GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Good Intentions, Bad Idea

• 65066
  

  I once dreamed of this idea myself.

  However, this is a bad idea for a democractic republic.

  Such an Academy will take young minds and train them in a environment that SEPARATES them from the REST of the US population. The Public Servants who come out of this Academy will have much different experiences in their formative years than the rest of the citizenry. This Academy will produce bureaucrats who are even more detached from the experiences of the general population than those currently in government.

  Furthermore graduates of this Academy are likely to have very similar views. Thus the particular dogma that develops at this Academy will have a disproportionate influence on the administration of government.

  Our leading Public Servants should be drawn from the vast general college educated population so they may best understand the needs, experiences, and views of the general population.

  A democracy should not divide its citizenry into casts as if people were a race of ants.

  Cato de Americana Posted December 16, 2008 10:20 AM
• 32234
  

  Lifetime careers with one employer are passe. in the public, private, and non-profit sectors.

  Public sector needs more in-and-outers with experience in the other sectors. An academy that offers a 6-month orientation to an older, wiser, more experienced person committed to making change is essential. And since they won't be career oriented, there's a chance for success.

  I started in Govt. 50 years ago and am in my third stint having spent almost as much time out (in the private and non-profit sectors)as in. Too many lifers...too many nay-sayers.

  don green Posted September 5, 2007 12:16 PM
• 32228
  

  The Yellow Book test was an excellent metaphor. For an administration that advocates shrinking its own size, considers contracting out every function it can such as the IRS and the FAA, a move like this makes one think government would rather control education than taxes; and that could be a truly frightening thing.

  "National security is the only substantive criterion mentioned in the bills that would guide decisions about placement of graduates in the federal government." Following that statement, some may hear the sound of boot heels snapping together sharply. If I may be so bold, this statement would establish the primary motivation of the academy to be ... well, control, basically.

  Perhaps the focus should be the rule of law (Constitutional, legislative, and municipal), preservation of our way of life, and business; both national and international. That would provide knowledgeable graduates able to function at all levels of government and allow plenty of focus on security; but the primary focus would be on the other basic, and very necessary, tenets of life in these United States.

  At the U.S. Public Service Academy, if the focus was guided by DHS, I see a curriculum cultivated by a presidential appointee whose career consists of kowtowing, Machiavellian maneuvers, or simple security; not subjects I am willing to pay for on this scale. In a liberal arts university environment, I perceive the fomenting of questioning minds challenging both the status quo and each other; rather reminiscent, I think, of the discussions that rang through Carpenters' Hall in Philadelphia a few centuries ago. I envision graduates headed for the halls of Congress, the various departments of government, think tanks, and every day business; the support of which is our government's job.

  As proposed, our collegian efforts would be better spent cultivating a working relationship with civilian colleges; discussing governmentally perceived curriculum requirements and on-campus solicitations.

  Tip off Posted September 5, 2007 11:56 AM
• 32158
  

  Contrary to previous commenters, I believe the Public Service Academy is an excellent idea, so long as it is implemented correctly (e.g., with controls in place to reduce or eliminate political influence).

  The military academies are very difficult to get into and so are able to recruit the very best students. For that reason, graduates from these academies are accorded substantial prestige, which in turn gives a luster to serving as a military officer that I strongly doubt would exist if ROTC was the sole recruiting method.

  I believe a Public Service Academy, because of the free education it would provide in exchange for public service, would be able to recruit a student body similar to the military academies in terms of quality. This would in turn give an aura of prestige to graduates, resulting in enhanced respect for Federal civilian employees, something that is sadly lacking right now.

  Sue Posted September 4, 2007 7:39 PM
• 32123
  

  I think that the academy would be a waste of time and money. There are already young, engergetic, bright candidates out there trying to get government positions, but are thwarted by the selection system. My daughter is a recent summa cum laude graduate from a well respected public university, 3.9+ GPA who applied for an entry level GS 5/7 job at SSA. Her rejection letter said that, although qualified, she was not "highly" qualified. This would lead me to belive that those who received the highly qualified ratings had 4.0 GPAs and that there must have been an abundance of those candidates for her not to at least get an interview. The kids are out there trying to get in, they just need to be given a chance.

  Bob Posted September 4, 2007 11:32 AM
• 31745
  

  I'm not a proponent of creating a Congressionally-developed and run scholarship program. I would expect such a program to become a political pawn and large expensive bureaucracy over time.

  However, if a true benefit analysis (other than the feel-good political posturing) shows we could recruit a better "class" of employee through a scholarship and/or "academy" program, then scholarships could have merit. But, the military academies are a poor model to follow. Building a new school to feed future leaders into government service would be too expensive per pupil, and too small to have much impact to our huge government.

  In my opinion, the ROTC model is a better one to follow. The cost per pupil would be much smaller, allowing us to develop larger numbers of leaders. The academic opportunities would be much broader (essentially ALL colleges). And, we could distribute the scholarship money nation-wide, garnering support of more Congress-persons. As with the ROTC program, local "future leader" students would be required to take core government classes developed by "the program," and could be interned into government offices during summer breaks.

  In the end, though, the analysis is key. What number of young people must we reach to be cost effective? How much should we spend? Who will administer this program (that would likely expand to a huge agency on its own)?

  One more thing to consider... wouldn't we be better off recruiting experienced "adult" leaders from the industries and companies that parallel our government work? It's hard to see how bringing impressionable young people into indentured service would foster new ideas and new leadership. Let's shake things up from the middle and top, instead.

  Rick Posted August 28, 2007 12:30 PM
• 31723
  

  Excellent Article! One problem not mentioned is that leaders will be expected to provide preferential upward mobility tracks and assignments for the proposed academy graduates. Supervisors will be concerned that a "top shelf" academy graduate will quit public service while on their watch. When it is six one way and half a dozen the other, the academy graduate will get the nod over his/her peers. Add in the realization that when the non-academy graduates have attended schools that are just as notable, you will see moral problems wherever academy graduates work. These prejudices and resentments reside in the military communities, why migrate that the same problems into the civilian community?

  Bill Billiard Posted August 28, 2007 9:01 AM
• 31716
  

  Seems to me the crucial difference between the military academies and the proposed public service academy is the military's officer corps structure. With no comparable, standardized "leadership ladder" in the civilian service, the development of these newly graduated leaders would be too much left to chance...as it is now.

  WM Posted August 28, 2007 7:40 AM
• 31682
  

  We don't need a fancy academy to recruit talented people to federal service. What we need are more FTE job slots. Taking a look around me, my agency has many fine young scientists, engineers and statisticians who are working as contract employees but would rather be federal employees. Most come to us seeking a long-term career in federal service. These bright young folks (all college educated, an increasing proportion with PhD's) are told that if they stay long enough a slot will open up for them to become federal employees. They take that promise at face value and hang around for a few years before becoming disillusioned and moving on to university or non-government positions where the pay, benefits and/or prestige are better. If we want to recruit a new generation of smart and loyal public servants, all we have to do is look around us -- and make good on that promise of federal employment.

  JM Posted August 27, 2007 2:53 PM
• 31679
  

  Great article. Nicely reasoned - is there any evidence that other existing schools can't do as good as or better job?

  No - OK then - no reason to do it.

  What the article does lead to is the other question - are our existing academies worth the cost? And my guess is that the answer is still NO - as the Washington Monthly quantified a few years ago.

  The cost per student at the academies is sky high compared to ROTC. And there is no evidence that they produce better soldiers. And since in the last few years we've had scandals at each of the military academies - why, other than PR would we want to start another one?

  BTW - the snippy remark is that a US academy already exists - it's called the Kennedy School.

  Samuel Knight Posted August 27, 2007 2:14 PM
• 31643
  

  In my humble opinion, public service is similar to military service; it is either your cup of tea or it isn't. I take issue with the idea that a special school will improve recruits and insure their retention. Decreasing the influence of political appointees would do more to improve the morale and retention of good employees than creating a special school. As a 30+ year employee, I have seen the influence and impact of the current appointees reach their nadir of influence on federal employees. Look at the latest revelations of the Surgeon Generals as just proof. When talented people are muffled and hobbled by the constrains of political agendas, we become ineffective and then guit.

  Richard Black Posted August 27, 2007 8:50 AM
• 31642
  

  A shortfall in talented people?? how is the authors able to quantify this, the whole premise is flawed and waste of money. The bureaucrats are already too entrenched what is needed is lots of retirements and no replacements

  dan ketter Posted August 27, 2007 8:45 AM
• 31639
  

  Bravo, gentlemen. Thoughtful, well-reasoned, clearly lays out the bigger picture. There are indeed many aspects of the military leadership development system to admire and emulate. But simply mimicking its most publicly visible component without a long-term commitment to building a genuine system would yield little or no real benefit.

  Your alternative approach makes far more sense, capitalizing on existing institutions and saving taxpayer dollars to boot. I sincerely hope this piece is read and carefully considered by Congress and the administration.

  Maxwell '82 Posted August 27, 2007 8:28 AM
• 31631
  

  Alathough I generally agree with the caution Van Slyke and Roberts express I think a central part of their argument is off base. They say, "[B]ut we also know there are certain tasks that bureaucracies don't perform particularly well. Running a liberal arts university is one of them." Are they saying that the private bureaucracy that runs Harvard or Syracuse is beter than the public bureaucracy that runs the University of California or Michigan? And, if so, I'd love to see their evidence.

  Michael Schwartz Posted August 27, 2007 7:24 AM