TOPICS
TOPICS
A Transformative Idea
When Sargent Shriver set out to develop the Peace Corps in early 1961, he envisioned a bold, independent institution that would capture the imagination of young people with its idealistic mission and can-do culture. Academic experts were nearly unanimous in rejecting his approach. Start small, they insisted. Use existing institutions, they counseled. Shriver's intentions were good, they acknowledged, but his ideas were flawed, they sighed.
Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that the initiative to build a U.S. Public Service Academy has attracted its share of skeptics, particularly from academics at private universities. (Interestingly, the academy has received a much warmer reception from faculty and administrators at state colleges and the military academies.)
The proposed Public Service Academy would be the civilian counterpart to the military academies. It would offer some 5,000 students a federally subsidized college education in exchange for five years of civilian public service following graduation, in fields ranging from law enforcement and emergency management to public health and education.
"We already do this," suggest some critics, pointing to myriad public administration and policy programs at universities nationwide. These critics misunderstand the nature of the academy. It will not simply be a liberal arts school that happens to be funded by the federal government. It will be a leadership development campus aimed specifically at the public sector.
The academy will be unlike any other civilian college. In addition to the five-year post-graduation service requirement (which has no civilian parallel), the academy will offer a unique core curriculum that will emphasize service learning and international education, with challenging requirements for study abroad, public service internships and leadership development activities year-round. Readers may visit the academy's Web site and read the draft blueprint to determine if any existing college offers an academic program as rigorous and service-focused as the academy.
"It sounds interesting, but we don't need it," critics contend. Yet we face a massive and growing shortage of top-quality public servants at all levels of society because a decreasing proportion of undergraduates choose to enter public service. A recent study by the Financial Times showed that even at top-notch programs such as Columbia University's School of Public Affairs, the percentage of graduates who enter public service following graduation has dropped by half in a generation. This decrease stems in part because the cost of college can make pursuing public service prohibitive. The average college graduate now owes about $20,000 (more if he or she attended private schools), a debt load that often prices students out of public service.
But the unwillingness of students to commit to public service also reflects a culture that belittles the public sector and values individual achievement and material advancement over service to the nation. We need a prestigious, national institution that can capture the imagination of a new generation of young people and channel their energy into public service.
"So if we need to do more to attract our best and bright into public service, why not create an ROTC-type scholarship program?" critics ask. A public service scholarship program is a worthy, but limited, idea. It would not be able to offer the intensive culture of service that a separate institution devoted to public service would instill in its students. Scholarship money would benefit individual students and colleges but would not create a unified campus culture that develops a strong esprit de corps around a public service mission.
The Public Service Academy's critics, like those of the early Peace Corps, miss the symbolic importance of creating a permanent institution that will be woven into the fabric of American life. Building the academy would send a powerful message about the value we place on public service in this country -- much the way that refusing to build it (while offering five military academies) sends the message to our young people that civilian service is somehow less important, less legitimate or less patriotic than military service.
No one claims that the academy alone is enough to reform government -- it must be accompanied by a comprehensive set of reforms. But it would help raise the visibility of the public sector and could transform the way young people perceive, prepare for and pursue public service. Instead of thinking small and belittling the academy, critics could lend their expertise to develop the idea.
Thank goodness Sargent Shriver and his boss, President Kennedy, did not listen to the critics. It's hard to imagine our country without the Peace Corps, and a generation from now people will wonder how we ever got along without the Public Service Academy.
COMMENTS
- What this article fails to detail is the problem our military experiences with their service academy graduates. There is a defined lack of acceptance by academy grads over non-academy grads. This lack of acceptance has permeated the mid to senior level officers for countless generations. If this academy gets off the ground what then becomes of the many thousands that weren't lucky enough to get selected, but graduated from some obscure college in say.....western Kansas?? Are they not worthy of consideration for senior leadership positions, since they are not part of the "Academy Brotherhood?" If the Military Service Academies are the example, then it is a very poor example in deed. Richard Posted September 17, 2007 10:33 AM
- As Homer Simpson often says “DOH!” I just realized something. I’d heard so many references to the military academies that I just glazed over. Someone please clue me in. I heard once that only Congressional nominees were accepted into the service colleges. Now, I am fairly sure there must be other methods but I still get the feeling that Congressmen (and women) are a primary conduit to attendance. My question is: Is that also to be an important means or requirement for attendance at this proposed institution? Perhaps this would explain their interest and sponsorship of such a costly enterprise. This would enable them to treat friends and relatives, and populate the halls of government with those that owe them allegiance; all in the name of patriotism. Tip off Posted September 12, 2007 2:48 PM
- Unlce Sam says "Do you really think that money grows on trees?" We already have such a Public Academy: it is called the Welfare Office. If you would get out-on-the-street and see for yourself the amount of work these people do for the American public it would absolutely blow your mind. What people will do for free food; housing and clothing is absolutely amazing. Why bother? What is the next step: calling the local library a PUBLIC OFFICE? The point is too make the government smaller NOT larger. Basically one person with a computer can do it all: leave the rest up to the churches, the police, the firemen and the EMS. THIS HAS GOT TO BE A JOKE> IMAGINARY MONEY FOR IMAGINARY PEOPLE DOING IMAGINARY JOBS! Duke Nukem Posted September 12, 2007 2:32 PM
Chris Myers Asch is the co-founder of the U.S. Public Service Academy. He may be reached at: asch@uspublicserviceacademy.org.
