No new idea is ever met with unanimous praise. When others express doubts about the Academy mission, those opinions can help us to refine our thinking and check our assumptions as we move forward. Because we think the Academy is an idea whose time has come, however, we also feel confident responding to critics in instances when we respectfully disagree.
One of the criticisms most frequently levied against the Academy plan asserts that, since America has existing undergraduate and graduate programs in public administration, there is no need for a publicly-funded institution with a primary mission of civilian service to country. Here’s an example of such a charge, taken from the Cato Institute’s official blog, Cato@Liberty:
Proponents of [the Academy] idea note on their website that, “the federal government offers only one set of undergraduate institutions for high school seniors with the patriotic desire to serve their country: the military service academies.â€
That may be true, but there are plenty of educational options for those who wish to pursue such a career. Why should taxpayers be responsible for an additional $205 million a year for a new public service academy when hundreds and hundreds of colleges and universities already offer public service programs?
An excellent question!, we say. We’re so glad you asked. Here’s Academy co-founder Chris Myers Asch’s response:
“Taxpayers should invest in the Public Service Academy both because it will be more effective than existing colleges at developing strong civilian leaders and because it will send a powerful symbolic message about the importance of public service.
The Academy’s curriculum and five-year post-graduation service requirement have no civilian parallel. Because it will offer a free education to students who make a commitment to service, the Academy will be able to develop an intensive curriculum with more requirements for internships, community service, and mandatory coursework (including study abroad) than other schools can. No civilian college could require or enforce a five-year post-graduation service commitment. This rigorous, service-focused curriculum will produce students who are better equipped for a lifetime of public service leadership.
Public service programs at existing colleges tend to affect small portions of the student body and rarely alter the general campus ethos that values individualism and materialism over public service. A recent study by the Financial Times revealed that even at programs ostensibly devoted to public service, such as Columbia’s School of Public Affairs, the percentage of graduates going into public service has dropped by 50% in a generation. We must do better. The Academy will be able to create a culture of service because it will be devoted solely to the goal of developing public leaders. Like cadets at the military academies, Academy graduates will form strong bonds during the course of four years of service-oriented training. They will be unified by a shared sense of mission that will span across graduating classes, creating an invaluable network of people who can share knowledge and experiences.
Finally, boldness matters. If you want to capture the imagination of a younger generation, you have to be bold. When JFK and Sargent Shriver first sought to develop the Peace Corps, all of the “experts” suggested doing something within existing institutions, something less bold but seemingly safer. Kennedy and Shriver rejected that because they understood that young people would be attracted by two things: 1) the power of a “corps,” a program that unites people into a shared culture of service; and 2) the importance of an identity that comes from having an independent institution. Like the Peace Corps, the Academy can become the defining institution of our generation, our collective response to the challenges of the twenty-first century.â€
If any more readers out there want to jump in and join the Academy dialogue, we welcome you.
Dr. Carleton Palmer responded on 16 Apr 2007 at 2:42 pm #
Intelligent public discussion would be aided by having more planning information than is available in the Academy Proposal or the Bills. The image of the future Academy that one might have in one’s mind at this point could still have little to do with the one that is presently considered by the planners.
That having been said, one can visualize an Academy that meets a profound unfulfilled need for a national context for expression of the altruism that motivates civilian public service. Student loan programs for prospective teachers, the interest on which would be forgiven if the student agreed to teach for a specific time is a prior model. The Peace Corps, as Chris Myers Asch aptly mentions above, is another.
As a proposition for a leading national institution, the Academy could explore integrated curriculum transcending conventional academic compartmentalization, develop more intelligent standards for the use of technology in education than have evolved within other institutions, and genuinely establish a leadership network both nationally and internationally that represents the diversity of ideas, people and cultures we regard as the strength of this nation.
Contributing to such a discussion is a privilege that requires more information.
Lisette Burton responded on 22 May 2007 at 3:52 pm #
In response to the question “Do we really need a public service academy?”, I would say wholeheartedly, “Yes!” While there are indeed many private institutions who offer programs in public service, all of those programs cost a great deal of money. When someone leaves college with over $50,000 in student loan debt, to make ends meet that person may not be able to take the public service job of their choice. When given the option of working in the non-profit sector, for example, versus working for a high paying consulting firm, that looming college debt may tip the scales in that decision-making process.
Also, in general public service is not widely held in high esteem in the United States today. When people think of high stakes, respected careers, the sectors that come to mind are business, engineering, and technology. But our nations military academies, regardless of what people’s personal opinons are regarding the military itself, are viewed as developing our nations best and brightest to serve as officers. If, in similar fashion to the military academies, students had to receive competitive nominations to attend, and if there was a similar focus on duty and honor, the Public Service Academy could bring the same kind of respect to service careers and to young people who want to serve and lead in a civilian capacity.
I completely agree with Dr. Palmer that this is a great opportunity to create a progressive university model. Once the students graduate however, will a position be waiting for them? When students graduate from a military academy, there is a competive process for assignments based on student success, but everyone receives an “assignment” and knows where they will report after graduation. Will there be a parallel process for Service Academy grads?
Alexander Ludington responded on 28 Jan 2008 at 12:54 am #
I just stumbled upon this website and the idea of a Public Service Academy. It seems like a very interesting proposition with a lot of merits. As to the question of whether this institution would be any better than existing institutions in this country I would vouch that it can be. I graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy, but could have earned a commission in the Navy via a NROTC program at a civilian school. Having had experience in civilian education also, I would say that the social bonds and shared experience of my time at USNA were much more valuable. Also, a small school with a common purpose gives unique opportunities for students to practice leadership, opportunities you can’t get at other schools. I think it’s a great idea.
Y? responded on 16 Jun 2008 at 7:41 pm #
No. The obvious solution to lack of interest in public service is to make those jobs pay more. They pay relative to their worth- which is to say that we don’t value them. It’s no surprise that during a time of war, the Army increases signing bonuses.
The market will demand teachers, and it starts with emphasizing that at the local level. The US PSA is the idealist solution, pulled from the military academies as if the model is categorically the best way at solving any problem.
Long story short, manipulate the market for the type of jobs you need, to pull in these college graduates. That simple.
According to Thumb-twiddler:
“The US PSA would require 200,000 graduates to even account for 1% of the government job force (according to 2006 census numbers). That’s 155 years worth of graduates.
Let’s say that the US PSA graduates only became teachers. Five years worth of graduates would only account for .3% of all teachers in the US (not including college level instructors).
$40,000 dollars a year per student equals $160,000 for a single students education. That’s taxpayer money that could have went towards giving 16 teachers a $10,000 signing bonus.”
Phentermine free shipping. responded on 12 Aug 2008 at 1:24 am #
Phentermine diet pill….
Online phentermine. Phentermine blue….
Prozac good for anxiety disorders. responded on 28 Aug 2008 at 12:50 am #
Prozac….
Prozac side effects….