[QQ9ktYrV]

The ROI for a single academy cadet is not justified by the resources (money and personnel) used to produce a new officer. Add this to the fact that academy cadets are not promoted at a higher rate nor do they remain on active duty any longer than those commissioned through ROTC or OTS (see GAO report mentioned in this summary) and one realizes that a single service academy is enough educational inefficiency for our nation.

Service academies are outstanding institutions, but any place of higher learning that charges $333K per year in tuition (look at academy total budgets--not the phoney "education costs" formula they use--and divide the budget by average number of new officers commissioned (~900) to get an idea of tuition costs--$333K--based on $300M annual budget for Air Force Academy). Now is the time for a single academy.

Invest money in soldiers/airman/marines/sailors who have proven themselves on active duty, not on college kids with nice applications. Use the manpower savings for operations vice enjoying life in the ivy tower.

[Adfcvkdg]

The ROI for a single academy cadet is not justified by the resources (money and personnel) used to produce a new officer. Add this to the fact that academy cadets are not promoted at a higher rate nor do they remain on active duty any longer than those commissioned through ROTC or OTS (see GAO report mentioned in this summary) and one realizes that a single service academy is enough educational inefficiency for our nation.

Service academies are outstanding institutions, but any place of higher learning that charges $333K per year in tuition (look at academy total budgets--not the phoney "education costs" formula they use--and divide the budget by average number of new officers commissioned (~900) to get an idea of tuition costs--$333K--based on $300M annual budget for Air Force Academy). Now is the time for a single academy.

Invest money in soldiers/airman/marines/sailors who have proven themselves on active duty, not on college kids with nice applications. Use the manpower savings for operations vice enjoying life in the ivy tower.

+1 You have my vote.

[Yswxomvy]

The ROI for a single academy cadet is not justified by the resources (money and personnel) used to produce a new officer. Add this to the fact that academy cadets are not promoted at a higher rate nor do they remain on active duty any longer than those commissioned through ROTC or OTS (see GAO report mentioned in this summary) and one realizes that a single service academy is enough educational inefficiency for our nation.

Service academies are outstanding institutions, but any place of higher learning that charges $333K per year in tuition (look at academy total budgets--not the phoney "education costs" formula they use--and divide the budget by average number of new officers commissioned (~900) to get an idea of tuition costs--$333K--based on $300M annual budget for Air Force Academy). Now is the time for a single academy.

Invest money in soldiers/airman/marines/sailors who have proven themselves on active duty, not on college kids with nice applications. Use the manpower savings for operations vice enjoying life in the ivy tower.

i cant remember which country it was, but that is exactly how they did it. you enlisted and worked your way up the chain. you didnt walk in the door with a basketweaving degree and get a butterbar.

[*Playergirl*]

Also agree. I know a cadet graduating from any service academy can actually join any service branch they want. I've known more than one Air Force officer that was a Naval Academy grad. Bottom line - if you can join any branch you want when graduating from any academy - why not have just one.

[PeterPatrickJohn]

Another problem the services are having is that Senior Enlisted are most of the time more educated than a 22 year old "butterbar." If you just take experience into account and then couple it with a Bachelors and even up to a Masters or PhD the lines are becoming very blurred. Why should an 0-3 over 4 years make more than an E9...Sorry to get off topic...In short yes one service academy and choose your service in your 3rd year.

[BamSaitinypap]

Yep! Consolidation is the smart move if not having the O's derived from the ranks of proven Es!!!

[vipdumpp]

The ROI for a single academy cadet is not justified by the resources (money and personnel) used to produce a new officer. Add this to the fact that academy cadets are not promoted at a higher rate nor do they remain on active duty any longer than those commissioned through ROTC or OTS (see GAO report mentioned in this summary) and one realizes that a single service academy is enough educational inefficiency for our nation.

Service academies are outstanding institutions, but any place of higher learning that charges $333K per year in tuition (look at academy total budgets--not the phoney "education costs" formula they use--and divide the budget by average number of new officers commissioned (~900) to get an idea of tuition costs--$333K--based on $300M annual budget for Air Force Academy). Now is the time for a single academy.

Invest money in soldiers/airman/marines/sailors who have proven themselves on active duty, not on college kids with nice applications. Use the manpower savings for operations vice enjoying life in the ivy tower.

I agree with your logic, but not your conclusion. If the service academies are not worth the money, why have ANY?

If you're going to tow the junked cars in your front lawn, why leave one behind?

[Adimonnna]

I agree with your logic, but not your conclusion. If the service academies are not worth the money, why have ANY?

If you're going to tow the junked cars in your front lawn, why leave one behind?

We might make a good Conservative out of you yet!

I agree 100%, if our concern is we're not getting a return on this investment, and that ROTC produces a comparable product at much less cost, why not reduce the number to zero? Might even kill off some of the good ol' boy system in the process! Although the last part is admittedly a stretch!

[bWxNFI3c]

Sounds like a solid idea to me. I don't know that much about the academies other than the AF & Navy are cosidered good ot great engineering schools (no insult to Army, just not sure what their focus is on).

Promote jointness, produce officers who will grow up knowing each other even if they are in other "branches". And like someone above mentioned, they could choose their respective branch in the third year in order to "specialize" in a field.

As to those trying to pit E's vs O's based on education, I was an E with a Masters (decided to stay an E). Said it before and I'll say it again, if you want O pay and responsiblity, then get the degree and apply for the commission because no matter what we think, feel or believe, there are three words that describe what even the lowliest O has responsibility for over even the most senior E...say it with me "Burden of Command." A brand new O on G-series orders can Art 15 an most (not all) E's...an E-9 can make your life miserable but cannot do that.

[BeaseHoca]

How much should a CGO make, and when should an officer's pay be equal to or greater than an E9's?

When they are able to bring more to the table then an E9. I could not answer when that would be but my guess is that it would not be at the O3/4 level.

[choollaBard]

Why have any?

Tradition. This is the only reason we currently have three (four if you count the CG). This is the heart of the question--at which point does military tradition become too expensive to support? These sacred cows feed on bales of cash and suck up personnel whose talents could be applied to operational/support missions. Roughly 4-5K personnel are assigned to the Air Force Academy / 10 ABW to support the prep-school and the Academy cadets. There are a lot of AF ops and support units who are working extra shifts / longer hours because they are short on personnel and its only going to get worse as cuts start coming in the next few years.

I'm all for tradition, but not when it annually wastes millions of dollars and tens of thousands of work hours.

Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things. --Peter Drucker

[StivRichardOff]

Why have any?

Tradition. This is the only reason we currently have three (four if you count the CG). This is the heart of the question--at which point does military tradition become too expensive to support? These sacred cows feed on bales of cash and suck up personnel whose talents could be applied to operational/support missions. Roughly 4-5K personnel are assigned to the Air Force Academy / 10 ABW to support the prep-school and the Academy cadets. There are a lot of AF ops and support units who are working extra shifts / longer hours because they are short on personnel and its only going to get worse as cuts start coming in the next few years.

I'm all for tradition, but not when it annually wastes millions of dollars and tens of thousands of work hours.

Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things. --Peter Drucker

I could be wrong, but I also like to think that the academies also do academic work/research dedicated to the science of military power and warfighting.

I would think it'd be a good idea to maintain such an institution.

[Wrasialat]

I could be wrong, but I also like to think that the academies also do academic work/research dedicated to the science of military power and warfighting.

Which would be great if that was all they did, which is in effect redundant to War Colleges and other entities, and JHU, and contracting agencies, and various miscellaneous. It seems to me this functionality could be consolidated and streamlined while turning over the baseline academic requirements of commissioning over to private sources. Then again I'm not an academy guy so that may factor in as a personal bias.

[Kneefrenolf]

I could be wrong, but I also like to think that the academies also do academic work/research dedicated to the science of military power and warfighting.

I would think it'd be a good idea to maintain such an institution. You are partially wrong. They academies do provide a military perspective in the classes, but so too do ROTC and OTS. I cannot recall a major innovation or research study from any of the academies. Real research for military applications are done by defense contractors, not the service academies. Also, remember, most of the faculty at the academies are part-time scholars--active duty members who take a temporary assignment to teach, then return to their real jobs.

If the academies were effective and could justify their high-cost (again, it is not just the dollars, lots of active duty manpower to run these facilities), then keep them open. Otherwise, let the states and educational professionals run them similar to a VMI or Texas A&M. Invest the cost savings on proven active duty performers (e.g. invest in committed war fighters versus someone thinking about the military as a career).

A good idea to maintain the institution? Is it a good idea to maintain wasting resources?

[KaterinaNJq]

Why have any?

Tradition. This is the only reason we currently have three (four if you count the CG). This is the heart of the question--at which point does military tradition become too expensive to support? These sacred cows feed on bales of cash and suck up personnel whose talents could be applied to operational/support missions. Roughly 4-5K personnel are assigned to the Air Force Academy / 10 ABW to support the prep-school and the Academy cadets. There are a lot of AF ops and support units who are working extra shifts / longer hours because they are short on personnel and its only going to get worse as cuts start coming in the next few years.

I'm all for tradition, but not when it annually wastes millions of dollars and tens of thousands of work hours.

Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things. --Peter Drucker

Five add in the Merchant Marine Academy.

[Argurnenoni]

Sounds like a solid idea to me. I don't know that much about the academies other than the AF & Navy are cosidered good ot great engineering schools (no insult to Army, just not sure what their focus is on).

Promote jointness, produce officers who will grow up knowing each other even if they are in other "branches". And like someone above mentioned, they could choose their respective branch in the third year in order to "specialize" in a field.

As to those trying to pit E's vs O's based on education, I was an E with a Masters (decided to stay an E). Said it before and I'll say it again, if you want O pay and responsiblity, then get the degree and apply for the commission because no matter what we think, feel or believe, there are three words that describe what even the lowliest O has responsibility for over even the most senior E...say it with me "Burden of Command." A brand new O on G-series orders can Art 15 an most (not all) E's...an E-9 can make your life miserable but cannot do that.

I came in with a bachelor's, have stayed enlisted and am getting my master's. The Army paid my loans and now I'm using TA. I know by the time I retire I'll have more experience and knowledge than the 2LTs who come in but such is life. You couldn't pay me any amount of money to be an officer. I will never join the dark side - I've had multiple officers try to get me to go. My old CO - always tries to get me to when talking to me and said "Your wasting your talents" as an enlisted person. I think that might possibly be the first thing that ever offended me.

[parurorges]

We might make a good Conservative out of you yet!

I agree 100%, if our concern is we're not getting a return on this investment, and that ROTC produces a comparable product at much less cost, why not reduce the number to zero? Might even kill off some of the good ol' boy system in the process! Although the last part is admittedly a stretch!

IMO, they should also reduce the ROTC footprint. Some schools have 2 or 3 ROTC units. There is no reason to have more than one. Not a huge expenditure at each school-5/6 officers 4/5 enlisted per ROTC det but when you add them all up...

Five add in the Merchant Marine Academy.

Six...U.S. Coast Guard Academy....

[Bemapayople]

IMO, they should also reduce the ROTC footprint. Some schools have 2 or 3 ROTC units. There is no reason to have more than one. Not a huge expenditure at each school-5/6 officers 4/5 enlisted per ROTC det but when you add them all up...



Six...U.S. Coast Guard Academy....

I'll buy that, I think in general the officer ranks are a little more bottom heavy (and top heavy) than they need to be. In most services the officer ranks are like an hourglass as it is.

[Knongargoapex]

Are you implying that an E-9, ANY E-9, brings more to the table than an O-4 operations officer or commander? How so?

Yes an E-9 can bring more to the table than an O-4, not a squadron CC. Chief at say 18 yrs vs and O-3 or O-4 brings more experience and possibly more knowledge of operations than the O's. Certainly not the case over the entire AF but its there for the most part. Most Chiefs I know have bachelors or masters just like O-4s who sometimes have masters.

Are you implying its impossible for E-9 to bring more to the table than an O-4?

[MormefWrarebe]

In acft maintenance, MOST Chiefs tend to "homestead" in one functional area (AGE, FAB, AMXS, etc) and one type of aircraft/system their entire careers until they make Chief. By the time an officer makes Major he/she has bounced around multiple shops/flightline environments, aircraft types, and bases. Also, let's add in the fact that you are also comparing a CMSgt with 18 years to a Major with at LEAST 10 years (earliest you can pin on). With the 8 additional years most Chiefs have stayed in one shop, one plane, and maybe two bases, and you think they "bring more to the table?" Really?

As for education, if you check the AFPC demographics website, you'll see the following for 2011. There are 2,574 CMSgts. 946 have a bachelors (37%), and 442 have a Masters (17%). Seems like the Chiefs you've known fall into one of these SMALLER groups. What a coincidence!

As for Majors, it's impossible to "sometimes" have a Masters, unless you just like to borrow one occasionally. You either have one or you don't. There are 14,476 (FY11), with 9,733 that have a Masters (67%). While were at it, even 36% of ALL Captains have a Masters degree, and I think it's safe to say that all Capts/Majs have a Bachelors degree.

In general, Sr Capts/Majors are more well rounded, and Chiefs are experts on enlisted career progression. Together, O's and Chiefs make GREAT teams!

One final note: I've always believed (as enlisted and officer), that if you are part of that 1% that make up CMSgts, then you should be paid as an O-5. What an incentive for enlisted to strive to make it to the top!

I am also nearly positive you would be correct (currently a bachelor's is required to pin on O-2). That rule has been around since at least '99 but as we know, there are always exceptions so there may be one or two out there. As far as I know, the last group that were made officers without a bachelor's were nurses.