"Four categories of institutions of higher education dominate the VICE News list of the 100 most militarized universities in America:
1. "schools whose students attain their degrees predominantly online;"
This is very unsurprising. Online education is very attractive for people in, for example, the military. Plus, many government service jobs just require a degree, not that it be from a recognizable school; in general, as is often mentioned here on HN, experience beats education and experience in this case usually means the military or prior government jobs.
2. "schools that are heavily involved in research and development for defense, intelligence, and security clients;"
I'm sensing that this is actually a relative minority on the list (although most of the recognizable names fall into it). There is considerable overlap between this category and the next two.
3. "schools in the Washington, DC area;"
Yes, obviously, plus schools close to large military bases (Cochise College, Fort Huachuaca; Central Texas College, Fort Hood).
4. "and schools that are newly focused on homeland security."
And I'm not entirely sure what the heck that's supposed to mean. There's money in "homeland security" much like there was money in nuclear weapon design at one time.
I suspect this article is an attempt to work up heat about a "education/intelligence community" doohicky to replace the venerable ol' military/industrial complex. And I think it's a failure, since what I think they've discovered is akin to "Google hires a lot of Stanford grads".
I once hung out in the campus of Texas A&M University (no. 14 on the list) for the PyTexas conference. It was so different from other university campuses in that it felt almost like I was in a military base, or like in West Point or something (which I've never been to). A good portion of the students I saw were in uniform (ROTC), and the main student center, housing the bookstore and the cafeteria, was a war memorial. Signs at the entrance asked you to be quiet and remove your hats in honor of fallen soldiers.
While I understand that this article uses concrete data, like the research money trail and other direct measurable links to the military, Texas A&M certainly _feels_ incredibly "militarized", almost like a military academy. There's a palpable air of austerity and discipline there that makes it so different from most other campuses I've been to, which have much more of the traditional church-y university look while seeming to be full of rowdy young kids.
Texas A&M is a "senior military college," meaning it is one of the six primary ROTC campuses in the USA. The Citadel is another one. One of the requirements for this designation is that able-bodied students must undergo military training. So yeah, it's militarized. This is not a coincidence: it's policy.
It's hilarious that Texas A&M is this far down the list -- and it does not make the list look well constructed. Their definition of "militarized" seems to mean "people who went to this school work for the government now" and then they act surprised by how many schools close to the seat of government feed into government IT. Some of these schools, like the University of Phoenix and Grantham University, are distance-learning institutions catering to people who already have jobs; these people almost certainly worked for the government before enrolling. Grantham University in particular bends over backwards to attract military veteran students.
A&M alum here. This is kind of a cynical take, but I think some of the things you mentioned are done for more than one reason, and they're not all obvious at first glance.
For example, if lots of students walk on the grass around the MSC, it gets all trampled and torn up. The administration would have to spend a lot of money to maintain or fix it. But if the grass itself is a war memorial, then the students won't walk on it. In fact, they'll police each other so that if anybody does walk on the grass, they get a stern reminder.
Oh, and the grass on the football field at Kyle Field is a memorial too. Conveniently, the football team and the band can walk on this memorial without desecrating it. But if the fans were to rush the field after a game? Oh no, that would be extremely disrespectful. So A&M doesn't have to deal with the same kind of post-game chaos that you sometimes get at other schools.
It's really clever in a Machiavellian sort of way.
"For example, if lots of students walk on the grass around the MSC, it gets all trampled and torn up. ... In fact, [the students]'ll police each other so that if anybody does walk on the grass, they get a stern reminder."
Several years ago, there was a bit of a squawk when an Aggie cadet drew his (ceremonial) sword on some visitors to campus who were walking on the grass.
The "A" in "A&M" stands for "Agricultural"; it stands to reason that they're proud of their grass.
(Obligatory disclaimer: UTAustin alum here. Come down to Austin! Walk on our grass! We're fine with it! Hell, walk on the grass at Darrell K. Royal Memorial Stadium, for all I care. Just try not to get pooped on by the grackles. They're nasty.)
(Obligatory Aggie joke: Several years ago, they had a fire at the campus library. Several thousand books were lost. The worst part is, some of them hadn't been colored in yet.)
Almost all of A&Ms recruiting pamphlets feature pictures of ROTC kids. It's how they advertised the school, it's the culture that is ingrained from freshmen camp onward. I think they have a big training program for students who are actually interested in becoming officers.
While it's a fair criticism of a university, it's almost like criticizing a christian university for being too religious. There's a pretty drastic difference between it and other Texas schools, like UT.
For me, it was one of the biggest turn offs when I was choosing a college.
But the one that seems to be missing is Vanderbilt; that was one school I thought the government actively recruited from, and had close ties do. I was once told specifically that was where NSF administrators went to die.
The military is a great source of funding, it is pretty much that straight forward. I knew a number of students that did work for the military because they would pay scholarships. If someone thinks this is a bad relationship, then move that funding to the NSF or NASA or NOAA instead and authorize them to fund out-there ambitious projects just like DARPA and the military.
DARPA is one of the only government science sponsors that doesn’t come under fire from Republican lawmakers for wasting taxpayer dollars. Money spent on science is considered a waste, unless/until you slap the name “defense” on.
Having Smith as the chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee of the House (which oversees research funding for NASA, NOAA, EPA, NSF, etc.) is a travesty, and he individually deserves blame, but the whole GOP leadership is on board with his basic goals and tactics.
That article is stilted to say the least. Representative Smith has a number of initiatives for science Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and the STEM Education Act of 2014.
The goal with any Congress is to think what if the parties were reversed. Would the conversation be the same if Hank "[Guam] the island will tip over" Johnson asked for information on the collusion between an agency and outside agencies.
We have a government agency turning down a request by a voted in member representing the populace of the United States of America that elected him. There is no reason for a government agency to be doing this. They should be accorded the respect of the position, no matter how much someone disagrees with it.
We have a situation where the Republicans postulated that the IRS was coordinating against a group of individuals to prevent their recognition during an election, and were proven correct despite agency stonewalling. The agency head had a secret e-mail to avoid FOIA, so searching for a slip-up required going through thousands of e-mails.
Another agency had its Secretary running a private server as an end run around the FOIA. Where upon closer inspection reveals that the agency publicly deceived the populace on originations of a terrorist attack.
Additionally, the federal government has been on a bender with coordinating against individuals in the name of political purposes. Witness former Senator Stevens railroading, IRS' Lois Lerner, and EPA's Phillip North coordinating with EPA on Pebble Mine.
I've always found it amusing that Captain America's gimmick is his shield. A shield is normally a wholly defensive item, but Captain America routinely uses it by throwing it at people...
Yeah, exactly. A lot of research done on DARPA grants is only tangentially related to military applications. For instance, our lab gets half our funding from DARPA and we work on general-purpose CPUs and vector accelerators. You can't get NSF funding for ambitious long-term research projects. They just don't have the budget for it.
It'd be interesting to re-graph the US budget with the "science paid for by the military" going into the science slice of the pie, rather than the defense slice.
I went to a school with both a large international program and what seemed like a large ROTC program. Every Thursday ROTC students were required to be in uniform. I always wondered how the international students felt being surrounded by, what must've seemed to them as, soldiers.
I was especially curious about how the Middle Eastern students felt. Then again most were from Saudi Arabia, who has something like the ~3rd largest military expenditure per capita.
We really are a hyper-militarized country if you think about it.
In many countries everyone, or every male, has to do military service or training. Linus Torvalds, for instance, had to take a year off from college to serve.
I remember a Chinese programmer in Silicon Valley complaining that he toted an AK47-like rifle but only got to fire three cartridges during his military service - a cost saving measure.
Mandatory conscription was developed by revolutionary France, and after being smashed by the French, the Prussians (whose military was arguably the highest quality in Europe) adapted the system into the form generally known today (every adult male has to provide N (usually 1-3) years of mandatory military service). The US never had anything like this system: there was mandatory conscription during the civil war, and the draft (a lottery-based system rather than universally compulsory) was enacted in peacetime in 1940.
No, its a big frick up that makes me hate the NCAA when they expressly go against the people's vote of a local tribe and now we will have a name made fun of for generations.
UND is know for its pilot program and have now moved full scale into drones which helps with keeping the local air force base. Ah, the games we play.
Speaking as a UMCP student, this isn't surprising.
The NSA even takes out interest ads in our newspaper. However, Vice seems to be mixing statistics for UMUC (a commuter campus with a big online program) with UMCP (the state flagship school). Same state system, very different schools.
I see a blue dot for University of Washington, but I see no star for Joint Base Lewis-McChord, the Bremerton Naval shipyards (one of the last two functioning belonging to the US), and of course Naval Base Kitsap.
But Vice did not see fit to include a military hub star for the Salish Sea.
the common theme for half of the top 10 seems to be physical proximity to the pentagon, fort meade, or both. UMD, GW, George Mason, Georgetown and Hopkins are all in driving distance.
I said to myself, if it's not UMD, I'd be worried what was No. 1. Memories of riot-police assembling like storm-troopers in fraternity row before a football game...
1. "schools whose students attain their degrees predominantly online;"
This is very unsurprising. Online education is very attractive for people in, for example, the military. Plus, many government service jobs just require a degree, not that it be from a recognizable school; in general, as is often mentioned here on HN, experience beats education and experience in this case usually means the military or prior government jobs.
2. "schools that are heavily involved in research and development for defense, intelligence, and security clients;"
I'm sensing that this is actually a relative minority on the list (although most of the recognizable names fall into it). There is considerable overlap between this category and the next two.
3. "schools in the Washington, DC area;"
Yes, obviously, plus schools close to large military bases (Cochise College, Fort Huachuaca; Central Texas College, Fort Hood).
4. "and schools that are newly focused on homeland security."
And I'm not entirely sure what the heck that's supposed to mean. There's money in "homeland security" much like there was money in nuclear weapon design at one time.
I suspect this article is an attempt to work up heat about a "education/intelligence community" doohicky to replace the venerable ol' military/industrial complex. And I think it's a failure, since what I think they've discovered is akin to "Google hires a lot of Stanford grads".