<p>NT, good point...there is a need for more JAGs, too!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who cares whether he was a 1st round or a 13 round draft? If you are claiming that somehow makes a difference- you are pushing pure situational ethics (" oh it's ok for him because he's a star") and is exactly the bull that the Army is pitching with their NFL drafted football player.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do not agree at all. Comparing this to the Army's situation does not make any sense. The Army is letting graduates get rid of their entire service obligation. The ensign in question wants to serve, and doesn't even wish to relinquish any of his mandatory five years... I guess I see the situation as a bit frustrating because all it normally takes to get into the restricted line is to show up to flight school and quit on day one. Because I'm active duty, I think I'll just leave it at that as I probably shouldn't comment further.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. I have not, in the above posts, expressed any of my personal opinions whatsoever. Any assumptions anyone might have made are purely speculative on their part.</p>
<p>Again... my Midshipman wants to serve too and be a Navy Jag. There is no opportunity for him to do that until he has completed his first service obligation and then his chances are slim. He has been told his option is to five or 8 and dive... go to Law School and then Come back in to the Jag Community. One could argue that five or eight years out and one has lost their academic edge just like the rational for the ball player who may have lost their competitive sill set.</p>
<p>
[quote]
While I don't think we see an exodus from the academies at the two year mark so one can attend law school - we may be seeing our top athletes leave
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Life gives us choices that one learns to make given their ethical and moral make up. Society places a higher value on sports than pretty much anything else. One would hope that if an athlete choses an Academy they would not let society influence them, use the skill set that got them to the Academy in the first place and complete their service obligation without demanding, asking or even suggesting that because they have this other opportunity they should somehow be accommodated. </p>
<p>It is really quite simple... they all sign a service agreement at the beginning of 2/C year. Plain and simple. No caveats in the agreement. Accept responsibility in the document that one signs, 1000+ others in the class have accepted it without asking for something more...</p>
<p>Native Texan - you are trying to compare apples with oranges -
Most law students are in their mid-late 20's. many law schools now want their law students to show up with work experience.
I can think of no better work experience than 5 years as an officer. Your son can have it all - he can serve for 5 years, leave the Navy, go to law school and then go back into the Navy - this is not uncommon at all. He just can't get the Navy to pay for law school.</p>
<p>After 5 years of NOT pitching a team will not be interested in this player. They will have moved on and recruited others. I don't think this Ens is allowing society to influence him and I think he is using the skill set that got him to the academy. It just happens to be a different skill set than that of your son.</p>
<p>What some of you may not realize is that all the services have programs for athletes. Any servicemember can apply to play for Army or Navy or AF. Top competitors are even given time for training and some try out for an compete in the Olympics and other top world class competitions. These athletes are given desk jobs while they train and compete - even in a time of war.</p>
<p>Taking the risk of jumping in, the military isn't always fair. Anyone who has served or has a family member who has served can well testify to that. Whether the ensign's situation is fair and right or unjust and wrong is a matter of personal opinion. What is clear is that, when he signed on the dotted line 2/C year, he gave the USN the right to make the decision for him. </p>
<p>The fact that USMA/USA and/or USAFA/USAF may do things differently is irrelevant, provided they comply with the law. </p>
<p>I also can't compare law school to sports. That said, for those considering applying to USNA, when you sign on the dotted line 2/C year, you also give up your right to go to law school immediately upon graduation. As noted in other recent posts, you can, however, apply to the graduate legal education program relatively quickly upon graduation. As an aside, if you know you want to be an attorney RIGHT after college, don't go to a SA. If you decide this is what you want after 2/C year, you're just going to have to wait, discouraging as it may be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One could argue that five or eight years out and one has lost their academic edge just like the rational for the ball player who may have lost their competitive sill set.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It can be a little rough at first -- getting back into the swing of studying -- but, in the long run, the 5+ years spent as an officer puts you light years ahead of your classmates. Not sure that would be similarly true for an athlete, but . . . .</p>
<p>JAMO4,</p>
<p>You are absolutely correct. However, two things to note on the Navy side:</p>
<p>One, the person requesting must obtain the approval of the commanding officer...which means, if the CO needs the manpower, he/she doesn't have to approve the request. I am sure if the person is of Olympic caliber, the request would be approved.</p>
<p>Two, the eligibility guidelines are promulgated at the service level. This means the governing document for the Navy, BUPERSINST 1710, can always be modified by the SECNAV, even in a time of war....just like the SECNAV wrote a policy on suspending the selective alternate (or whatever the official name) program. I am not saying it is going to be changed, but you can't say this is a sure thing.</p>
<p>From what I know about the program, it usually applies to shore command tours.</p>
<p>Roger that - jadler</p>
<p>To imply that My Mid or I have the expectation that the Navy will or would pay for Law School is one gigantic leap... As a tax payer I certainly do not think that the government needs to be paying for graduate school after investing $300,000 in undergraduate educations. The only plus would be that at least that graduate degree would be for the benefit of the Navy, and ultimately the tax payer. Does this ball player expect to be paid by the US Navy and Ball Club? How does his playing ball benefit the tax payer after they have spent $300,000 on his education? What does the US Navy get for their money?</p>
<p>I can argue that waiting 5 to 8 years to take the LSAT is also a huge disadvantage when looking at schools like Stanford and Yale. Both have indicated that they would not look at scores that are 5 to 8 years old if he were to take them now. So like the pitcher he will have to "try" out 5 to 8 years out of school. Does this bother my Mid - sure. Is he willing to not sign his papers - no way. He went to USNA knowing the service requirement. Granted he, also like the athlete, did not know that he would have it in him to be qualified for graduate school, nor did he even have the desire at age 18. USNA develops Midshipmen in various ways and one of the things mine has "developed" is an entirely different desire for a career path. Even as an Engineering major he has had the ability through validations to open up his schedule and take numerous social science classes. Those faculty members and subject matter have reshaped his desires. </p>
<p>As for the age issue: take a look at numerous major league teams pitching roosters and you will find the ages to range from 18 to almost 40</p>
<p>Braves 22-33 Average age 28
Yankees 23-39 Average age 30
Cubs 18-38 Average age 27
Mets 24-37 Average Age 30
Dodgers 20-38 Average Age 29.5</p>
<p>So graduating at age 22 and serving his commitment for 5 years puts him at age 27, Spend some time in the farms and he is within the average age of todays pitchers and a ready made leader on the team...</p>
<p>He too might he able to have it both and just like the scholar, he just is going to have to wait to see. Yes he has the possibility that it might not happen. That is life. Fair? At a $300,000 investment....</p>
<p>We can keep agrueing the point but the bottom line is he signed a service agreement. The Navy did not signup to have to provide him with the opportunity to play ball. Needs of the Navy - we have heard it our entire time at USNA. Now the needs of the Navy are to have this young man report for deployment. Why should his needs out weigh the needs of the Navy?</p>
<p>Native Texan - I am doing your homework for you. Fear not - if your son is competitive then 5 years in the Navy will not hurt him applying to Yale. Go to their profile here: Yale</a> Law School | Entering Class Profile
48/189 student have graduate degrees and 13 have PhD's that alone is 26% of the class. I am sure from looking at the profile there are many more who matriculated after having been out of grad school for a few years.
There is no reason while active duty he cannot pursue graduate courses on his own and perhaps even earn a graduate degree. Your son will enter the process ahead of the game, if he chooses. He also may be able to serve in the Navy reserves while in Law school - but I am not a Law school counselor. Don't take my word for this.</p>
<p>Yes - many ballplayers play well into their 20's and 30's and some beyond - but they have been playing continuously at a high level.</p>
<p>Your son can have his dream, this ensign will not, for him it is over. But like USNA1985 said - Life is not fair, especially in the military.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
If I dont get that chance (to play baseball) right now, Ill never get it again. And to fulfill a goal of getting to the pros, its sad that they would take it away from me.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>This quote, to me, is the most troubling words -- I hope the paper didn't twist or randomly insert these words!</p>
<p>Like a lot of people have mentioned on here....if the original goal was to get to the pros, then USNA was the wrong school. I am not sure if this revelation came before applying or after I-Day. However, knowing that we were in a war before the application process started, it should of been crystal clear that going to the Academy meant going into the service upon commissioning. Thus, why he is blaming the Department of the Navy for taking his chance away, is something I don't comprehend. All candidates sign the contract (signing the 2-for-7 is really for show...the actual contract is signed before I-Day) knowing what they owe after four years. You can't point a finger at someone for holding you to your word.</p>
<p>I think it is commendable how he was looking at other possibilities, even though they don't seem to be working out. </p>
<p>Maybe they can setup a net on the flight deck, bring some baseball gear (find a buddy to catch), and get some practice. Then after five years, instead of being so pessimistic, there is the possibility. If not, life goes on!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can argue that waiting 5 to 8 years to take the LSAT is also a huge disadvantage when looking at schools like Stanford and Yale. Both have indicated that they would not look at scores that are 5 to 8 years old if he were to take them now. So like the pitcher he will have to "try" out 5 to 8 years out of school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>NT, I have background re this -- I graduated from a Stanford/Yale equivalent law school after serving over 8 yrs on active duty.</p>
<p>No, he should not take the LSAT now. He should take a prep course before taking the LSAT the first time. (Unlike USNA and SATs, law schools generally average your LSATs, so taking them repeatedly doesn't help much). Does it matter that he will have been away from a formal school environment for a few years before taking the LSAT? Unlike the MCAT, the LSAT does NOT test knowledge learned in college -- it tests your ability to think in a certain way. Taking past exams, taking a prep course, and practicing, practicing, practicing are the best ways to improve your score, whether you're in school or have been out for many years.</p>
<p>Law schools LIKE students who have real work experience and so do law firms and other legal employers. As an aside, if I could make ONE recommendation to future lawyers it would be to spend at least 2 years pursuing another career first. Having an engineering background will be a huge plus with law schools on many levels and with future legal employers. </p>
<p>As for becoming a JAG -- that option remains open. However, in all honesty (and as I've said repeatedly) there are better and easier ways to become a JAG than going to USNA. That said, as you correctly note, your son is doing what he agreed to do re the USN/USMC. Whatever number of years he decides to spend in the military will only help make him a better attorney should he decide that's what he ultimately wants to do.</p>
<p>Don't want to get into a "legal discussion" on this thread, so if you have other questions or concerns, feel free to PM me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
He also may be able to serve in the Navy reserves while in Law school - but I am not a Law school counselor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A number of people in my law school class did this. I did it myself for 16 months. Whether you can make it work depends on where you drill compared to where your law school is (commute time), the time commitment your reserve unit expects (which can include substantial "after drill" hours), and your school commitments. There is also the potential to be deployed overseas, which was not an issue in my day. The Law School has no say on whether or not you participate in the reserves but, in my personal opinion, in today's environment, it would be extremely difficult.</p>
<p>USNA1985 Nor do I want to get into a legal discussion. My point has been all along that many times in life we have to make hard choices and cannot do it all. Once one makes a commitment that really should be the end of the discussion. </p>
<p>Like Law School, graduate School, and pro sports - if there is a will after 5 years there will be a way. Law school will require review and prep courses - pro ball will require staying in shape and practicing. What really is the difference?</p>
<p>I used Law School as an analogy (yes it is something my Mid aspires to) I am disappointed that this new graduate would think he should be afforded something that his shipmates are not. </p>
<p>Like jadler says - his words are troubling. IMO the Academy did not take anything away from this individual. He really never "had it" in the first place if he truly respected his commitment.</p>
<p>^^^^^</p>
<p>Agree. Though I believe it is easier to become an attorney later in life than it is to play professional sports, your comments about commitment are dead on. Being an adult is living with the consquences -- whether good or bad -- of your decisions.</p>