Would you be in favor of repurposing our service academies?

Bruce Fleming writes at Salon that the Service Academies should be abolished, that they are a “boondoggle” and a waste of taxpayer money. Is he right?
To answer, let’s de-construct Bruce Fleming's argument. The first step in doing that is to learn a little about him. Here's his CV: http://www.usna.edu/Users/english/fleming/vita.htm. In short, he's a member of faculty at the Naval Academy, where he's spent almost his entire professional career. He's also infamous for bashing the very Naval Academy that has provided him a base to establish himself as an academic. As you can read from his CV, he's well-educated and well-published, as we'd expect for a member of faculty at a Service Academy. My take-aways from this first step: 1) the author has an inside look at what is good and bad about the Service Academies and 2) the author has no actual military, political, or budgetary experience to judge whether the Service Academies continue to serve a purpose. I'd also note that he didn't title his article "Let's Abolish the Naval Academy." So there is likely a pro-Naval Academy bias there.
Fleming’s first argument: Convert the “four hugely expensive and underproductive U.S. service academies (Navy, Army, Air Force and Coast Guard) — taxpayer-funded undergraduate institutions whose products all become officers in the military — to more modest and functional schools for short-term military training programs, as the British have repurposed Sandhurst.”
Firstly, Fleming seems to lack an understanding of what Royal Military Academy Sandhurst was, is, and does. From the RMA Sandhurst website (http://www.army.mod.uk/training_education/24475.aspx ), Sandhurst now trains all officers in the British Army to take on the responsibilities of leading the soldiers under their command. More than 80 percent of officer cadets are university graduates, but some arrive without an undergraduate degree. Fleming’s point that RMA Sandhurst has been repurposed is a bit off, as RMA Sandhurst continues to conduct its original mission of providing pre-commissioning training. RMA Sandhurst, at least as far as I’ve found, hasn’t adjusted its mission or been repurposed for short term military training programs as Fleming suggests. The primary course offered, the pre-commissioning course, is almost a year long. For a comparison to pre-commissioning or initial training conducted in the U.S. Army, the pre-commissioning course at RMA Sandhurst is likely most comparable to a combination of the military and leadership training future Army officers receive during pre-commissioning training (Basic Officer Leadership Course (BOLC) Phase 1 or BOLC A) and that received during BOLC Phase II or BOLC B, the branch-specific training officers now conduct (for links to the by-branch BOLC Phase II: http://www.westpointmwr.com/acs/BOL_Course.pdf?p=SSO:CONSENT:0::::P1_ID:311 ).
Secondly, while Fleming proposes repurposing the Service Academies to “more modest and functional schools for short-term military training,” he does not provide any detail on the types of schools he envisions. Again, using the Army as an example, Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) already provides all required Army training and education. Is Fleming proposing spending money to transform the Service Academies to provide services that TRADOC (or similar organizations in the other Services) already provides? It seems so, and this seems to undermine the fiscal perspective underlying Fleming’s argument (ie, that the Service Academies cost a great deal of money). In his title, Fleming calls for the abolishment of West Point; he shifts gears in the text to transforming Service Academies into something different and new. Ignoring the lack of logical coherence between the title and the text is difficult, but, fiscally, Fleming’s title argument makes more sense than the argument he presents in the text. That is, logically, completely abolishing the Service Academies would address the deficiencies Fleming finds with them; transforming them would provide redundant training at great cost to the taxpayer, which Fleming seems most interested in avoiding.
Fleming’s second argument: “Training is something the military does—education, certainly, is not.”
Firstly, Fleming is wrong, and he knows it, or at least he should. The military “does” education; Fleming himself is an educator in the military system, helping future Navy officers learn to read and write (sorry, I can’t resist a dig on the Navy; Go Army!). Also, Fleming is a graduate of a U.S. Naval War College program. And, again using the Army as an example, a formal Professional Military Education (PME) program exists for enlisted Soldiers, non-commissioned officers, and officers. Similar education systems exist in the other Services. To argue that the military does not “do” education is non-sense in light of the existence of PME programs, to include the War Colleges and National Defense University. What Fleming is really arguing here is that the military should not be providing undergraduate education to its future officers. He argues that both ROTC and OCS commission officers, at higher volume and lower cost than the Service Academies, and suggests these are programs are just as good or better.
This ties back into Fleming’s use of Sandhurst as an example; as noted, 80 percent of Sandhurst attendees arrive with an undergraduate degree in tow. What Fleming misses, though, is the vast difference in funding of undergraduate education in the U.S. and the United Kingdom (or Europe in general). This is extra surprising, given Fleming’s five educational experiences in Europe. At the bottom-line, undergraduate education in the UK (and in Europe) is substantially cheaper than in the U.S. (see http://www.lse.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/undergraduateFeeStatusAndFees.aspx for fees for the London School of Economics, one of the top institutions in the world). These substantially lower fees allow the Sandhurst concept to work. For such a concept to work in the U.S., substantially lower fees would be required. With undergraduate education fees skyrocketing (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/13/college-prices-continue-to-go-up-college-board-says/; a quick comparison suggests its about twice as expensive to attend a run-of-the-mill public school in the U.S. than LSE), lower fees simply aren’t going to happen in the U.S. As Fleming uses costs as one of his main arguments against the Academies, this deserves additional scrutiny.
On the cost comparison, Fleming argues that ROTC costs about a quarter of a Service Academy, and OCS an eighth. He doesn’t present the math, though: with a Service Academy education estimated at $500,000, ROTC still costs $125,000 and OCS still costs about $63,000. OCS is about three months long; thus, it costs about $21,000 a month. ROTC and the Service Academies are generally 48 months; per month, ROTC costs about $2,500 and a Service Academy costs about $10,500. On a per month basis, it is pretty clear that ROTC offers the most cost-effective option, and OCS is extremely expensive. Even a literary scholar like Fleming should be able to understand the math. However, I’ll be the first to note that cost is only one part of the equation, and my by-month numbers are a bit unfair to OCS, as OCS is really so much more abbreviated than an Academy or ROTC. Yet, for OCS costs, one should probably be required to: 1) use the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the Army has spent getting most officer candidates to OCS, either through years of training (and pay and benefits) as enlisted Soldiers and NCOs; and 2) at least calculate in the money the Army spends for basic training for college graduates who go the OCS route. Looking at these numbers, I’d estimate that OCS costs are probably more expensive than the numbers Fleming (fails to) use.
Fleming’s fourth argument: quality. Fleming argues that Service Academy graduates “by all standards... are just as good as those who come from the service academies, which now produce under 20 percent of U.S. officers.” This will produce the most contentious arguments coming from Fleming’s article, and, as others have noted, Academy/ROTC/OCS grads will likely advocate that their commissioning source produces the best officers. Research suggests otherwise; for example, see https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0059/6242/files/tenchfrancisprose.pdf. In this paper, the authors present research that shows that Academy graduates have a six percent higher retention rate after 15 years, as compared to ROTC and OCS graduates. The authors also show that even though Academies produce less than 20% of officers, around 50% of general/flag officers are Academy graduates. This has changed substantially since 1990, when more than 80% of general/flag officers were Academy graduates, perhaps indicating increased quality of OCS and ROTC programs since 1990. Regarding a metric-based assessment of quality, though, the authors note that “ultimately, the quality indicators do not reveal any significant difference between commissioning sources. Thus, the tangible benefits from each program are exceptionally similar.”
Anecdotally, I’d agree the Trench study: commissioning source is rarely a good measure for determining officer quality. I note that I’m a West Point grad, and in my 15 years in the Army, I’ve seen no real difference in overall officer quality based on commissioning source. On this point, I’d also agree with Fleming, initially. Where Fleming and I deviate is the difference noted in the Trench report: substantially more Academy graduates rise to general/flag officer ranks. Have a look at the list of Service Chiefs and CJCS: almost exclusively Academy graduates. That is a metric that is hard to ignore.
Fleming argues that the “best and brightest” aren’t to be found at the Service Academies. On this point, I’ll largely agree. Many of our Nation’s “best and brightest” aren’t at the Service Academies, or in the military. But many are. Unfortunately, Fleming focuses on the negatives regarding Naval Academy admissions, and the issues he notes do seem substantial. Here’s a less jaded view of quality of those admitted to West Point: http://www.usma.edu/admissions/SitePages/Class%20Profiles.aspx. Clearly, some very qualified individuals make it in, at least to West Point. I couldn’t find similar data for the Naval Academy.
Fleming’s fifth argument: the Service Academies no longer have a purpose. Clearly, the Academies have moved past their original purpose. In this, I’ll again use the Army as an example. West Point as we know it today was founded in 1794 to train artillerists and engineers, and the United States Military Academy was officially founded with a focus on science and engineering in 1802. This, of course, is far from the basic purpose that West Point serves today. Unfortunately, it seems Fleming is unaware of the purposes of the Service Academies; he seems to believe that their purpose is to produce new military officers, even though he acknowledges the Academies’ stated purposes are distinct. A look at West Point’s stated purpose and mission quickly dispels Fleming’s perspective. West Point’s purpose is to produce leaders of character who are prepared to provide selfless service to our Army and the nation. West Point’s mission is to educate, train, and inspire the Corps of Cadets so that each graduate is a commissioned leader of character committed to the values of Duty, Honor, Country and prepared for a career of professional excellence and service to the Nation as an officer in the United States Army (http://www.usma.edu/SitePages/Home.aspx ). When we look back to Fleming’s quality argument, and at his purpose argument, it is important to take into account the purpose and mission of the institutions being analyzed. The Army ROTC mission is to select, educate, train, and commission college students to be officers and leaders of character in the Total Army (http://www.cadetcommand.army.mil/ ). OCS program objectives are to develop the leadership ability and professional skills of candidates to prepare them for appointment as second lieutenants in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) and effective service as commissioned officers in the Active Army (http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r350_51.pdf ). Comparing the purposes of West Point, ROTC, and OCS shows the difference objectives of each program, and suggests that an apples-to-apples comparison simply is not possible. Returning to the cost conversation, perhaps the Service Academies cost so much more because the developed product is something almost completely different. OCS and ROTC are designed to create Army officers. The Service Academies are designed to produce leaders of character for the Army and the Nation. This reaches back to Fleming’s quality argument; as a metric-based example, we could compare the number of U.S. Presidents, or CEOs, or pick a category of leader, and the Service Academies stack up pretty well against the other commissioning sources (not to mention other undergraduate institutions). But using post-military accomplishments as a category of comparison isn’t fair to ROTC or OCS; these programs have a more limited focus than the Service Academies, as reflected in their mission/purposes.
Fleming’s sixth argument: Only Service Academy graduates benefit from the Service Academies. The data provided in the Fletch study help counter this argument. With such a high proportion of Service Academy graduates reaching general/flag officer ranks, the Services themselves benefit from the products of the Service Academies. So do the units led by Service Academy graduates. So do the businesses, universities, research centers, and the other non-military organizations led by Service Academy graduates. Surely Coach K has inspired thousands, Scott Kirby provides important influence to the aviation community, and Senator John McCain’s service to the nation cannot be understated. Using Senator McCain (or the numerous Presidents and Congressmen) as examples, can Fleming really argue that taxpayers haven’t benefited? The first-grade teachers, doctors, violinists, scientists that Fleming argues the Academies don’t graduate? Have a look: http://www.usna.edu/NotableGraduates/. Certainly the 48 Rhodes Scholars, 27 Marshall Scholars, 119 Olmsted Scholars, 35 Fitzgerald Scholars, and two Nobel Prize winners from the Naval Academy have provided benefit to others besides themselves? In the same paragraph, Fleming notes that about half of graduates leave after their initial obligation; clearly, most graduates who do so gain civilian employment doing the exact sorts of jobs that Fleming argues graduates don’t do.
Fleming’s seventh argument: Only parents of cadets and graduates defend the Service Academies. Fleming’s argument here is that being a graduate of a Service Academy equals a free education and a “golden ticket to life.” Graduating from a Service Academy does open a lot of doors; so does graduating from Yale or Harvard or Princeton, with which the Service Academies are regularly ranked as top educational institutions. But Fleming seems to forget that Service Academies commission military officers, and being a military officer carries extreme risks. Just ask the friends and families of my West Point classmates Thomas Kennedy, Leif Nott, and Benjamin Tiffner, or the friends and family of my first semester Plebe-year team leader at West Point, Douglas Dicenzo, or the friends and families of the other West Point graduates who have lost their lives as a result of the attacks of September 11 or while fighting for freedom since then, listed at http://www.westpointaog.org/inmemoriam. Fleming has me pegged: as an Academy graduate, I’m defending the Academies. But graduates and parents of cadets aren’t the only ones defending the Academies, and that “golden ticket to life” comes at great risk to all and great cost to many.
Fleming’s eighth argument: Service Academies don’t do academics very well. The data refutes this. The Service Academies rank among the top undergraduate institutions in the country, and have extremely high rates of Rhodes Scholars, for example. Fleming downplays this by suggesting that the Service Academies inflate their number of applicants to improve their ratings; that may be true, but the examples he gives do actually count as applications. And the point that Fleming makes that academics play a “tiny part of life at the academies” (even though this is hugely inaccurate) indicates that perhaps the focus is on the sorts of things that Fleming argues are good about RMA Sandhurst.
Fleming’s ninth argument: Its all about Division I football. Of all Fleming’s arguments, this is the hardest to take seriously. Just look at the football programs at the Service Academies; look at their records; look at their recruits; look at the policies. If it was all about football, one would hope we’d be better at it. But there is something about football at the Academies. Maybe it is the “upon the fields of friendly strife” (http://faculty.washington.edu/kendo/macarthur.html) bit, or maybe it is the mystique and history of Army football players (http://www.photos.hvpress.net/2009/Sports/Army-vs-Tulane-09/). Maybe it is watching the Army-Navy game, an American tradition. College sports aren’t the primary focus of the Academies, but they do contribute to leader development. And that is valuable.
Fleming’s tenth argument: The Academies don’t inspire academic freedom. But he notes that of all his academic experience, only Vanderbilt offered him academic freedom. Having experienced civilian education, my personal assessment is that civilian universities pale in comparison to the Academies, and are more rigid in regards to academic freedom. That’s not to say that civilian institutions are stifling or easy; rather, academics at the Academies are very difficult, and academic freedom is encouraged. However, that academic freedom exists in a strict, rigid military environment. A Cadet can make any academic argument they like, but can’t have long hair or grow a beard or wear flip-flops and sweat pants to class. Having to follow rules and regulations or wear a uniform to class doesn’t limit one’s academic freedom. It seems Fleming is confused on this point.
Fleming’s summary of his argument: the Service Academies don’t teach morals, they don’t make better officers, and they cost the taxpayer a bundle. As one would hope, given that he’s taught at a Service Academy for almost three decades, Fleming argues that he believes in their mission, and wishes that they offered a better alternative. Unfortunately, it seems that Fleming doesn’t understand the mission of the Service Academies. And, in all of his rant against the Service Academies, he acknowledges he cannot even suggest a solution, beyond the example of RMA Sandhurst (which, as I’ve noted above, he also clearly doesn’t understand).
I note I’ve had a bit of rant here myself. I’m proud of our Service Academies. I’m proud of the graduates they’ve produced, and believe they still have important missions and serve a purpose. I also think that having a variety of commissioning sources for the Services is smart and necessary, and that the other commissioning services produce good and bad officers, just like the Academies. I’ve agreed with Fleming on a couple points, or at least acknowledged his attempts to make an argument.
The biggest flaw with Fleming’s argument is that he bases most of it on interaction with Midshipman and his personal experience as a bit of an outsider (as a civilian academic with no noted military experience) at the Naval Academy. His outsider status gives him an advantage, as it clearly allows him to identify issues at the Naval Academy. His consistent reliance on interaction with Midshipman, though, likely adds substantial anti-Academy bias to his argument. Fleming is clearly frustrated with his experience at the Naval Academy, and his interaction with frustrated Midshipman seems to add to this. Thinking back to my days as a West Point Cadet, I’m sure I would’ve given Fleming similar ammunition to add to his argument about abolishing the Service Academies. For the most part, I was a bitter and disillusioned Cadet. Looking back, that was mostly because it took time to adjust to the rigors of a military environment, because West Point was really hard (academically and otherwise), and because I couldn’t wait to graduate and get out there to the “real Army.” That’s why I counted the days remaining, and I’d guess that’s why Cadets and Midshipman at the Academies still count the days. The saying goes that the Academies are great places to be from, not great places to be at. Perhaps Fleming’s being at the Naval Academy since 1987 have jaded his perspectives of the Academies a bit too much.

ABOLISH THE IVY LEAGUE!!! ABOLISH ALL PRIVATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES!!! ABOLISH ALL SCHOOLS WITH DIV I FOOTBALL PROGRAMS!!!

This is what you would have to do to address the author's supposed "concerns" with the Military Academies. Students attending them go for free...just like legacies and other "special pop" students at the Ivies and football players at DIV I schools. They are also not the "best and brightest." They also are relatively indistinguishable from their peers post-graduation. These institutions suck vast amounts of taxpayer dollars and most of those dollars do not go toward education. A lot goes to research, which has potential for taxpayer return, but a ton goes to luxury dorms and fitness centers, manicured lawns, and bloated administrations...you are paying for that. (To understand a bit about how, read: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/princeton-gets-10-times-as-much-tax-money-per-student-as-public-colleges/381679/)

Know that this article was written by a professor, and in my 15 years in Higher Ed Administration, I can count on one hand the number of college professors who have any sense of the mechanics of how the enterprise works - I assure you this guy is not one of them. *AND* most importantly, it is not his point. COL Vincent Stoneking has it 100% correct. This is a blow-hard attempt to set up a strawman argument with conservatives. Attacking military spending, by pointing to the insane amounts spent on individual weapons systems will always cause public ire because it is fairly easy to convince John Q. Public that he needs a "Star Wars Defense System" or more recently, an F-35. "You will make our nation less secure!" gains a lot of traction. But what argument could the conservatives construct to defend "free college"? Not as easy.

For the record, I did not attend a service academy. I do currently work with USMA "firsties" on summer internships and research projects. I can say that it is completely true that USMA students are not remarkably different from the students I worked with at my previous institution, just as they are not remarkably different from other officers from other commissioning sources. So? It is a different program. It's its own type of diversity, and I am a believer in the idea that diversity adds value. I LOVE that some officers have 10+ years of enlisted time, and that some went to University of Arkansas/Duke University/William & Mary, and that some went to West Point/Norwich just like their mom/dad, and that some never stepped foot into a "bricks and mortar" school doing it all online, mostly while deployed. LOVE IT! We are a better officer corps for it.

Don't fall for this spurious argument. It's just intended to poke a stick in the eye of conservatives. It lacks any...and I really mean any...real merit. He is jut trying to make a point...poorly. I too am a literary scholar and in the classic framework of "it takes one to know one," this piece falls more into the category of "satire" than debate. I could also invoke the "he who smelt it dealt it," principle here, but that would open another lengthy point in a post that I know is already too long.

I note that the author has been a professor at the Naval Academy since 1987, over a quarter of a century. If you do a little research, you will discover that he has a running feud with his employer going back many years. He seems to take great joy in being a "professional gadfly" and "sticking it to the man." As such, I am prepared to be underwhelmed by his claims. At least as long as he eats the King's bread.... Additionally, if he is not educating his charges (on of the claims in the article is that the military doesn't "do" education), he is taking money fraudulently....

So is the above 'considering the source' or ad hominem? I'll leave that to you to decide. I'll also mention in passing that Salon has a history of going heavy on the emotion/outrage, but fairly light on the fact-checking.

Having read the article, I am tempted to give it a full-on fisking, but there is simply too much wrong. As a single example, the author states that no-one knows how admissions are done and he has failed to get that information after multiple FOIA requests. He then goes on to complain about how it was done when HE was on the admissions panel several years ago. NEITHER can be true, but BOTH cannot be.

My assessment is that
1) the Author is bitter that the USNA won't recognize his genius and is lashing out (bolstered by his other writings....)
2) It is a hit piece intended to force conservatives into a corner - go after the military or admit that they don't care about smaller government.
[Note, the above isn't a statement about my politics, or those of the conservatives. It is an analysis of the article and the number of times and ways that he specifically and needlessly calls out conservatives. It is also in keeping with other items regularly printed by Salon.]

As for the poll question, neither (though I selected No). Vital is a strong word. They are a USEFUL means of growing future Officers in a particular mold. Many believe (and I am one of them) that the military is best served by having multiple commissioning sources that emphasize different attributes. Whether we have the mix right, I don't know. I do think that the idea that Academy grads are the "career Officers" has been proven to be false, or at least greatly overstated. I don't really know how much the academies cost compared to either ROTC or to the value we get from them.

As far as the post's question - I wouldn't be particularly moved if the academies ceased to exist. I've never so much as seen any of them. I, however, think it would be a great mistake. They provide a valuable source of commissioned Officers. Changing the mission to something else - basically some version of Voc Tec for the military would be a waste. We have plenty of those in one version or another throughout the military. I am sure that the academies, like all things government, could be run more efficiently, but I don't know enough about their administration to make any reasoned proposals for same.