GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: A Transformative Idea

• 33154
  

  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
• 32859
  

  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
• 32852
  

  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
• 32836
  

  Mr. Asch's specious comparison of the PSA to the Peace Corps is totally inapposite and intellectually dishonest. Complete apples and oranges. His dismissal of the ROTC approach is the best argument for that approach. The intensive atmosphere he seems to yearn for is suitable for indoctrination not education. This is a civil service we're staffing, not a priesthood. Where's the academic freedom come in in his fantasy world of earnest cookie-cutter droids frothing at the mouth to climb the bureaucratic ladder to success as the leaders of tomorrow? To me this is a nightmare scenario apart from being a total waste of time, effort and money duplicating independent educational capabilities that already exist. I know this finds support on both sides of the aisle but I wouldn't want either side dictating the dogma our future civil service leaders will hold to. I don't think any responsible person would agree that ROTC fails to produce competent officers.

  Mike Posted September 12, 2007 12:09 PM
• 32803
  

  Regardless of the specific intent and potential rewards of this proposal, in this time of fiscal restraint you have to ask where our limited funds are best spent. Is it best spent creating a new breed of bureaucratic elite which may or may not benefit our nation, may engender animosity with the rest of the population, and for which there are many viable and less expensive substitutes?

  To reap the rewards of this initiative will require more than mere academic debt repayment. In the long term, weight will have to be given to such graduates on a statistical basis rather than on performance. An entire system of grooming and selection to prime posts will have to be developed to ensure any significant percentile stay beyond their mandatory requirement.

  And please do not forget, this scheme contemplates the creation of an elite in an area often shunned and degraded by the very politicians voting for the funds to maintain and the curriculum to teach. Are we really so willing to pay for the creation of a super-bureaucratic class of people that we will let other pressing needs go without?

  Tip off Posted September 12, 2007 8:29 AM
• 32763
  

  I see the value in what Mr. Asch proposes. There is an invigorating flow of energy in youth, especially today, to continue building and renewing the promise of America.

  I have friends at West Point who benefited in large measure from the esprit de corps and culture of service grown and nurtured at the academy. If we could but harness the same culture and give it form in an permanent, federally funded institution, we could see a re-dedication to the principles of good government and service to last for generations.

  Mr. Asch rightly uses the proposed academy to address the severe shortage of people in the public sector. Growing leaders at this institution and mandating a five-year minimum service requirement would help keep fresh blood and ideas in these professions, while providing new bodies to fill their urgently depleting ranks.

  I also agree with Mr. Asch's assessment concerning the prohibitive costliness of education vis-a-vis the discouraging prospects of a public service salary. As a recent college graduate, I find it impossible to pursue my dreamt-of public sector job because of the sheer greatness of my student debt. A federally financed education gearing me toward the public sector would have enabled me to pursue this work without worrying about cumbersome student debt.

  On the other hand, I see the need in earlier-mentioned post-graduate and mid-career possibilities. An academy of this kind shouldn't restrict its mission to youth, but invite others for an education that continually renews and refreshes public servants for leadership.

  In any respect, I'm thankful for Mr. Asch's vision and sincerely hope we can establish it soon. (I might suggest Texas as a premiere location!)

  Ryan Posted September 11, 2007 2:55 PM
• 32762
  

  If you read the Academy's "Blueprint" you'll see that the question of where students go upon graduation is clearly addressed. It is no different than military academy graduates (which no one seems to question the value of)-you go where you are assigned. "After graduating from the Academy, students will serve America by working for five years in a public institution at the local, state, or federal level. The Academy will work with state and local governments, federal agencies, and other qualifying public entities to identify critically-needed positions that can be filled by Academy graduates. Partnering entities must agree to pay salaries and benefits and to provide professional development opportunities that will help place graduates on the fast track to leadership positions. The Academy will assign graduates to appropriate employment after assessing national and community needs, student experience, and student academic performance. Graduates will be required to go where they are assigned."

  As for the 10+ years of public service to forgive students loans. It is increasingly difficult to get into the government for new graduates for a variety of reasons. One is the sheer amount of debt. Yes, the remaining loans are forgiven after 10+ years, but by that point, the majority is already paid off, much of that being a rather high debt load. So civil servants are paying off their debts on what is typically much lower than they could be making in the private sector. The loan forgiveness is a joke among recent graduates. Second, the rather Byzantine process of applying for most government jobs is frustrating and a turnoff to a portion of recent graduates who are interested in government work.

  supporter Posted September 11, 2007 2:40 PM
• 32755
  

  I think this is a fabulous idea. As a graduate of one of our five existing service academies, former civil servant, and graduate of an MPA program, the core-foundation of public management needs to be rock solid. Leadership groomed through a common point of entry into public service is a great way to start. Mid-career education might come later through professional or one-year masters programs at such an Academy. A core foundation in quantitative analysis, infrastructure management, negotiation skills, and of course strong morals and ethics coursework and culture could round-out the Academy. Given the diversity of culture, and the need to offset the Beltway influence, such an Academy should be on the US West Coast.

  chris Posted September 11, 2007 1:43 PM
• 32737
  

  I WANT us to have new blood, new ideas, and enthusiastic educated leadership. Young people DO have a way of bringing excitement to organizations and--with proper mentorship--they can become the insightful leaders of our future. However, the "academy" proposal reeks of political agendas and the potential for a huge elite bureaucracy. Will 5000 22-year-old academy grads a year still have their enthusiasm when they are 35, 45 and 55? Heck, would the "best of the best" even remain with the government?

  Why aren't we addressing rejuvenation at higher grades? What would happen if we pulled 5000 current employees into a mid-career leadership academy, taught them to exploit their talents and knowledge, become mentors, leaders and recruiters, and sent them back into government service RE-energized? We could simultaneously continue to target young college students, pay for their school (in exchange for obligated government service), and pair each with a newly-trained "mid-career academy" grad.

  We all understand that without the proper seed stock, our crops could fail. But there is far more we can do than buy good seeds--we need to also prepare the soil, ensure a supportive environment, and nurture our "seedlings" before we can reap the harvest of strong and viable leaders. No responsible farmer plants expensive seeds in sterile soil, nor should we spend money on college students before we have prepared a fertile environment for their future.

  Rick Posted September 11, 2007 11:34 AM
• 32671
  

  The biggest problem I see is that this comes at the wrong time in a public servant's career. We need this to be a primarily graduate level school where we send men and women to be managers (GS12 and above). We need fresh, bright thinkers coming in at the lower levels as experts in their fields, then move the best to higher levels of responsibility with mandatory education. Isn't it time we mandated management advanced degrees for our government managers? There should not be another SES selected that does not have a management advanced degree. This should be the focus of a public service academy.

  Middle Manager Posted September 10, 2007 5:33 PM
• 32658
  

  The counter-argument is well written and appreciated in balancing the overall debate. However, I still see two major flaws:

  1) The benefit of such an academy will be diffused, and therefore reduced, if graduates are free to work anywhere in public service or non-profit organizations they choose. There are too many games to be played in siphoning off the high-cost talent from where its bills are paid and where it is needed most - the Federal Government.

  2) Government administration is subject to the transigence of political objectives. This is sure to creep into and skew the curriculum (e.g., will affirmative action coursework be required, or elective?).

  MPA Graduate Posted September 10, 2007 2:08 PM
• 32642
  

  NO, no, no. With forgiving student loans to 10+ years in service, school debt should not be issue. We have a plenty of excellent universities and colleges. Gov need recruiters and incentives and you will get talent.

  evangelina Posted September 10, 2007 11:52 AM
• 32641
  

  I've said it before & I'll say it again. This is a boondoggle in the making. First, contrary to the views of this article, a Public Service academy us unneeded. There are already plenty of schools within colleges that are designed to create future public servants. The 2 most famous are the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University & the Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs, Princeton university. That most of the graduates of these 2 institutions don't end up working for the government is beside the point. Offer scholarships to people to attend schools like these (and others across the country) under the condition that they must serve the government "X" amount of years post-graduation. If the curriculum is not exactly what the government wants, then work something out with the universities to tweak it. Even if they had to pay the universities to tweak what they do, that will still cost much less than the hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost to build, fund and run an academy.

  Even if this academy is built, it will be the first thing on the chopping block to a future congress that wants to "cut costs." Any way you look @ it, it will be a wasteful use of taxpayer money.

  Beyond all of that, I find it rather silly to bend over backwards to build a Public Service academy at the SAME time the Bush administration is doing everything it can to get rid of these same civil servants who are supposed to be trained there. I can just see it now: they build this academy and 90% of the first graduates are A-76ed out of a job as soon as they get off-campus. Talk about a rigmarole. I'm not a Simpsons fan, but as Homer Simpson would say......"DOH!!"

  David Posted September 10, 2007 11:50 AM
• 32615
  

  I was originally opposed to such an idea as a public service academy along the lines of West Point. But after thinking about it and reading this article- sign me up.

  I'll be more than happy to teach at such an academy.

  HR Specialist Posted September 10, 2007 10:00 AM
• 32603
  

  I am not an academic, I did not attend private universities, and I still think this is a bad idea dreamed up by elites. If this academy will be like military academies, does that mean that the graduates will be assigned anywhere, whether or not that's where they want to go? So the Montana graduate might get five years in the Detroit school system? The FAQs are strangely silent on this aspect. I suspect because that's not the plan. And if this academy is where tomorrow's leaders will be bred, why should graduates from outstanding schools of public administration go into public service? They will be like second class citizens to the public academy elites. Perhaps the academy will actually exacerbate the problem. Will anyone study why people don't want to go into public service? No one has explained what is the real problem or how the academy will solve it.

  Thad Juszczak Posted September 10, 2007 9:05 AM
• 32599
  

  I don't think the governemnt getting involved in something that is clearly inherently commercial (or not inherently governmental) is the correct action...considering the wide use of the A-76 process.

  Skeptic Posted September 10, 2007 8:47 AM