Education incentive for our soldiers

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 63dot, Jul 9, 2014.

  1. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #1
    At one college I work for sometimes, they have an incentive program in their graduate school to cut down on costs for people in the armed forces. It came about with the onslaught of two lengthy wars and the difficulties of deployment and adjusting back to society once they were back in the United States.

    They (school I won't mention but there are probably others) have fashioned a master's degree in their business school where the first year worth of courses are waived and the solider only need to have a bachelor's, be at least an E-7, and then complete only six courses and they will have a master's degree. And it's the real thing being accredited by Western Associations of Schools and Colleges. It's not a trade school or military degree set of units that can only function within only those parameters. Recently, the local military schools where I am at got fully accredited by WASC at the highest level where for the first time their units are transferrable to civilian schools like Cal, San Jose State, and even out of state accredited colleges.

    I kind of like the idea of a six course master's degree but some I have talked to in education hate the idea and think anybody who enters a 36 unit master's program should take all 12 classes. As an alternative they may say, let that soldier take the full 36 units like everybody else but then let the college give the soldier a huge discount as a thanks for their service to their country. Let's say the program costs $40,000 dollars for the 36 units. Then some argue, let them take all those units but charge the solider $20,000 but don't let him be able to skip accounting, management, economics, statistics, marketing, etc as all business master's grads should have those skills. But others may argue that those skill sets of an MBA were earned the hard way on the battlefield and the E7s should only have to take the second year advanced courses and then get their master's degree.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #2
    I assume that in order to qualify, you have to demonstrate training and skill sets in the areas that can be skipped. For example, in the service, a certain level of on-the-job accounting training and experience allowing you to skip a certain level of accounting-- things like that? Is the school quarter or semester, and how many units are the courses? It sounds like the formal in-residence coursework is about 1/2 an academic year? As long as the final, hardest courses are similar to the final, hardest courses of a regular 1-2 year Masters program, I don't see a problem. It is where you end up at the conclusion that counts.

    I don't know about earning it "on the battlefield", because if you are getting a business degree, and the requirements are "accounting, management, economics, statistics, marketing", then, I think the graduates should be proficient in the same areas, regardless. The graduates should be learning all the material, somewhere.

    But, the other argument the folks "in education" brought up is silly. If you learn 1/2 the material on the job and in training in the service, and/or taking night courses in barracks, or by watching iTunesU, it doesn't matter. There is a rationale for a certain amount of time spent in residence, because education is not all about just learning skills. But, the ideas that you should somehow consume $40,000 worth of "education" is -- well, it is an antiquated view of education that gives people "in education" a bad name.

    I would have no qualms myself about hiring someone who graduated from such a program, as long as they could show that they know what a graduate of such a program is supposed to know.
     
  3. 63dot, Jul 9, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2014

    63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #3
    To answer you last sentence, I agree fully.

    As a person who endured that weird first year, it was a lot of theory and I would rather use a person who's been in the battlefield, but that's just me. An E7 showed their leadership skills otherwise they wouldn't be an E7, or I hope the military has some standards. I have had many employees in different things but I don't think I can see a need for somebody who could produce a supply and demand chart or list out the different marketing theories throughout the ages. Who cares? If I want a manager, can they work with people, can they respect a budget I give them? I don't think that a person with two full years of management classes is going to be way better than a military leader with just one year of those graduate classes but their other skills in years in the army where they probably had to have a supervisory positon in their last few years.

    Yeah sure, the kid who didn't go to the military and came from an upper middle class or rich background and had mom and dad pay their way for six straight years at a private university may have more polish than the E7 or junior officer, but I don't hire somebody for their polish. I am sure where those skills are necessary but not in most jobs.
     

Share This Page