<p>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.</p>
<p>Keep the training the same, i.e. keep the year at sea and engineering focus that USMMA has, but REQUIRE that graduates take an active duty commission OR that they repay a greater portion of the costs associated with their education. Perhaps the active duty component could be directly tied to reimbursement ,i.e. from 100% underwritten for five years decreasing to 20% underwritten [80% reimbursement] fo rtwo years of service.</p>
<p>My beef is with those who choose [and it is an entirely correct choice under current law] to take get what everybody argues is as good an education as I have gotten and then get to make a bunch of money in private industry. Given current law, there is nothing wrong with this; but, if USMMA graduates are truly interested in serving their country, they could do for less than $10k a month.</p>