USNA vs. USMMA

Colleges and Universities A-Z Naval Academy - Annapolis
41

<p>


</p>

<p>For the record, I have nothing but the utmost respect for USMA and USAFA, their students, and their graduates. This does not mean that I cannot be critical of some of their policies and procedures, just as I can with USNA. Also, as a fellow service academy grad, I have somewhat more liberty poking good natured fun at my fellow SA mates. Luigi, I challenge you to find an insult of mine to either WP or AFA, 'thin veiled', or not.</p>

<p>Actually, I would think your calling the US Navy a "haze gray cruise line" would be considered an insult to many. So why don't you apologize to the flight deck crews who daily work an average 18 hour day, risking their lives, launching aircraft over Iraq and Afghanistan?</p>

42

<p>


</p>

<p>You are correct, Jam, this is certainly a concern. How can one even begin to compare the commitment required to sign away at least ten years of one's life, which for an 18 year old seems like forever, to a free ticket into a private sector job?</p>

<p>However, my real beef remains that I have this unpleasant taste in the back of my mouth that I am part of a horrible bait-and-switch scam. I meet with a lot of outstanding young people who want to make a commitment to a life of service to their country. I encourage them, help them with their application, work with them in forming a valid backup plan, and provide moral support. They submit their application for nomination to their MOC. The MOC, with unfilled USMMA nominations, suggests the candidate look at the MMA. They get into the MMA system. As any typical 18 year old, there may be uncertainity. Maybe the military isn't for them. The thought of being able to wait 4 years to make a decision is lucrative. The hard sell of the 10k monthly salary registers with them. They get rejected by USNA and accepted by USMMA. They turn down a very good ROTC scholarship with unlimited majors where they could have reapplied to USNA the following year. They attend USMMA. It's mission is to support the merchant marine. They go on sea year and hear the stories of the 10k monthly salaries. They become, for lack of a better word, brainwashed. They sell out. Three years after graduation, acutely aware of the hardships necessary to be at sea 100% of the time to gain those great salaries, they are standing on a pier somewhere, totally disallusioned, dreaming of what could have been. Sad, but true. It takes a special person to commit to a life of service, serving at the mercy of the President, but the rewards are immense. They missed that opportunity.</p>

43

<p>Deflect, spin, and obfuscate. </p>

<p>The fact remains that calling a United States Merchant Marine Academy graduate who does exactly what he is supposed to do upon graduation (take a job in the maritime transportation industry) a "sell out, a glorified bus driver" is ignorant and disrespectful to each to every graduate.</p>

<p>Selling out is defined as:</p>

<p>***The compromising of one's integrity, morality and principles in exchange for money, 'success' or other personal gain. </p>

<p>A person who does this, as opposed to following the original path s/he laid (or claimed to lay) out for him/herself, is labeled a sellout and regarded with disgust and immediate loss of respect. Selling out is seen as gaining success at the cost of credibility.***</p>

<p>You seem to think that every midshipman at KP is only there because they didn't get in to Annapolis. Highly arrogant attitude. There are many many kids there who only applied there, many who made it their first choice. Many are there that have no intention of going into the active duty forces, their interests lie soley in going to sea. </p>

<p>To label them as "sell-outs" is idiotic. </p>

<p>What have they "sold-out"?</p>

<p>The USMMA graduate serves the country. Why do you think that the economic interests of the United States are not vital to our security as a free nation? The United States government seems to think that having a supply of highly-trained merchant mariners serving the economic interests of the country to be important enough to establish a federally funded academy, but you know better? :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Why do you think that "service" must include danger or the possibility of loss of life? Do you actually believe that those who are not putting their life on the line in combat are not serving? I'm sure I can find many USNA/USMA/USAFA grads in rear-position support billets that are not in that category, are they "sell-outs"?</p>

<p>I would hate to see the day when we have no more merchant marine fleet, and we are at the mercy of China and Singapore to deliver our tanks and ammunition and bombs and other materials overseas for those who are "serving". :rolleyes: Or when we are at the mercy of China and Singapore to deliver the imported raw materials necessary to maintain our way of life. Do you have any idea how much of our goods move by ship, how much of our economy (and thus our security) is affected by deep-water shipping? The USMMA supplies these officers, and yes they "serve". </p>

<p>To think otherwise is ridiculous, arrogant, idiotic, and disrespectful.</p>

44

<p>^^^^^^^ I think we have made our points and are starting to repeat ourselves. Therefore, unless you can think of any more higly relavent personal attacks and insults, which, by the way, from you, I would love to hear, I am going to consider my discussion with you closed.</p>

45

<p>Umm guys? This kind of stuff doesn't help us candidates. USNA69 yes I am young and know basically nothing about the world. However I do know that I want to and am committed to serve my country, at this point as an officer in the US Navy. MMA is but one way to do it. Also, I'd like to point out that unlike USNA I will be paying a good chunk of my education at MMA. Not all but not insignificant either.</p>

<p>As for the sellout thing, well I guess you guys can argue about that as long as you like. But it really depends on the person, doesn't it? If someone is fulfilled as a deck officer or engineer and by the way they make a good salary and serve in the USNR, then they're probably not going to define themselves as a sellout even privately, right?</p>

<p>I get that you really hate this idea USNA69, but this is what I'm doing and I really believe now that I'm making a good choice. I guess we'll both have to see four or six years from now, right?</p>

<p>Respectfully, Jason</p>

46

<p>Jason,</p>

<p>The only reason I posted this is because it was a concern of the initial poster on this thread, navygirl, and the advice, to me, was becoming somewhat convoluted. Then you wandered in, obviously wondering the same thing. If I have given you something to think about, and somehow cemented your desires to stick with your original plan, my mission has been successful. If you are still truly undecided about your career, probably USNA was not your best choice.</p>

<p>Again, good luck. Don't sell out. Make an informed decision. Don't forget your original dreams, and if you decide to be a merchant mariner, just remember that only a third of the graduating class actually goes to sea and the reason they promulgate monthly salaries in lieu of annual ones is that you will not be at sea 12 months out of the year. At a normal six months at sea annually, your salary will be commensurate with an O-1 who is serving his country.</p>

47

<p>
[quote]
In the past, actively serving in the merchant fleet would preclude involuntarily being called up while in the reserves due to the national importance of their duties. Is this still true?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Prior to this class, the commitment was to serve either in Indiivdual Ready Reserve (IRR) status in the US Naval Reserve, Merchant Marine Reserve and you had two weeks AT. This class will be require to serve in A Selective Reserve Status (in any service or the Guard) and drill once a month and be called up with their unit. As well as serve in the American Maritime Industry.</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
At the end of the day . . . regardless of how USMMA compares to USNA . . . the taxpayers should not be subsidizing a student's entry into private industry.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What the goverment (Congress and Administrations going back to 1943) has wisely determined is good policy is paying for is not a student's entry into the private sector, but paying for a secure supply of US Citizens to be able to transport 97% of the equipment and supplies to support US interests when we go to war. Also, because the US is a Maritime Nation and 95% of the world's commerce is transported by sea, and that our national security is inextricably linked to our economic security, the government has determined its good policy to train US citizens to play a key role in the maritme industry.</p>

49

<p>


</p>

<p>I am not taking issue with USMMA as a great producer of maritime officers. It has been the bait-and-switch by MOCs and others for young people who want to serve their country. Yes, I see military service as a much higher plane of service to country.</p>

<p>However, along these lines, the govt previously subsidized the airline business. No more. They seem to find pilots. I would like to see the source of your 97% statistic. A heck of a lot of war materials are now being moved by civilian air. And we don't seem to need a US Civil Air Carriers Academy. Supply and demand, pure and simple. We are only talking 75 grads a year who sail. If the money is right, they can be found just as the airlines finds their pilots. Face facts, it is not USMMA which keeps our maritime industry afloat. </p>

<p>See you guys in a week. I am on vacation.</p>

50

<p>
[quote]
just remember that only a third of the graduating class actually goes to sea

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is not true. The Secretary of Transportation must grant a waiver if a graduate wishes to work in a maritime capacity other than at sea. Last year only three waivers were granted. So, 75% of KP graduates in 2007 went to sea AND are serving in the Reserves or the National Guard.</p>

<p>With regard to war material being moved by air, it is moved on C-17's, C-5's, C-130's and there is an Academy to train these folks in Colorado Springs.</p>

<p>According to Military Sealift Command, the number is 95% in times of war, I heard for OIF and OEF its 97%, but I can't find a reference, so 95 will work. </p>

<p>Also, Military Sealift Command has more than 10,800 employees worldwide, approximately 80 percent of which serve at sea. MSC is the largest employer of merchant mariners in the United States. Approximately 5,100 employees are federal civil service, 660 are military personnel; and another 4,600 are employed by MSC contractors. That civilian mariner who is in command of the MSC ship refueling that destroyer at 20 knots and the third mate in charge of cargo ops making sure everything works on deck are probably Kings Pointers and the person at the helm might just be a KP Midshipman. They are just proud to serve a higher calling.</p>

<p>Nobody, at least I haven't said, that USMMA keeps our maritme industry afloat. That would be like saying the Naval Academy keeps the Navy afloat when 84% of US Naval Officer accessions are from somewhere other than the Academy.</p>

<p>Both Academies serve the national interest and add value to the defense of our nation. As 4th generation warfare becomes predominant, and the interconnections between economic and military targets become more blurred, the nexus between the private sector and the military will become more important and inherent lessons learned at USMMA will be increasingly more valuable to the nation. In 1943 KP was producing the right graduates to support winning WWII. Today, USMMA is producing the right graduates for the "Long War" -- so are USNA, USMA, USAFA, and USCGA.</p>

51

<p>And the graduates from the Academy that trains people to move material by air are required to serve for five years.</p>

<p>I don't think the complaint coming from people is about teh quality of the graduates or, even, whether the USMMA should exist.
The complaint is about whether USMMA graduates should be required to serve in the active duty military in a way that other service academy graduates serve.</p>

<p>So . . .the question is:</p>

<p>Do you believe that USMMA graduates should be required to serve--any branch--in an active-duty capacity for five years after graduation?</p>

<p>In order to address the issue of maintaining "operational readiness" for merchant purposes, perhaps they could REQUIRED [note your comment that the civilian mariner aboard a MSC is "probably" a Kings Point mariner] tos erve on supply ships or in shipping [logistics] capacities w/in the air force, army, etc.</p>

<p>This would seem to be a fair exchange for a taxapayer funded education. Otherwise, go to a private maritime school.</p>

52

<p>I believe graduates of USMMA should be required to serve eight years afloat in the US maritime industry AND simultaneously serve eight years in a drilling Reserve or the Guard unit; OR serve five years active duty in any of the services or the NOAA Corps. </p>

<p>That is the collective wisdom of Congress (which authorizes and funds USMMA) and the Commander in Chief (who signs the legislation). Far be it from me to suggest I am smarter than they are.</p>

<p>BTW, there are no private maritime schools. After the Morro Castle incident, in which 134 lives were lost, Congress decided that direct Federal involvement, and standardized training was needed. The Merchant Marine Act of 1936 was passed and two years later the U.S. Merchant Marine Cadet Corps was established. That was the end of private maritime schools.</p>

<p>There are six state maritime schools which are also federally funded, but unlike USMMA, their graduates have no commitment to serve.</p>

53

<p>


</p>

<p>Since, historically, around 35% have annually opted for an active duty career, are you saying that it was only 25% in 2007? Sad, if true. I saw several 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 breakdowns last week when Googling the subject. Unfortunately, the only one which I can relocate is the Wikipedia entry on USMMA. Please show me data to support that by the end of their five year commitment, more than one third are still at sea.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Popular misconception. The vast majority of transoceanic DOD air cargo and troop transport, probably 80%-85%, is accomplished with civilian aircraft being flown by civilian crews.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>We will just have to disagree. Someone who does not have to make a commitment until graduation, and then, as a Third Mate on a MLSF ship, can walk away if he does not like the Captain, serving only himself, is nowhere in the same league as the young man or woman who, at the age of 18, puts his career into the hands of the President, the needs of the service, in his desire to serve his country.</p>

54

<p>
[quote]
Someone who does not have to make a commitment until graduation, and then, as a Third Mate on a MLSF ship, can walk away if he does not like the Captain, serving only himself, is nowhere in the same league as the young man or woman who, at the age of 18, puts his career into the hands of the President, the needs of the service, in his desire to serve his country.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Perhaps in your own inflated opinion, which (thankfully) is by no means the norm. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Good thing that most these young men and women who choose to SERVE THEIR COUNTRY at sea in the Merchant Marine are not getting their advice/misinformation from you.</p>

55

<p>^^^^^Well put, Luigi59. His is just one man's opinion and not a very good one at that.</p>

56

<p>
[quote]
Since, historically, around 35% have annually opted for an active duty career, are you saying that it was only 25% in 2007? Sad, if true.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not sad at all. What people seem to be missing is that the purpose of USMMA is to prepare young men and women for service in the US maritime industry. That is where the majority of the graduates should go. </p>

<p>
[quote]
To quote the Commander in Chief:</p>

<p>"America is a great maritime power, and our Merchant Marine has a vital role to play. In times of peace, the Merchant Marine helps ensure our economic security by keeping the oceans open to trade. In times of war, the Merchant Marine is the lifeline of our troops overseas, carrying critical supplies, equipment, and personnel. For more than six decades, the mission of this Academy has been to graduate highly skilled mariners to serve America's economic and national security needs." </p>

<p>President George HW Bush, June 19, 2006</p>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
The vast majority of transoceanic DOD air cargo and troop transport, probably 80%-85%, is accomplished with civilian aircraft being flown by civilian crews.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Troop transport - yes. Cargo - no.</p>

57

<p>


</p>

<p>Then we agree? This entire discussion has been about the appropriateness of the USMMA as a backup plan for those planning to enter one of the major service academies enroute to a career in the military. From the above comment, you apparently feel, as I do, that there are better ways to prepare for a military career.</p>

<p>I don't have any exact figures, but looking at the CRAF contracts awarded and to whom, the USAF C-5/C-17 fleet would have trouble matching them pound for pound with air cargo.</p>

58

<p>I believe that there are many good ways to prepare for a military career. USMMA is one of them.</p>

<p>The two things that have made the United States the greatest nation in the history of the world are its military and its economy. There is only one school with the mission to prepare leaders for both and that is USMMA.</p>

<p>
[quote]

THE MISSION OF THE UNITED STATES MERCHANT MARINE ACADEMY</p>

<p>"To educate and graduate professional officers and leaders of honor and integrity, who are dedicated to serving the economic and defense interests of the United States in our Armed Forces and Merchant Marine, and who will contribute to an intermodal transportation system that effectively ties America together."</p>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>BTW: The Superintendent at USMMA is Class of '64 at USNA and a retired Major General in the Marine Corps who served as Deputy Chief of Staff for Installations and Logistics at the U. S. Marine Corps Headquarters. A patriot like Joe Stewart wouldn't be running Kings Point if he didn't think it added value to both the military and economic interest of the country.</p>

59

<p>Posters and forum readers,</p>

<p>We have received a number of reports about this thread and frankly, the moderating staff (volunteers) are unlikely to be in a position to "clean it up" and contact the sources of the problem posts today. So in order to at least stop the escalation, I am locking the thread, at least temporarily. Perhaps at some point we will be able to address the problem posts and re-open the thread.</p>

<p>A suggestion for a New Year's resolution:
Please, all posters, review the section of the Terms of Service (under FAQ) that relates to courtesy. Points can be made while refraining from insulting or otherwise attacking other posters. Please stay WELL within the guidelines, as a pattern of violations of the TOS can result in a loss of posting privileges.</p>

<p>Thank you for your understanding and, I hope, cooperation.</p>

<p>Best wishes for a happy and peaceful New Year,</p>

<p>-- Mod JEM</p>