BDCP Full

[wink]

Seen this sentiment a few times. I strongly disagree. ... more words

A fine free market primer, but a little history is in order. None of the reasons you site were ever behind BDCP when rolled out in the 1980's. BDCP was originally for aviation only and minority applicants ONLY. It had nothing to do with getting high quality engineering students that would otherwise not be inclined to go Navy on graduation two years hence. You did not need be an engineering student, and the competitive grade requirement was lower. It had everything to do with sweetening the pot for quality minority students that didn't see the Navy as career option prestigious enough for someone that might have been the first in his family to finish college or came from a community where the military was not respected at all. It was seen as a scholarship option for minority college students that might be running out of money or working too many hours to keep their grades up or in school. BDCP back then was a very small program. It wasn't expanded to include most all designators and non minority candidates until into the 90's. As you recall (well maybe not, many of you were watching Power Rangers), the economy was doing rather well, the Navy could afford it then. What is key, is that BDCP never had anything to do with competing for students that might go to GE or Boeing or Booze Allen instead. It was an afirmative action outreach. That Navy has always produced very fine officers and aviators through OCS without BDCP. Other programs that might have similar appeal but be less expensive are the old AVROC program, NAVCAD program and the USMC PLC program. Even expansion of a hybrid two year program hosted by NROTC units would serve the purpose at less expense. I am sorry to see it suspended, as I have a son that was interested, when old enough. But it truly isn't required, at least for the reasons stated above.

 

[Tatenko]

Personally...I could care less about the money.

That is one thing that I really dislike about recruiters...

I gave out my information and was requesting some information on commissioning programs.

And an enlisted recruiter called me and the first thing he said was "The Navy will give you a place to stay it will pay for your health insurance and it pays you a salary!"

"We will even pay for your education!"

"GI BILL!"

I felt turned off by the Navy, but I realize they probably reach out to a lot of kids that come from poor families.

I told him "I am not looking for money, I am not looking for free education, I am looking to serve my country and experience the world, try something new"

...My point is, I think that the engineers and technical guys should be joining because they want to serve their country.

 

[bert]

Personally...I could care less about the money.

...

...My point is, I think that the engineers and technical guys should be joining because they want to serve their country.

So should they return the extra money they would get compared you, or just not accept it in the first place?

 

[GreenLantern330]

...My point is, I think that the engineers and technical guys should be joining because they want to serve their country.

So you're saying that everyone else that doesn't have a technical degree or didn't major in engineering doesn't want to serve their country? I don't know about you, but I don't have a technical degree, and I've wanted to serve my country since I was a little kid.

 

[wink]

Personally...I could care less about the money.

That is one thing that I really dislike about recruiters...

I gave out my information and was requesting some information on commissioning programs.

And an enlisted recruiter called me and the first thing he said was "The Navy will give you a place to stay it will pay for your health insurance and it pays you a salary!"

"We will even pay for your education!"

"GI BILL!"

I felt turned off by the Navy, but I realize they probably reach out to a lot of kids that come from poor families.

I told him "I am not looking for money, I am not looking for free education, I am looking to serve my country and experience the world, try something new"

...My point is, I think that the engineers and technical guys should be joining because they want to serve their country.

People join the military for all sorts of reasons. Serving their country is the net affect. It doesn't have to be the one and only reason. If you want to serve your country you can do it by becoming a civilian employee of the Navy, or a NCIS special agent or CIA analyst. In any of those jobs you could have a greater impact on the security of your nation then flying a SH-60. How do you define serving your country and how important to you is it? Is someone that is in uniform providing a greater service then the CIA analyst. If that is so then is the Grunt walking through IED cluttered valleys and living for months in a sleeping bag eating MREs under threat of mortar attack serving their country to a greater degree than you will? If someone joins the Navy for the GI Bill and an enlistment bonus, and serves honorably and competently for 4 years, it doesn't make any difference to me how much they wanted to be there in the first place. A lot of folks that want to serve their country are incompetents that find out it is more work then they envisioned. Fleet results are what matter.

 

[CStudent]

A fine free market primer, but a little history is in order. None of the reasons you site were ever behind BDCP when rolled out in the 1980's. More words.

I was aware of the affirmative action origins. My post was not about how BDCP began, but about the role it serves today.

I think we both agree that there is a "supply vs demand" push-pull to all aspects of military recruiting. Supply is high right now, so they're cutting back. It's as simple as that.

I'm not sure I agree that ROTC units are a better use of time or funds, though. I've had several friends go through both Army and Air Force ROTC. All but one, a prior-enlisted, are currently serving. Their experiences really turned me off on the programs.

 

[CStudent]

...My point is, I think that the engineers and technical guys should be joining because they want to serve their country.

*sigh* They are.

Counter-argument. If their skills are worth more than yours, why should they work for the same amount of money? Incidentally, most military pilots would really struggle to find anything even close to the sweet deal they get flying for the armed services. Those jobs just aren't there in the private sector. And what there are, pay like shit, treat you like shit, and have a waiting list two miles long to work them. Trust me. I've got buddies who went both routes. The private pilots who put themselves through school are struggling to put food on the table. The military pilots are set. Their golden ticket was written to safeguard against poaching from the private sector, back when pilots would finish their initial obligation and leave to go make $150-200k a year (in 1990s money) working for an airline.

But I digress. That aside...

People join the service for all kinds of reasons. At the end of the day, you can't fill our armed forces with just people who "want to server their country, and don't give a crap about pay". There aren't that many patriotic, selfless SoBs out there. And the ones that are, burn out fast. Idealism doesn't pay the bills. To get the job done, you need to pay people a decent wage for their time. Or you're going to bleed talent. Considering the duration and expense of all military/defense training pipelines, turnover is something you really want to mitigate.

Personally, after a few years in the private sector I'm already making close to what I'd make as an O-1. With my experience and job prospects, I could probably do $5-10k a year better than a commissioned officer for at least the first few years, if not the first 20. And that's a conservative estimate.

For me, it's not about the pay in the sense that "zomg, I've got to make as much money as possible!" But I do need to be able to take care of business. I can tell you right now. If I didn't think I could provide for my future wife and family on a military salary, then I would not join.

 

[wink]

Thanks for the input, it makes sense that they would discontinue the program.

Seen this sentiment a few times. I strongly disagree.

People tend to see BDCP as "free money". It's not. It's a recruitment tool. The Navy didn't implement it because they wanted college kids to have a good time. They wanted to attract a certain kind of recruit. The CIA has a similar program.

Applicants and those accepted should feel fortunate. But it's not charity. They are making a commitment and agreeing to perform a service. The military is paying them for that service.

And there's a reason. They prefer math and technical degrees. They have a hard time getting them. A lot of government jobs don't pay top dollar, with military aviation being a notable exception. Most math, computer science, and engineering majors can earn more elsewhere. From a recruitment point of view, it's hard to attract the people you want if you're offering less money and a more restricted lifestyle than they can find elsewhere.

Bottom Line:
All about supply and demand. Right now, they have a bunch of poor people with nothing else to do breaking down their doors trying to get in.

Due to the economy, the anticipated military draw down over the next few years, and political pressure over the budget, the military is cutting BDCP because they're seeing more recruits than they need. Which is fine. But I think BDCP gets singled out more than similar programs (ROTC, STA-21, the NUPOC program, and, arguably the MGIB) because people think recruits don't "earn" their pay until they've spent time on active duty. This is bullshit. In absolute terms, I think there are certainly arguments to be made that BDCP is less expensive than other programs yet yields similar results. And while other programs are often duplicates of each other, BDCP is unique in reaching out to college students 1/2 way through school who may not attend a University with ROTC.

Please do make the argument that BDCP is less expensive than other programs. In your analysis consider past programs such as AVROC, NAVCAD, and OSAM as well as USMC PLC. Also make note that BDCP is not so unique in reaching out to students just 1/2 way through school. NUPOC was around long before BDCP and AVROC was meant to appeal to college sophomores. They could bring it back if they really wanted to appeal to kids two years into college. Hell, in NAVCAD a guy with two years college actually left for OCS prior to getting a degree.

I was aware of the affirmative action origins. My post was not about how BDCP began, but about the role it serves today.

I think we both agree that there is a "supply vs demand" push-pull to all aspects of military recruiting. Supply is high right now, so they're cutting back. It's as simple as that.

I'm not sure I agree that ROTC units are a better use of time or funds, though. I've had several friends go through both Army and Air Force ROTC. All but one, a prior-enlisted, are currently serving. Their experiences really turned me off on the programs.

I know your post had nothing to do with the origins of BDCP. My point is that it is instructive to consider the original intent and objective. That objective is relatively immune to the labor market since the Navy considers the demand for minority applicants to always exceed the supply of actual bodies walking in the door. Moreover, the history is important because the supply of labor has increased and decreased several times over the life of BDCP, and the program survived. Historically, the Navy did not cut recruiting programs because of high supply. They simply raise the cost of entry, the admissions requirements and competitive profile. They could do that now. If they decide to suspend BDCP it isn't because they have all the quality applicants they need as much as they find the program is simply not providing the results they want.

I can't know what turned you off ROTC, especially since it was based on Army and USAF experiences. Clearly it isn't for everyone. But what you think is meaningless for all but you. The Navy obviously thinks ROTC is a valuable commissioning source, more so than BDCP. In any case, my comment about a two year hybrid program was meant to be just that, a hybrid, not ROTC. Say something like a stipend, report to ROTC units administratively, and attend OCS in two parts between So and Jr and finish after graduating. Something like AVROC but with money. They wouldn't be on active duty like BDCP, perhaps not even start their pay entry base date. That would save tons of money, get guys hooked early, and keep quality candidates in college by providing money to help with college costs.

 

[Sapper!]

I just wish the Navy had a program similar to the Army, something like get your OCS out of the way during the summer and have 36 months to defer your commission until you finish your degree. Why can't it be just that simple!? You want a slot, here, go to OCS pass and get a slot, doesn't mean we are going to place you or that you necessarily qualify for a program, much less get paid for it but you want in, fine! Wait maybe that is not so good after all....oh well there is always some pain to go through when you want to be the elite.

 

[CStudent]

In any case, my comment about a two year hybrid program was meant to be just that, a hybrid, not ROTC. Say something like a stipend, report to ROTC units administratively, and attend OCS in two parts between So and Jr and finish after graduating. Something like AVROC but with money. They wouldn't be on active duty like BDCP, perhaps not even start their pay entry base date. That would save tons of money, get guys hooked early, and keep quality candidates in college by providing money to help with college costs.

Sounds pretty good.

I think my main objection to the "go to OCS during the summer" programs is that they burn two summers worth of school to do what could have been done in 12 weeks of OCS. That student could have just gone to school during the summers, graduated "early", and entered normal OCS faster. I'm not sure I see what benefit the Navy gets out of sending them through early, in a split program, rather than just running one program for everybody.

Please do make the argument that BDCP is less expensive than other programs. In your analysis consider past programs such as AVROC, NAVCAD, and OSAM as well as USMC PLC.

Cheaper than NUPOC (E-5+ pay vs E-3+ pay) and at least on par with STA-21. I haven't heard of anyone entering STA-21 without making E-3 first.

I imagine ROTC is cheaper. That's a complicated question. It depends on how you want to look at things like ROTC scholarships, facilities, staffing, program operating costs, etc. My point is that I'm highly skeptical of the "bang for buck" provided by ROTC programs. I'd rather have fewer students competing for better benefits through program that is not dependent upon location. It's also important to note that BDCP is a much firmer commitment than ROTC. A slimmed-down BDCP could be cheaper than the ROTC program.

USMC PLC does up to $7k financial assistance, plus $3k paid training. Plus up to $15.6k in stipends, over three years. It's not BDCP, sure. But that's still $25-26k for going to a paid summer camp. As I understand it, the training is not a substitute for OCS.

Had some trouble fishing up details about the other programs. Then I realized why. NAVCAD stopped in 1966. AVROC is also an old program. Why are they relevant to the discussion? We're talking about the pros and cons of various modern recruitment programs.

 

[gotta_fly]

I imagine ROTC is cheaper. That's a complicated question. It depends on how you want to look at things like ROTC scholarships, facilities, staffing, program operating costs, etc. My point is that I'm highly skeptical of the "bang for buck" provided by ROTC programs. I'd rather have fewer students competing for better benefits through program that is not dependent upon location. It's also important to note that BDCP is a much firmer commitment than ROTC. A slimmed-down BDCP could be cheaper than the ROTC program.

Why is it important to note that BDCP is a much firmer commitment than ROTC? What are you basing that on? NROTC requires students receiving benefits to sign a contract after freshman year that states that they will either pay back their tuition costs or serve an enlistment if they fail to earn a commission. During their four years these students maintain academic and physical standards while receiving additional training in preparation for a career as an officer. In what way is this less firm than BDCP?

Having a few friends that did Air Force ROTC or Army ROTC does not make one an expert on the strengths and weaknesses of the Navy's officer accession programs.

 

[SC-NY-88]

I was under the impression that NROTC and OCS (with or without BDCP) were apples and oranges. As with Annapolis, it's 3 different programs that breed naval officers. NROTC and the academy produce a naval officer in 4 years, where at OCS it's done in 12 weeks. I have gone through none of them yet, it it seems they can't be compared, better or worse. Is this the case or are they more similar than I'm led to believe?

Are the differences in commissioning sources noticable in the fleet?

 

[IRfly]

Are the differences in commissioning sources noticable in the fleet?

Absolutely. BDCP-types with technical majors always seem to be talking about money and how much more they could have made with GE.

 

[twobecrazy]

Absolutely. BDCP-types with technical majors always seem to be talking about money and how much more they could have made with GE.

Grass is always greener syndrome!

 

[SC-NY-88]

Absolutely. BDCP-types with technical majors always seem to be talking about money and how much more they could have made with GE.

Well then they should go work for GE .

Performance wise, are the OCS guys/gals on edge still, do the academy grads seem to be 4 years ahead or is it just individual performance regardless of comm. source?