<p>
[quote]
you get what you pay for, and that's the same argument for USMMA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What?????</p>
<p>class of 2008 Third Mate exam pass rate for deck cadets - 72% :confused:</p>
<p>I hope in the future we get a little more for our tax $$$</p>
<p>better than in previous years, and at state schools the license is optional, so out of the ones who take it it is about 80%-90%... remember we have people who have no intention of sailing on their license who still need to take the exam</p>
<p>does anyone happen to know the estimated value of the scholarship to the academy. how much does the government spend for each individual at the academy this year?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you ask the question, you have to accept the answers. From my previous post, cost effective means "cheap". All things considered, SAs are the cheapest way to produce quality officers. They are giving you the greatest return on your taxpayer dollars.</p>
<p>"If you ask the question, you have to accept the answers. From my previous post, cost effective means "cheap". All things considered, SAs are the cheapest way to produce quality officers. They are giving you the greatest return on your taxpayer dollars."</p>
<p>Perhaps for one of the "Service academies" that would be valid (Perhaps. The studies are not nearly as conclusive as USNA 69 implies and many of them are structured in such a way to produce a guaranteed outcome. Having a critical mass of graduates in any profession almost guarantees a statistical success in terms of producing success in that profession. The old school tie is called that with reason- we almost always gravitate toward mentoring "our own" in the military even more than in industry- the right place at the right time with the right opportunities because of your mentor is a certain way to ensure that you are successful in terms of retention and professional qualifications like higher command. But retention % for the Service Academies is pretty poor given that the schools only exist to produce professional officers- so I would not necessarily concede this point.)</p>
<p>However, assuming USNA69 is correct for USNA or USMA doesn't mean that it necessarily holds true for USMMA. There is no "Service" that it is preparing Mids for- its primary stated purpose is producing licensed personnel for an industry (International Ocean going shipping as opposed to intercoastal shipping industry, and ship building and repair) that is virtually nonexistant and which no observer believes will ever return other than Union lobbyists for continuation of the Jones Act. As Deep Draft pointed out- only 72% passed their Mates Licensing exams compared to significantly higher % from State Maritime colleges. It's a specious argument to make (as does K314sig09) that the State Maritime Cadets sitting for the license exams are self selected and that's why their pass rate is higher- in fact so are the USMMA midshipmen - they made that decision when they contracted at USMMA and if 28% of the Mids there are not interested in getting their professional qualifications then the primary purpose of the school ought to be called into question. And as far as cost comparissons to ROTC- according to a KP2006 presentation to the about to graduate first class- the cost of a KP education is >$170k per mid- which is pretty significantly higher than for example a full 4 year Army Scholarship at VMI which will cost the Army about $120,000 over 4 years to include $26k annually in direct payments to the school plus $4k annually in stipend- I assume the cost of a Navy scholarship would be the same. So using that as a comparison-the cost of the education of the USMMA midshipmen who do go on active duty is 41% higher than an ROTC scholarship cadet would be at a school with a comparable education ( which I believe they are if you look at SAT scores for admitted 4th classmen, peer rankings of engineering programs, graduate performance and longevity on active duty, etc...). All of which brings it back to: does USMMA have a valid mission anymore or is it just a government program that has outlived its reason for being and is now casting about for other justifications? If it does have a mission- what is it? Someone in an earlier post listed all of the things that the USMMA alumni association supports- but that is more of a lobbyists laundry list than a real mission stement- but they all coalesced around the need for a strong US Merchant Marine and producing merchant marine officers sailing on their licenses as it's primary mission. </p>
<p>So, if it's not cost comparable in its ancillary function of producing active officers (41%?), and its graduates don't pass their professional licensing requirements at a rate as high as their peers in the State Maritime colleges- (remember that 72% posting above from DD1 along with the posting from k314sig explaining why USMMA is lower than the State schools) then is USMMA performing its mission?</p>
<p>Since USMMA has no direct mandatory service connection, I did not mean to include it in my cost effectiveness statement. </p>
<p>Since you are somewhat skeptical of 'old school ties' influencing the outcome of my statement, let's use your numbers. $120k to graduate a ROTC student. The Army now is claiming that they have to recruit three to graduate one. VMI's graduation rate is also substantially lower than WP. When does the typical ROTC student quit? At the two year mark prior to obligating commitment. If this were true across the board, which it is not, we have just doubled the cost of a ROTC graduation. A substantial portion of WP cadets resign early in their first year. It is a planned attrition with very little costs to the government. Now add the costs of ROTC recruiting which is much higher than SA recruiting. Lastly, SA grads stay in the service longer than those from ROTC. Add a 1.2 or so factor for this (purely assumptive on my part but not far off) and the costs are the same. This is without even considering the quality and promotability of the officer. </p>
<p>Just a rough example to show that it is far from being the simply the cost of each individual graduate.</p>
<p>well- according to the USMA aog the USMA graduation rate for 2006 was 74%- and VMI's was 73%. The Army ROTC scholarship requires a contractual committment at the start of second (third class) year while USMA obligation starts at start of 2d class year. The Army number you are citing is all Army ROTC cadets which includes non scholarship cadets- ie.. cadets receiving nothing until they contract at the start of their Junior year at which point they are obligated and they start receiving a stipend only so hardly the same cost data. As far as promotability- given that virtually 100% of the officer corps are selected to O3 that is at best not a completely objective measurement and certainly the old school tie phenomenon comes into play in that measurement.
Having said all that- the above is clearly a combination of opinion and some arguable facts. However I have a pretty hard time seeing what the justification for USMMA is given the state of the industry it serves, the multiplicity of sources of professional licensed officers with apparently a higher rate of professional qualification and its overall cost ($62 million this year). In fact it's only been in the last couple of years that USMMA started rigorously enforcing it's graduates to sail on their license - instead issuing widespread waivers to take jobs ashore that were only tangentially connected to the Maritime industy at all ( for example a friend of mine went into Marine Insurance after sailing as an engineer for an articulated Tug and Barge operation for 1 year. ) I don't know what the percentage of graduates is from USMMA who make the military a profession, but I suspect it is relatively low and maybe no higher than the yield from ROTC scholarship winners but at a significanly higher cost. I just have a difficult time seeing the justification for this academy at a time when clearly the nonDod budget is going to be under increasingly stringent constraints.</p>
<p>KeyDet read In peace and War and you will see that this debate has been going on for 70 yrs in one way or another. There will still be the same debate going on 70 yrs from now. Kings point has withstood far greater scrutiny than you can muster. And at the end of the day she sails on. And by way when your tossing out numbers include 91% 1st time pass rate on engineers.</p>
<p>Given that the US Government is still paying farm subsidies for farmers, while paying incentives for corn based ethanol production while at the same time complaining about the cost of fuel and food- you are probably right. The Government almost never kills a program no matter how little justification remains for the original program. As the country goes broke though- you might consider that programs that can't support themselves definitively on their own merits are going to have some problems and nobody has actually provided much justification here other than the "same old blah blah" as you put it. Could be my crystal ball is cloudy, but if you are trotting out 1930s era arguments to justify this in 2008- I think that you are sailing into shoal waters. Mr Connaughton clearly saw something of this when he stopped approving waivers allowing shore based employment to satisfy graduates obligations, because if that continued it was like putting bullets into the guns of your critics- (of which by the way I am not- but I'm also a skeptic of the "because we always have" reason for doing things).
I'm glad to hear that engineers are passing at 91% first time around.</p>
<p>Keydet im not trotting out any logic. Just some historical perspective. I think the question of economic security and national defense are far more complicated and nuanced than you and i are qualified to judge.</p>
<p>Yep, I have to admit that both the MBA at Babson and the Masters from Navy War College were mostly fluff programs and made me immune to complexity and nuance. I will give it a rest and defer to those with a broader perspective.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With your vast knowledge of the Coast Guard license exam, maybe you can enlighten us as to why you think a 91% first time pass rate for the engineers is particularly remarkable. Perhaps we can get together and compare notes sometime. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Deep draft im just an 18 yr old kid trying learn something about usmma before indoc starts. The only reason i brought the 91% pass rate was because keydet was unfairly biased in his post. All the adults (you never know on web)Seem Determined to do nothing but trash KP. This is a college site for kids trying to make something of themselves. Maybe you and keydet and oliver can go to The cynical old man know it all forum.</p>
<p>^^ya got me there, kid... Good luck at Kings Point ;)</p>
<p>Scout
To be honest - I am sorry that it came across that way. I'm not trying to trash KP, (and recommend it to kids including my own frequently). I just really think that they need to be able to make a strong and currently valid case for themselves if your kids want to have the opportunity to go there. So- my advice- you think about that while you are there at KP and you can help guarantee that it will still be around 35 years from now! I wish you the best of luck and promise that I won't post anymore on this subject as it clearly got beaten to death.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And we are just attempting to assist all you kids to help you make something of yourselves.</p>
<p>There seems to be a common misconception, especially among parents on these forums, that leaders are born not made. All officer procurement programs are leadership factories, pure and simple. All other things being equal, the more the relevant leadership exposure, statistically, the better the officer preparation. Service academies are better than ROTC which is, in turn, better than OCS. Additionally, leadership principals instilled at WP are far different than those taught at USNA.</p>
<p>My concern with this particular forum is that when potential candidates ask for advice, other than merchant marine, it is most often either stated or implied that USMMA is their BEST choice and subsequently their BEST odds of obtaining a particular specialty. This is simply not true. With the possible exception of surface Navy, opportunities exist elsewhere that far outweigh USMMA in their preparation for leadership. What does a Marine gain from sea year? What does an Air Force officer gain from a USCG exam? Would a potential Army officer not be better served at WP or VMI or even at an AROTC unit, learning about his particular service, than ‘wasting’ a substantial portion of his four years gaining expertise of which he will never use again? Would all not be better served pursuing a major course of study more relevant to their future endeavors?</p>
<p>USMMA supports the commercial merchant marine and does an outstanding job doing so. Let’s allow the other officer procurement sources do the same for their individual services.</p>
<p>My main reason for attending KP is for the license. However ,The opportunity to gain a naval reserve commission is very important . I want to serve our country in some capacity. Maybe in 2yrs I want to make the navy my career like you did. Than i'm moving along a path toward the objective. All the services have presence and relationship with usmma for a reason. The navy inparticular seems to have a strong bond. I believe the commanding officer of the Gulf fleet is a usmma grad. The capt of the current space shuttle mission is a grad. I mean the school is ranked is in the top 20 by S&P for producing ceo's and other leader's for our country ( considering it's size)
I guess to sum it up I want a maritime career and I want to serve and I want the chance to become a leader. And I grew up in naptown and i really want to go away for school : )</p>
<p>what i think is something that gets brushed aside in these kinda of forums is this one simple fact: we're all playing for the same team.</p>
<p>seascout, just one bit of advice, as i know all of your future drill instructors and officers that you'll have here at KP... watch how you approach people you disagree with. you'll have plenty of times here where you just want to string someone up. these people that you refer to as "The cynical old man know it all " type, have a LOT of valid points. points which are often not discussed here and should be.
for example, Keydey brought up how the school does not have a valid mission: it's true. you go to congress and tell them "the purpose of the United States Merchant Marine Academy is to educate and graduate professional officers and leaders who are dedicated to serving the economic and defense interests of the United States of our armed forces and merchant marine and who will contribute to an intermodal transportation system that effectly ties America together" and they're going to look at you like you're a nutcase... the counter argument against KP grows every day "why should the taxpayer pay for someone to get an education so they can make 6-figured their first year out of college?" and things along that line. </p>
<p>i do think that KP needs to stay around, but they need to do a lot of revamping. </p>
<p>either way, i know that these people-- Keydet, USNA69, Disgruntled Alum, Oliver Drab, etc... that bring up this issues do so with good intentions. if they didn't have a vested interest in Kings Point, or for the mids or prospective mids, they wouldn't write on here. will i say that i agree with how they might approach the subject? not always. however, several of these guys have been in the fleet or the KP family longer than you've been alive--take what they have to say for what it's worth. and above all, watch your tone man, like it or not, these are issues that you'll have to face your whole career. and FYI, if you come here with the attitude that i've seen in your last few posts you're going to make things very difficult for yourself. </p>
<p>on that note, Gentlemen, i want to say thank you for having the guts to stir the pot on issues that are not commonly addressed. sweeping issues under the rug does not make them go away. keep up the faith! there are some of us still here that agree that these issues need to be addressed but don't have the means of bringing about the needed changes by ourselves!
BRAVO ZULU</p>
<p>HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING</p>
<p>If the government says it will stop funding USMMA, when do you think it'll happen? What about the students that will be in the school at the time?</p>
<p>Hypothetically speaking........it won't happen; but, if by some remote chance the Govt. ever decided to shut down any service academy it would be the normal govt. red tape involving Congress and the whole 9 yards, so it would not be quick.</p>