having been around awhile is that I have been able to see this particular debate – the relative value and costs of USNA, NROTC and OCS – before, a couple of times.
And it’s not a bad discussion to have if you can get beyond the emotion associated with alma maters, etc. We certainly shouldn’t be afraid of it at all.
My contribution will be based not only on my command time (DD/CG/CSG), but also on the perspective I gained as CNP where I “owned” the OCS and NROTC programs and was very involved in the Academy.
I think we don’t put enough value on the balance these three officer accession sources give us within the officer corps as a whole.
Having the Naval Academy as a national institution, with midshipmen from all 50 states and not a few foreign nations is of significant benefit to the Navy, also a national institution.
The blend from over 70 colleges and universities, many with their own great traditions of long service to the Navy and USMC (Notre Dame, U of Texas, Purdue, Va Tech, etc) gives our officer corps significant intellectual diversity.
And OCS is the great opportunity-provider, for those with the desire and ability to serve ( and serve damn well), yet found the more traditional paths unavailable to them.
I think maintaining these three sources of officer accessions is the right thing for our Navy for the long haul – each source has unique strengths and deficiencies (which will be the subject of endless debate for the next 234 years), but, when viewed as a total system, sems to work for us quite well. Thanks, JCHjr
Admiral,
My oldest daughter is currently considering an application for OCS. Although her degree is in English, I explained to her that the Navy values critical thinking and communication skills, as well as the ability to assess a situation, make a decision, and follow through on that course.
She’s a bright young women, whom I feel has the ability to make her mark regardless of where she finally ties up.
As a former Navy man, I have spoken to her honestly about the pros and cons of a life in the service. It’s not for everyone, although her brother is currently deployed overseas as an Airborne Infantryman, and seems to be thriving in that post.
I am not pushing her to join the service. As her father, I feel it my obligation to lay before her the options available and to give her the opportunity to make the best decision, giving her skills, desires, and what’s out there for her.
To be frank, I have reservations about her joining the Navy, particularly when I see the emphasis currently placed upon areas I consider secondary to the needs of a wartime service. However, that discussion is for another day.
I guess my point is that, regardless of where and how we obtain our officers, we seem to be blessed with an embarrassment of riches. No matter the situation, throughout our Navy’s history, we have always seemed to find the right leader at the right moment to steady the helm and bring us out on top.
God grant us the continuance of such blessings.
Respects,
Can’t say it much better then the DNS.
But I’ll add this, having been to the Command and General Staff College, I’d attest that Gen. Petraeus is brilliant for many other reasons then winning the Marshall Award.
It’s tough to get, but it’s not what you’d think…
There is two parts to Rick’s arguement. I am suprised there has been no discussion of the second part-namely what is the best way for the services to get their officers to complete their post-graduate education? Would the Navy be better served by closing the Naval Post Graduate School and funding two years at a major civilian university? Which the Air Force and Army seem to do more of than the Navy-primarily because the Navy is already trying to fit 15 pounds of potatoes into a 10 pound career bag.
I think there is value in having folks get out away from the Naval Path for a couple of years while earning an MS or MA from a major civilian university. Not to mention a recruiting value to it as well. I sure as hell would not want to have had to do what some folks have to do-e.g. get a masters on their own time while they also have to do a full day’s work at the RAG. There has to be a better way to allow time for post graduate study.
What Rick seems to ignore is that a vast number of service post-graduates do get their advanced degrees from civilian institutes. He also ignores that there are areas of concentration that have unique applicability to the services that would either have to subsidized at a single institute os simply lost. For example, I have a hard time imaging that market forces in academia would support advanced ASW or cryptologic signals processing studies.
As for your second point, Skippy, it is the 15# of “matter” and a 10# sack. The only way I see to address this is in increasing the officer pool and raising the HYT and promotion gates. Not to get too NPC on you, but, as you know, everything in the Navy is driven by sea-billet manning requirements and available inventory. If you don’t have the bodies then shore opportunities, including PG, will have to take up the slack to keep the boats at sea. Perhaps as more LCS roll out and DDG21 starts to come on line the concerted efforts to automate and reduce manning will alleviate this stress, but I think you’d probably agree with my prediction that any gains will more likely be seen as a potential cost saving by force reduction.
Subman,
I don’t disagree with you-but the idea of pushing some of the gates back a year or two might not be a bad idea. Although its not without its downside and as long as DOPMA remains unchanged, it is really not going to happen.
The struggle the Navy has continually had is the need for young CO’s vs allowing time to do all of the professional development things that give you a broad perspective on the Naval Service.
Skippy? I’m still waiting for the justification for the post-graduate education.
Among machinists and welders there’s a long-standing contempt for engineers, those who know everything but how to make what they draw on paper.
Likewise, among the fleet there’s a long-standing knowledge that officers are there to lead and take responsibility, chiefs and enlisted get the work done and know more about the details than the guy giving the orders.
Which isn’t a bad thing, I submit. I doubt the CEO of Intel knows anything about making CPU’s in a clean room. He has bigger things to occupy his time, he hires talent to oversee that effort.
But with that said, few ever rise to flag rank, and a Ph.D in (sorry Lex, going to use you as the example here) political science isn’t likely to give a pilot an edge over his enemy in air combat, nor will a Ph.D in mechanical engineering help a division officer manage his crew.
At some point one has to look at the advanced degree for what is it, specialization and thus isolation when the mission is different from the education choice.
A general degree, the standard BS or BA, is a good start to show one can learn. As with most undergrads taking on the work-a-day world, everything after that is O.J.T.
And we’ve traditions, and CPO’s, to handle that part of it.
– Max
Max,
I can think of two reasons for a Masters degree: one Navy one non Navy.
The non Navy reason is that Navy careers come to an end-and it would seem the civilian market places a value on certain post graduate degrees.
The Navy reason is that it is pretty much a requirement for promotion these days. Certainly in the joint world their USAF and Army compatriots will have one.
[...] the meantime, I’ll continue to read the great Naval blogs out there: Neptunus Lex Information Dissemination The Stupid Shall Be Punished CDR Salamander [...]
Very interesting conversation so far. I can’t really add much, but I believe Ricks makes a fatal error when trying to compare costs.
That might be true for what the Army actually pays out of their budget, but that University that’s getting $130,000 for the ROTC student is also getting Federal, State and Local moneys, plus all kinds of other money not counted. A lot of that comes right out of the taxpayers pockets, so eliminating the Service Academies would no way save $170,000 per student.
Besides, who would play in the Army/Navy game every year?
As a former OCS guy and SWO, it’s pretty obvious to me that Ring Knockers make better JO’s. They’ve had more and better training. On graduation, they’re mostly ready to step onto the quarterdeck of a ship.
ROTC and OCS guys eventually catch up. This does not diminish the quality of a USNA education. Instead it makes the case for the strength of the Navy’s ongoing, professional education programs.
BTW, I recently visited the Academy with my 10-year old son for the sole purpose of corrupting his young mind. I sat in on a few classes and was blown away by the poise and intellect of the mids. And by the quality of the the professors.
Not to start an inter-service thing, but the Naval Academy’s approach to tenure attracts a higher quality faculty. I don’t understand why the Air Force and West Point guys haven’t followed suit.
Much to the chagrin of some alums, the USNA happens to be a top-ranked liberal arts school in addition to being a top 5 engineering school. So graduates don’t just know how to do things, they also know whether they should.
I’m USNA ’73
Couple of thoughts from my perspective:
1) I received an accredited degree in Systems Engineering. That means (like other degrees at the Boat School) that I had to complete all the (civilian) academic requirements for that degree (about 120 semester hours) in addition to my Navy courses in leadership, military history, celestial navigation, etc. etc. for about another 30 or so hours. Those extra courses make a huge difference in your daily time management. Not so with civilian universities. What is their extra demand? Social interaction?
2) At Navy – we had an honor code (as the others do of course) A midshipman will not lie, cheat, or steal. That’s the entire code. It is enforced – by the brigade of midshipmen. That extra aspect of college life makes a huge difference with civilian colleges. That’s something that stays with you forever….
3) I went Navy air – light attack. Believe me, the ass end of that carrier could give a flying fig where you graduated from. You had better be able to handle it. That was a great equalizer among pilots, especially nuggets. Did my ring make a difference there? Probably not. But we all pitched in to help each other – regardless of our alma mater. So the comment about J.O.s being relatively equal was certainly the case in the flying community.
4) I got a M. S. from USC. It was a piece of cake. Took 2.5 years as I was working full time (civilian), but the academic and other demands were not that tough. USNA discipline, time management, priorities, and desire was a distinct advantage. Of course, I graduated in the top two-thirds of my academy class.
5) Look at the problems/challenges that are going on in Iraq right now since they don’t have the military leadership in the Iraq military. You can’t just “order up” an officer corps or other leadership command overnight. The US service academy’s have centuries, yes, centuries to lean on for those lessons learned.
6) Finally, and this may be the biggest distinction between service academies and all the rest. You (and those today) really want to be there. If you don’t “want it” – you’ll never make it through there. Other colleges you can coast – on your intellect, you daddy’s money, your dunk shot, etc. etc. Not at Navy. Not at any of them.
Carry on.
Some civilian Universities have strict honor codes as well. UVA comes to mind. Read it here:
http://www.virginia.edu/uvatours/shorthistory/code.html
Burkee,
I was trying very hard to explain to some of my non-military friends why it takes so long to stand up an army, as in a new Iraqi army.
They simply could not understand why it takes so long to develop Officers and NCO’s. It’s like the whole thing to them was a giant video game or shopping mall, where you ordered up a bunch of tanks and weapons, put all these folks into uniform, then sent them off to kill the bad guys.
Simply clueless, these folks. You can train a monkey to fire a weapon. It takes years to raise up an officer & nco corps, and instill in them the concepts of leadership by example.
It takes years to develop a logistics system to feed, cloth and care for the army in the field.
it takes years to develop an intelligence branch for the military, that can devlop, interpret and present actuable intel for a field commander, and at both tactical and strategic levels.
There are so many factors in raising up an armed force, and we are indeed blessed with a rich history and a proven track record, and the schools and societies, and families, especially the latter, to give us the men and women to step into the roles we need.
respects,
AW1 Tim,
I’d argue that nobody has ever yet succeeded in raising up a professional modern officer or staff NCO corps outside of the Anglosphere, Israel, Japan and South Korea. Every other army and navy that the West has invested decades of effort into training and bringing up to some minimal Western standard isn’t worth the powder and shot to blow them up. Sadly, this includes most of NATO.
Curtis,
I have, over time, developed what I believe to be a pretty good eye for how a nation values it’s forces. I take a look at how they appear in uniform. Not on the parade ground, but in the field. How they dress, and how they hold themselves. A look into their eyes, full on, will often tell you everything you need to know.
The other thing to look at is their field ration. Our MRE, for all it’s faults, is head and shoulders above many other nation’s field ration. Ours is designed to be portable, nutritious, and diverse. Virtually everything is in foil or paper packets, easily disposed of and lightweight.
Now look at, say, the French. Tins of food in a pasteboard box. Bulky, difficult to pack. The soldiers depend upon the supply train to get chow to them, rather than hump in several meals in the rucksacks, because they simply are too bulky and heavy.
The Brits, Italians, even the Germans all still use tins of foods for most of their entrees.
But then there are the Russians.
The Russian Federation recently began issuing the Individual Food Ration – Daily (IRP-P). Modelled somewhat upon the French RCIR, the corrugated cardboard box contains an entire days food, plus a limited number of supplements. Each ration box contains 2 square main-course cans (generally meat with cereal or vegetables), 1 can of stewed beef, 1 can of meat spread (sausage stuffing or liver paté), and 6 packages of hard bread. Also included are a foil pouch of fruit jam, an envelope of beverage powder, 2 packages of instant tea or coffee, 3 packets of sugar, 2 small packs of caramels, 3 x paper towels, and a multivitamin tablet. Also included are a small can opener, a menu & instruction sheet, a disposable folding ration heater, and a blister pack of 4 solid fuel tablets.
Our nations takes an interest in the training AND the well-being of it’s men. We look after the small details such as portability, refuse, etc.
A nation that looks after the small details will have no worries about the big ones.
Tim,
I’ve worked with a lot of armies, marines and navies. The French naval ration included a bottle of wine. Not sure about the army ration. The Portuguese ration included wine.
I don’t think the West had much to do with training the Russians. I still have a P-38 on my dog tag chain even though we haven’t had c-rations in decades. I liked the MRE the instant that they gave me the means to heat it. The ODS MREs sucked big time since they were eaten cold unless one had a heater. I always liked trey paks since my unit had a portable griddle and we could add spices and herbs till we burst.
I once had a moron for a CO who assured me, as CHENG (upon my return onboard after 6 months forward deployed on another ship as CHENG) that if I just took care of the small stuff the big stuff would take care of itself. Since I was at 18% manning, undergoing a full blown diesel inspection and in the process of realigning 2 MPDE and the largest SSDG, cutting new phenolics and otherwise not sleeping….I grew to hate that stupid expression. My priority has always been to take care of the biggest things and work my way down the list. That way I don’t end up screwing my juniors by telling them to go screw themselves, there isn’t money to pay for their PCS moves until next fiscal year and if that means your kids change schools midway through the academic year that’s your bloody problem.
We owe it to our people to look after the big things first like adults. Mostly the small stuff takes care of itself.
Other people’s mileage will differ.
AW1 Tim and Curtis:
Great observations and insights. I came to this thread late, but I’m glad to see that others have similar thoughts. Regarding the leadership corps, you did a better job expressing that critical lesson. It would only take one generation, if that, to completely destroy all that the U.S. military has accomplished in that regard. I guess some people just take that for granted.
Guys, I really like the modern analogies to “an army marches on its stomach.” Whether it’s considered a big or little thing doesn’t matter; but I say the same thing when I’m doing my docent thing on the USS Midway museum here in San Diego. I take tours down below and when we hit the laundry spaces I say the sailors doing this job are every bit as important as the pilots above. If you don’t have clean, sanitary, sharp looking, well fitting uniforms everything suffers – morale, mission, esprit de corps, all the big stuff….that real leaders know about.
Going now to the boat for a watch. C-ya.
The insight on rations and the national view of it’s military is interesting, hadn’t thought much about that particular angle. The rationale I had heard for the nature of the Italian ration was that they did not maintain an expeditionary army and would serve within the borders of Italy. They expected to recieve support from local sources while in the field and did not need the sort of mobile oriented rations we provide.
Well, I found this a week late.
I had a full ride to MIT and another to Shipwreck. I took classes at two respectable (although not top tier) colleges while I was in high school. USNA afforded me many opportunities to meet and work with the best and brightest of my peers from MIT, CalTech, Princeton, and a handful of others. I never felt that they had received a better education than I and (since graduating) I have never regretted my choice for a second.
To chastise USNA for it’s academic preparation is pure buffoonery. To boot, we got a lot of good leadership and general life skills edumacation that is not part of the standard package most places.
Humble,
I remember racing at the boat school a lot since they played host to a lot of the east coast races. I recall visiting the library and being amazed that on every table in that building there was a pretty high end TI calculator. They weren’t chained to the table. They were for student use. This was pre-PC days and TI calculators cost a fortune. We still used slide rules!
We made the mistake my first time out with the team of accepting Navy’s offer of racks in the field house. Never did that again. Although we represented a big school the sailing team was not officially sanctioned by the University we sailed for although we did have Mid Atlantic Region accreditation. We tended to sail on the cheap and have a hell of a lot of fun. We were not as bad as the Terps since a number of us were ROTC and the rest were All American (OK, just the girls dammit).
In my experience the boat school guys had access to top notch instructors and equipment. It’s a pity they couldn’t train their mids out of over vanging a laser and t’was hardly sporting to pull the drain plug on lasers that were hot swapped on a raft in the river between races. Only a complete bastard would do something like that. As with the Field House, it only took one lesson.