<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>