Why Getting Rid of Affirmative Action at Service Academies is Stupid

[Anonymous]

Who wants to work for a Morehouse grad who believes I owe him a debt of gratitude? I didn't ask him to spend 6 months underwater in a tube full of nukes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who wants to work for a Morehouse grad who believes I owe him a debt of gratitude? I didn't ask him to spend 6 months underwater in a tube full of nukes

The military protects our freedom, come on bro

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are selective colleges, regardless of the commission at the end. Like you pointed, it doesn’t make a difference to the overall racial breakdown of total military officers since there are multiple pathways to becoming an officer. But a degree from West Point is significantly more prestigious than a degree from University of Toledo. They rightly should stop AA.

Prestigious to who? You have to serve as an officer for 5 years, no future employer really cares where you went to undergraduate college after where were a Naval Officer for 5 years, they'll ask you more questions about being a Naval Officer than your 4 years at Annapolis

That's like saying that after Harvard and University Toledo grads are in the workforce for 5 years, no one cares where they went to college anymore. Patently untrue, bordering on absurd.

I explained in my blurb why you can't compare

Let's do this

Black Guy: Morehouse College - BS in Computer Science + 5 Years as a Naval Cyber Warfare Officer

White Guy: Harvard College - BS in Computer Science + 5 Years in Middle Management at Google

who gets the job?

Considering that if you got rid of all racial Affirmative Action, i say the Morehouse grad gets the job because Affirmative Action for Veterans isn't going anywhere

[Anonymous]

If it is a fed job then it is going to the veteran

[Anonymous]

Look, I'm not even the military's biggest fan (see the perfidy story from today) but pretending that service academy and LAC graduates are the same is ludicrous.

If I receive applications from two 27 year-old applicants, one of whom studied at West Point and then served in the military and one of whom attended a SLAC and then took entry level roles in our field, I'm going to pick the servicemember because their maturity at that age is going to be light years higher. As a result, managing them will be easier and I'm all about making my life easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the academies aren’t Harvard or Yale.Getting into an Ivy really does give you a leg up in the private sector. Goldman, McKinsey, Big Law, Silicon Valley—they all recruit heavily from those schools and the name brand opens doors. A state school grad with the same GPA and resume is starting behind. That’s why those admissions battles are so cutthroat.The service academies are completely different. Their only job is to produce military officers. A brand-new 2nd Lieutenant or Ensign from West Point has the exact same starting pay, job, and career path as someone commissioned through ROTC at a random state school, an HBCU, or straight out of OCS. The military doesn’t give extra points for having gone to Annapolis.

You’re all in the same boat. The troops these officers lead—the enlisted force—are already way more diverse and look a lot more like America than the officer corps does. Unless someone is actually proposing we scrap ROTC and OCS completely and make the academies the only way to become an officer—which nobody is—then why single out the academies and strip away their ability to build a more representative class? ROTC and OCS will keep producing diverse officers because they draw from a much wider pool of colleges.


You’d just be making one small commissioning source less diverse while the majority stay the same.The military itself keeps saying a diverse officer corps is essential for unit cohesion, recruitment, retention, and national security. The academies are a tiny fraction of total officers, but they punch above their weight in producing senior leaders 20-30 years down the road.So yeah, I think the academies should keep using race-conscious admissions (within whatever narrow lane the Court left open for national security reasons) to look more like the country. Otherwise we’re just making the problem worse for no reason.

You do not want incompetent (DEI hire) officer in command in battles or wars. Elimination of DEI for the military is even more important than for civilian universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, I'm not even the military's biggest fan (see the perfidy story from today) but pretending that service academy and LAC graduates are the same is ludicrous.

If I receive applications from two 27 year-old applicants, one of whom studied at West Point and then served in the military and one of whom attended a SLAC and then took entry level roles in our field, I'm going to pick the servicemember because their maturity at that age is going to be light years higher. As a result, managing them will be easier and I'm all about making my life easier.

The argument was about the SLAC student that went to Navy ROTC as opposed to the Naval academy grad, both had the same job in the Navy, at that point you're considering who has more accolades in the Navy, not where they went to undergrad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the academies aren’t Harvard or Yale.Getting into an Ivy really does give you a leg up in the private sector. Goldman, McKinsey, Big Law, Silicon Valley—they all recruit heavily from those schools and the name brand opens doors. A state school grad with the same GPA and resume is starting behind. That’s why those admissions battles are so cutthroat.The service academies are completely different. Their only job is to produce military officers. A brand-new 2nd Lieutenant or Ensign from West Point has the exact same starting pay, job, and career path as someone commissioned through ROTC at a random state school, an HBCU, or straight out of OCS. The military doesn’t give extra points for having gone to Annapolis.

You’re all in the same boat. The troops these officers lead—the enlisted force—are already way more diverse and look a lot more like America than the officer corps does. Unless someone is actually proposing we scrap ROTC and OCS completely and make the academies the only way to become an officer—which nobody is—then why single out the academies and strip away their ability to build a more representative class? ROTC and OCS will keep producing diverse officers because they draw from a much wider pool of colleges.


You’d just be making one small commissioning source less diverse while the majority stay the same.The military itself keeps saying a diverse officer corps is essential for unit cohesion, recruitment, retention, and national security. The academies are a tiny fraction of total officers, but they punch above their weight in producing senior leaders 20-30 years down the road.So yeah, I think the academies should keep using race-conscious admissions (within whatever narrow lane the Court left open for national security reasons) to look more like the country. Otherwise we’re just making the problem worse for no reason.

You do not want incompetent (DEI hire) officer in command in battles or wars. Elimination of DEI for the military is even more important than for civilian universities.

OCS and ROTC still exist, those same OCS and ROTC grads are put in charge of the same wars

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the academies aren’t Harvard or Yale.Getting into an Ivy really does give you a leg up in the private sector. Goldman, McKinsey, Big Law, Silicon Valley—they all recruit heavily from those schools and the name brand opens doors. A state school grad with the same GPA and resume is starting behind. That’s why those admissions battles are so cutthroat.The service academies are completely different. Their only job is to produce military officers. A brand-new 2nd Lieutenant or Ensign from West Point has the exact same starting pay, job, and career path as someone commissioned through ROTC at a random state school, an HBCU, or straight out of OCS. The military doesn’t give extra points for having gone to Annapolis.

You’re all in the same boat. The troops these officers lead—the enlisted force—are already way more diverse and look a lot more like America than the officer corps does. Unless someone is actually proposing we scrap ROTC and OCS completely and make the academies the only way to become an officer—which nobody is—then why single out the academies and strip away their ability to build a more representative class? ROTC and OCS will keep producing diverse officers because they draw from a much wider pool of colleges.


You’d just be making one small commissioning source less diverse while the majority stay the same.The military itself keeps saying a diverse officer corps is essential for unit cohesion, recruitment, retention, and national security. The academies are a tiny fraction of total officers, but they punch above their weight in producing senior leaders 20-30 years down the road.So yeah, I think the academies should keep using race-conscious admissions (within whatever narrow lane the Court left open for national security reasons) to look more like the country. Otherwise we’re just making the problem worse for no reason.

You do not want incompetent (DEI hire) officer in command in battles or wars. Elimination of DEI for the military is even more important than for civilian universities.

OCS and ROTC still exist, those same OCS and ROTC grads are put in charge of the same wars

Then, eliminate DEI from OCS and ROTC as well.

[Anonymous]

OP just stop. You are clearly in over your head and don’t have any idea what you are talking about

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the academies aren’t Harvard or Yale.Getting into an Ivy really does give you a leg up in the private sector. Goldman, McKinsey, Big Law, Silicon Valley—they all recruit heavily from those schools and the name brand opens doors. A state school grad with the same GPA and resume is starting behind. That’s why those admissions battles are so cutthroat.The service academies are completely different. Their only job is to produce military officers. A brand-new 2nd Lieutenant or Ensign from West Point has the exact same starting pay, job, and career path as someone commissioned through ROTC at a random state school, an HBCU, or straight out of OCS. The military doesn’t give extra points for having gone to Annapolis.

You’re all in the same boat. The troops these officers lead—the enlisted force—are already way more diverse and look a lot more like America than the officer corps does. Unless someone is actually proposing we scrap ROTC and OCS completely and make the academies the only way to become an officer—which nobody is—then why single out the academies and strip away their ability to build a more representative class? ROTC and OCS will keep producing diverse officers because they draw from a much wider pool of colleges.


You’d just be making one small commissioning source less diverse while the majority stay the same.The military itself keeps saying a diverse officer corps is essential for unit cohesion, recruitment, retention, and national security. The academies are a tiny fraction of total officers, but they punch above their weight in producing senior leaders 20-30 years down the road.So yeah, I think the academies should keep using race-conscious admissions (within whatever narrow lane the Court left open for national security reasons) to look more like the country. Otherwise we’re just making the problem worse for no reason.

You do not want incompetent (DEI hire) officer in command in battles or wars. Elimination of DEI for the military is even more important than for civilian universities.

OCS and ROTC still exist, those same OCS and ROTC grads are put in charge of the same wars

Then, eliminate DEI from OCS and ROTC as well.

OCS = someone applying to Military after completing a college degree

ROTC = Civilian College commissioning programs (95% of colleges have these programs, including HBCU)

The same black people that you believe are too dumb to get into West Point, can just go to University of The District of Columbia and become a Naval Officer, the same as the Naval Academy grad, doing the same job

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the academies aren’t Harvard or Yale.Getting into an Ivy really does give you a leg up in the private sector. Goldman, McKinsey, Big Law, Silicon Valley—they all recruit heavily from those schools and the name brand opens doors. A state school grad with the same GPA and resume is starting behind. That’s why those admissions battles are so cutthroat.The service academies are completely different. Their only job is to produce military officers. A brand-new 2nd Lieutenant or Ensign from West Point has the exact same starting pay, job, and career path as someone commissioned through ROTC at a random state school, an HBCU, or straight out of OCS. The military doesn’t give extra points for having gone to Annapolis.

You’re all in the same boat. The troops these officers lead—the enlisted force—are already way more diverse and look a lot more like America than the officer corps does. Unless someone is actually proposing we scrap ROTC and OCS completely and make the academies the only way to become an officer—which nobody is—then why single out the academies and strip away their ability to build a more representative class? ROTC and OCS will keep producing diverse officers because they draw from a much wider pool of colleges.


You’d just be making one small commissioning source less diverse while the majority stay the same.The military itself keeps saying a diverse officer corps is essential for unit cohesion, recruitment, retention, and national security. The academies are a tiny fraction of total officers, but they punch above their weight in producing senior leaders 20-30 years down the road.So yeah, I think the academies should keep using race-conscious admissions (within whatever narrow lane the Court left open for national security reasons) to look more like the country. Otherwise we’re just making the problem worse for no reason.

You do not want incompetent (DEI hire) officer in command in battles or wars. Elimination of DEI for the military is even more important than for civilian universities.

The fact that you conflate "DEI hire" with incompetence is why we still desperately need DEI.

WTAF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the books they removed from the Academies' libraries

The Secretary of War thought they didn’t belong. Tells you all you need to know know about their priorities

+1

+2

[Anonymous]

The way i see service academies vs ROTC grads is ROTC grads want to do their 5 -8 yrs as an officer and get out, Service academy grads typically want to serve for 20 years

[Anonymous]

Academy grads absolutely have better job prospects when exiting the military (and most do exit when commitment is up), comparable to top 10 colleges, and an amazing alumni network. Top companies recruit academy grads. How did you not know this?