The Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force each have their own educational institutions (academies) to produce a portion of each branch’s officer corps: U.S. Military Academy, established in 1802, U.S. Naval Academy, established in 1845, and U.S. Air Force Academy, established in 1954. The academies are structured to provide a curriculum critical to the development of successful future officers in the areas of academic, military, and physical achievement. Additionally, the academies emphasize the moral and ethical development of students through their respective honor codes and concepts. Approximately 4,000 students are enrolled at each of the three service academies at any one time, though in December 2002 Congress authorized an annual increase of up to 100 students until the total number reaches 4,400 for each academy. Each academy’s student population consists of about 15 percent women and 19 to 24 percent racial/ethnic minorities. Table 1 shows the numbers of females and racial/ethnic minorities at each academy during the time our survey was taken. The academies employ both civilian and military faculty. Faculty at the Military Academy and the Air Force Academy are comprised predominantly of military officers (79 and 75 percent, respectively), while at the Naval Academy 59 percent of the faculty are civilians. Table 2 shows the distribution of civilian and military faculty members at each academy during the time our survey was taken. Additionally, the academies’ staffs include others who have regular contact with students, such as military officers who serve as commanders to students at each academy (tactical officers at the Military Academy, company commanders at the Naval Academy, and air officers commanding at the Air Force Academy). About 398 of these other staff were also given the faculty survey. Between 1993 and 1995, we issued a series of reports on student treatment at the three service academies. At the core of our reviews were surveys of academy students and faculty on a range of student-related subjects, including sexual harassment and the treatment of women and minorities. In the reports, we concluded that more actions were needed to eliminate sexual harassment and that disparities in the treatment of women and minorities existed at the academies. We made recommendations to help DOD achieve its goal of a sexual harassment-free environment and to improve the monitoring and evaluation of gender and racial disparities. Although a majority of the 9,238 students who responded to our survey at the three military service academies expressed overall satisfaction with their academy, the students gave wide-ranging responses to a variety of questions about quality-of-life issues. A majority responded that quality-of-life problems are openly confronted and/or solved at their academies to some, little, or no extent. Most students responded they were satisfied overall with their academic and military training, but they expressed mixed views on the practice of the honor code/concept on their campuses. They reported varying levels of satisfaction with their social life and certain campus services. Their perceptions of discrimination and harassment prevention and preferential treatment issues often varied according to gender and race/ethnicity. Finally, many students indicated that they planned long military careers. The majority of students at all three academies reported that, overall, they were satisfied with their academy, while about one-fifth of the students at each school responded that they were dissatisfied. As figure 1 shows, 62 percent at the Military Academy (USMA), 64 percent at the Naval Academy (USNA), and 59 percent at the Air Force Academy (USAFA) reported their overall satisfaction with their academy. At the same time, some 59 to 71 percent of students at each academy reported that quality-of-life problems are being openly confronted and/or solved at the academies to some, little, or no extent. As figure 3 shows, between 90 and 93 percent of the students at each academy rated the overall academic program as good or excellent. At the same time, a majority of them reported that they thought their academic workload was definitely or probably too heavy (see fig. 4). This response ranged from 63 percent at the Military Academy, 56 percent at the Naval Academy, to 69 percent at the Air Force Academy. In terms of military training, the majority of students at each academy evaluated their overall military development program as good or excellent. As figure 5 shows, the percentages ranged from 53 percent at the Air Force Academy to 71 percent at the Military Academy. However, about one-quarter to one-third of the students rated their academy’s performance standards for developing military officers as generally or much too low (see question 8, app. II). Moreover, about 40 percent of the students at the Air Force and Naval Academies and 27 percent at the Military Academy evaluated the 4-year class system for developing military officers as very or generally ineffective (see question 9, app. II). Students gave varied responses regarding the practice of the honor code/concept at their academy. Whereas 62 percent of students at the Military Academy believed the honor code/concept is practiced as taught to a great or very great extent, 37 percent of students at the Naval Academy and 43 percent at the Air Force Academy held the same view (see fig. 6). Students also expressed varied impressions of how fairly the honor code/concept is applied at the academies with respect to students who have been accused of similar violations. As figure 7 shows, about 40 percent of students at the Military and Air Force Academies and 30 percent at the Naval Academy reported that they thought the honor code/concept was fairly applied to students with similar violations to a great or very great extent. A majority of students at each academy expressed dissatisfaction with the social life on their campus. As figure 8 indicates, the percentages ranged from a high of 73 percent at the Military Academy to a low of 57 percent at the Naval Academy. Male students were more likely to be dissatisfied with their social life than female students. As table 3 shows, between 60 and 74 percent of males across the three academies expressed dissatisfaction with their social life while between 42 and 63 percent of females across the academies had a similar response. Students also expressed varying levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with certain campus services. As tables 4, 5, and 6 indicate, the majority of students at the three academies were generally satisfied with medical care (except for the Air Force Academy), updating of school computer equipment, condition of athletic facilities (except for the Military Academy), and personal safety. At the same time, some 40 to 50 percent of students at each academy indicated that they were dissatisfied with the quality of mess hall food and laundry service on campus. A majority of students, with higher percentages at the Military and Air Force Academies, reported that they did not have adequate time to handle their personal affairs. As figure 9 indicates, 58 percent at the Naval Academy, 67 percent at the Military Academy, and 73 percent at the Air Force Academy reported that the time they had was generally or very inadequate. Student responses on a range of discrimination and harassment issues often varied according to gender or race/ethnicity. As figure 10 shows, 47 percent of students at the Military Academy, 45 percent at the Naval Academy, and 51 percent at the Air Force Academy responded that their academy’s emphasis on preventing gender-based discrimination was about right. However, as table 7 indicates, these responses varied according to the respondents’ gender, with female students more likely to say that prevention was underemphasized. Between 34 and 47 percent of female students at each academy believed that prevention was underemphasized while between 8 and 17 percent of male students had a similar response. As figure 11 shows, in terms of sexual harassment, about one half of the students at each academy responded that their academy’s emphasis on the prevention of sexual harassment was about right. However, female students were more likely than male students to report that the prevention of sexual harassment was generally or greatly underemphasized. Twenty-five percent of female students at the Military Academy, 21 percent at the Naval Academy, and 37 percent at the Air Force Academy responded that the prevention of sexual harassment was generally or greatly underemphasized (table 8). As figure 12 shows, about one half of all students at each of the three academies rated the overall atmosphere for women as good or excellent. The percentages ranged from 57 percent at the Military and Air Force Academies to 49 percent at the Naval Academy. However, female students were more likely to view the atmosphere for women as poor or below average than were male students. As table 9 indicates, between 36 and 43 percent of female students at the three academies expressed this view compared with between 17 and 22 percent of the males. The results of our 1994 survey of students on sexual harassment issues showed that the majority of women students experienced some form of gender-based harassment that interfered with their performance or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment. The perceptions of students on the emphasis the academies place on preventing race-/ethnicity-based discrimination also varied according to group membership. As figure 13 shows, a large majority of students at each academy reported that the emphasis was about right. The percentages ranged from 75 percent at the Naval Academy to 68 and 62 percent, respectively, at the Air Force and Military Academies. However, minority students were more likely than nonminority students to report that the prevention of race-/ethnicity-based discrimination was generally or greatly underemphasized. As figure 14 shows, 4 percent of nonminority students at the Military Academy, 5 percent at the Naval Academy, and 9 percent at the Air Force Academy responded that their academy underemphasized this prevention. By comparison, 17 percent of minority students at the Military Academy, 21 percent at the Naval Academy, and 27 percent at the Air Force Academy responded in this way. In terms of race-/ethnicity-based harassment, a large majority of all students responded that their academy’s emphasis on preventing such harassment was about right. For example, as figure 15 shows, 77 percent of all students at the Naval Academy, 71 percent at the Air Force Academy, and 65 percent at the Military Academy reported this view. However, as figure 16 indicates, minority students were more likely to report that the prevention of race-/ethnicity-based harassment was generally or greatly underemphasized. A large majority of all students rated the overall atmosphere for racial/ ethnic minorities as good or excellent. As figure 17 shows, 83 percent of students at the Military Academy, 81 percent at the Naval Academy, and 79 percent at the Air Force Academy expressed this view. However, these views varied within groups. As table 10 shows, minority students were more likely than nonminority students to evaluate the overall atmosphere for minorities as poor or below average. Some 10 to 17 percent of minority students expressed this view while about 2 percent of nonminority students had a similar view. Student perceptions varied as to whether various groups of students, such as women, recruited athletes, and minorities, receive preferential treatment during the admissions process and in general at the academies. The differences varied most between members of a particular group and those who were not part of that group. As table 11 shows, 58 percent of male students at the Military Academy, 63 percent at the Naval Academy, and 53 percent at the Air Force Academy believed that women received preferential treatment during the admissions process. By comparison, 25 percent of female students at the Military Academy, 27 percent at the Naval Academy, and 24 percent at the Air Force Academy expressed the same view. Additionally, between 83 and 87 percent of students who were not recruited athletes believed that recruited athletes received preferential treatment during the admissions process. Between 64 and 68 percent of recruited athletes held the same view. Student perceptions also varied as to whether the same groups of students receive discriminatory treatment (unfair, adverse treatment) during the admissions process and in general at the academies. Table 12 shows the differences between groups of students and those who are outside those groups in perceptions of discriminatory treatment during the admissions process and at the academies in general. For example, between 37 and 42 percent of female respondents at the three academies reported that they perceived discriminatory treatment in general at the academy while 8 to 14 percent of male respondents held the same view. A majority of students at the Military Academy and the Air Force Academy (54 percent and 64 percent, respectively) indicated that varsity intercollegiate athletics were generally or greatly overemphasized, while at the Naval Academy 39 percent of the students reported the same overemphasis (see question 29, app. II). In our prior surveys on student treatment, we asked respondents whether they believed women and minorities were treated better than, the same as, or worse than men by various academy systems such as faculty members. Students perceived that women and minorities generally received treatment equal to that of men and whites. However, differences in student perceptions were generally between male and female students and minorities and nonminority students. Many students at the three academies reported that they plan to stay in the military beyond their initial obligation or until retirement (40 percent at the Military Academy, 44 percent at the Naval Academy, and 55 percent at the Air Force Academy), while between 14 and 19 percent across all academies responded that they would probably or definitely leave at the end of their obligation. Figure 18 shows the student responses of their career intentions. The 1,586 faculty members who responded to our survey generally agreed with student perceptions of aspects of student life at the academies, but they were less likely than students to report that quality-of-life problems at the academies are seldom openly confronted and/or solved. Faculty perceptions varied on the practice of the honor code/concept and gender and race-/ethnicity-based discrimination and harassment and preferential treatment issues. Thirty-eight percent of the faculty at the Military Academy, 45 percent at the Naval Academy, and 46 percent at the Air Force Academy reported that quality-of-life problems are openly confronted and/or solved to some, little, or no extent at the academies. By comparison, 59 percent of students at the Military and Naval Academies and 71 percent of students at the Air Force Academy held the same views. About one third of faculty at each academy indicated that these problems are openly confronted and/or solved to a moderate extent (see question 29, app. III). Overall faculty satisfaction with academic and military training is high. As figure 19 shows, a large majority of faculty members at each academy rated the overall academic program as good or excellent (88 percent at the Military Academy, 87 percent at the Naval Academy, and 91 percent at the Air Force Academy). With regard to the students’ academic workload, figure 20 shows that 55 percent of faculty at the Military Academy, 60 percent at the Naval Academy, and 58 percent at the Air Force Academy responded that the workload was about right. Figure 21 shows the faculty perceptions of the overall military development program. Seventy-three percent at the Military Academy, 77 percent at the Naval Academy, and 60 percent at the Air Force Academy reported that the overall military development program was good or excellent. However, 26 percent of faculty at the Military Academy, 22 percent at the Naval Academy, and 32 percent at the Air Force Academy rated their academy’s performance standards for developing military officers as generally too low or much too low (see question 10, app. III). Faculty perceptions varied on the practice of the honor code/concept. Figure 22 shows that while 51 percent of faculty at the Military Academy, 41 percent at the Naval Academy, and 34 percent at the Air Force Academy reported that the honor code/concept was practiced as taught to a great or very great extent. Twenty-two percent of faculty at the Military Academy, 32 percent at the Naval Academy, and 36 percent at the Air Force Academy indicated that it was practiced as taught to some, a little, or no extent. As figure 23 shows, 53 percent of faculty at the Military Academy and 41 percent at the Naval and Air Force Academies reported that the honor code/concept was applied fairly with respect to students who have been accused of similar violations. Faculty were asked for their perceptions on the same gender-based and race-/ethnicity-based discrimination and harassment issues as were students. The same definitions of discrimination and harassment were used. Figure 24 shows that about 70 percent of the faculty at each academy reported that the level of emphasis given to the prevention of gender-based discrimination was about right. Figure 25 shows that 75 percent of the faculty at the Military and Naval Academies and 65 percent at the Air Force Academy reported that the level of emphasis given to the prevention of sexual harassment was about right. Figure 26 shows that just over one half of the faculty at each academy assessed the overall atmosphere for women at the academies as good or excellent. With regard to the emphasis the academies place on the prevention of race-/ethnicity-based discrimination, figure 27 shows that about 80 percent of faculty at each academy reported that the emphasis was about right. A similar majority of faculty at each academy reported that the emphasis placed on the prevention of race-/ethnicity-based harassment is about right and that the overall atmosphere for racial/ethnic minority students at the academies is good or excellent. Figures 28 and 29 show these perceptions. Faculty perceptions varied as to whether different groups of students, such as women, recruited athletes, and minorities, receive preferential treatment during the admissions process and in general at the academies. Table 13 shows the differences between faculty who had been involved in the admissions process in the last 4 years and those who had not in perceptions of preferential treatment during the admissions process. More than 90 percent of the faculty who had participated in the admissions process in the last 4 years at the Military and Naval Academies and 72 percent at the Air Force Academy responded that they perceived recruited athletes as receiving preferential treatment during the admissions process. While 75 percent of the faculty who had participated in the admissions process at the Military Academy and 81 percent at the Naval Academy reported that they perceived African-Americans as receiving preferential treatment during the admissions process, only 29 percent of faculty at the Air Force Academy who had participated in the process gave the same assessment. With the exception of perceptions regarding varsity athletes, faculty across the academies were less likely to perceive preferential treatment of various student groups while at the academies, as shown by table 14. As figure 30 shows, about one-half the faculty at the Military and Naval Academies and 70 percent of the faculty at the Air Force Academy reported that the relative emphasis given to varsity intercollegiate athletics was generally or greatly overemphasized. The results of the student and faculty surveys presented in this report highlight several areas that may warrant further study. For example, the percentage of students and faculty that rated their academy’s performance standards for developing military officers as being generally or much too low suggests that this may be an area of concern. Likewise, similar responses from students and faculty related to the conduct of the honor code/concept underscore another area of potential concern. In addition, the high percentage of student responses indicating dissatisfaction with their social life at the academies and with certain campus services may also suggest cause for concern. In our report on oversight and admissions issues at the service academies, we concluded that DOD conducts considerable oversight of the academies’ operations and performance, but they lack a complete oversight framework. To develop a more complete oversight framework, we recommended that DOD improve its oversight by enhancing its performance goals and measures. The academies’ climate surveys are conducted periodically and can inform decision makers about areas that may warrant further attention. The results of our surveys, especially those areas mentioned above, may be of use to DOD in enhancing the quality of its oversight. DOD reviewed a draft of this report and had no comments. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Please contact me on (202) 512-5559 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Key contributors are listed in appendix IV. To obtain student and faculty perceptions of aspects of student life at the U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Naval Academy, and the U.S. Air Force Academy, we took the following initial steps: To design two separate surveys (one for students and one for faculty), we reviewed our surveys used to query academy students in 1993 and 1994 and prior service academy instruments to develop general topics and questions that were appropriate indicators of student life issues. Specifically, we reviewed student and faculty surveys on quality-of-life issues administered by the Military, Naval, and Air Force Academies within the last 2 years. We also reviewed the student and faculty surveys on various aspects of student life that we administered during our 1994 review of the Air Force Academy. For the student survey, we developed questions for nine general topics: (1) academic climate; (2) military/professional development; (3) social and cultural climate; (4) harassment, discrimination (gender- and race-/ethnicity-based), and preferential treatment for various groups of students; (5) moral climate and honor code/concept; (6) intercollegiate and intramural athletics; (7) campus services; (8) personal affairs; and (9) career intentions. For the faculty survey, we developed five student-related topics: (1) academic climate; (2) military/professional development; (3) harassment, discrimination (gender- and race-/ethnicity-based), and preferential treatment for various groups of students; (4) moral climate and honor code/concept; and (5) intercollegiate and intramural athletics. To ensure the relevance and appropriateness of the survey questions, we sought outside comments on our survey approach and questions from officials in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; the Army, Navy, and Air Force headquarters; and the Military, Naval, and Air Force academies. The purpose of seeking outside consultation was twofold. First, to determine whether the questions and the manner in which we planned to ask them were adequate for addressing the larger questions posed by our evaluation. Second, to find out whether academy students and faculty had the knowledge to answer our survey questions. The reviewing officials did not act as pretest interviewees; they provided critiques. Based on the comments received, we modified the survey terminology to apply to the respective academies, eliminated and/or changed questions or response items that did not apply, and added questions or response items to address issues germane to all three service academies. To test the survey questions before they were administered, we pretested the surveys in focus groups of students and faculty at the Naval and Air Force Academies. At both academies, we held two student focus groups, one for junior and senior students and one for freshmen and sophomore students, and two faculty focus groups, one each for military and civilian faculty. Each focus group consisted of approximately 10 participants, was racially diverse, and included males and females. We refined the survey questions based on the comments made during these sessions. Time constraints prevented pretesting at the Military Academy, although we discussed some of the survey topics with one student focus group during our site visit. To identify all students and faculty that would be included in the survey, we requested and obtained E-mail addresses for all students and faculty. For the faculty population, we asked the academies to include both teaching faculty and other staff who have regular contact with students, particularly the officers who serve as commanders of student units (companies or squadrons). Since we left it to the discretion of the academies which of these other staff they included (about 398 total), the numbers of total faculty vary among academies. There were initial difficulties in resolving inaccuracies in the E-mail addresses provided to us by the Air Force Academy, but Air Force Academy officials worked with us to resolve those issues. To administer the surveys, we built six Web-based survey sites, two for each academy (one for students and one for faculty). Before administering the surveys, the superintendent of each academy notified all students and faculty of our upcoming surveys and encouraged participation in them. This notification was followed by our E-mail to all students and faculty, containing the Web link to the appropriate survey as well as the individual’s unique user name and password. The previously discussed inaccurate E-mail addresses resulted in delays in notifying all students and faculty at the Air Force Academy of the surveys’ availability. The Web-based surveys were initially operational from February 5 to February 28, 2003. During this time, students and faculty completed the surveys and contacted designated GAO personnel, via telephone or E-mail, regarding any difficulties. Each week, we sent follow-up E-mail to all respondents, requesting that they complete the surveys if they had not done so. At the end of the survey period, we extended the survey at all academies by 1 week to March 7, 2003, to allow respondents at the Air Force Academy additional time to complete the surveys. Each academy’s superintendent sent out an additional notification E-mail, announcing that we were extending the deadline for the surveys and once again encouraging participation. Table 15 shows that the response rates for the surveys were generally high. To analyze the response rates for possible errors due to some groups responding out of proportion to the population as a whole, we compared the rates for certain demographic subgroups to the relevant academy student populations. We found comparable distributions of students for these subgroups and concluded that the survey results for each academy appeared to be generally representative of the academy populations. Although overall response rates for the Air Force Academy were lower than those of the other two academies, the pattern of responses across demographic groups is much the same as for the other academies. Table 16 shows the percentage of groups who completed the student survey compared to the percentage of identified groups in the entire student population. To analyze survey results, we noted responses for all questions and highlighted those where a significant response occurred in a particular category, such as an unfavorable opinion. We also compared responses by groups for questions addressing those groups (e.g., male and female student responses and minority and nonminority student responses). Since we surveyed the entire student and faculty populations at all three academies and not a statistical sample, achieved high response rates, and found minimal occurrences of some groups responding out of proportion to the population as a whole, the responses can be considered representative of those populations. We performed our work between November 2002 and July 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 1. Considering all your responsibilities, how would you characterize your academic workload? (percent) (percent) (percent) 2. How much emphasis does the Academy place on academics, relative to what you think it should be?(percent) (percent) (percent) 3. How would you characterize the level of academic competition among Academy students? (percent) (percent) (percent) 4. How effective or ineffective is additional instruction available outside the normal class meeting time for students who need it?(percent) (percent) (percent) 31.6 (percent) (percent) (percent) 5. Overall, how effective or ineffective are your Academy instructors as teachers?(percent) (percent) (percent) 6. Based on your experiences, how would you rate the overall academic program at the Academy? (percent) (percent) (percent) 7. Considering all your responsibilities, how would you characterize your military development workload during the academic year? (percent) (percent) (percent) 15.7 8. How would you rate the Academy’s performance standards for developing you as an officer? (percent) (percent) (percent) 9. How effective or ineffective is the four-year class system for developing students as officers? (percent) (percent) (percent) 10. How effective or ineffective are the summer military development activities (not including initial entry summer training) for providing you with the skills needed to be an officer? (percent) (percent) (percent) 11. Based on your experiences, how would you rate the overall military development program at the Academy? (percent) (percent) 12. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your social life at the Academy? (percent) (percent) (percent) 13. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the types of cultural opportunities (e.g., courses related to the arts, opportunities to participate in the arts, and attending such events) available to Academy students on or off Academy grounds? (percent) (percent) (percent) 14. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with opportunities to participate in religious services and activities? (percent) (percent) Discrimination: Academy policies or practices that lead to unfair adverse treatment of a person or group based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion. Harassment: Derogatory comments, gestures or other actions aimed at race, gender, religion, or ethnicity that interfere with an individual’s performance or create an intimidating, offensive or hostile environment, including unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. (percent) (percent) (percent) 16. How much emphasis does the Academy place on the prevention of gender-based discrimination, relative to what you think it should be? (percent) (percent) (percent) 17. Based on your experiences, how would you rate the overall Academy atmosphere for women? (percent) (percent) (percent) 18.6 18. How much emphasis does the Academy place on the prevention of race-/ethnicity-based harassment, relative to what you think it should be? (percent) (percent) (percent) 19. How much emphasis does the Academy place on the prevention of race-/ethnicity-based discrimination, relative to what you think it should be? (percent) (percent) (percent) 20. Based on your experiences, how would you rate the overall Academy atmosphere for members of racial/ethnic minorities? (percent) (percent) (percent) 21. Based on your perception, how were your classmates in the following groups treated during the admissions process relative to other applicants? (percent) (percent) (percent) 11.1 (percent) (percent) (percent) 4.1 (percent) (percent) (percent) 22. To your knowledge, how are members of the following groups treated at the Academy in general, relative to other students? (percent) (percent) (percent) 3.9 (percent) (percent) (percent) .7 (percent) (percent) (percent) 23. How much emphasis does the Academy place on the moral/ethical development of students, relative to what you think it should be? (percent) (percent) (percent) 24. To what extent is the Honor Code/Concept practiced as it is taught? (percent) (percent) (percent) 10.4 25. To what extent is the Honor Code/Concept fairly applied to students with similar violations? (percent) (percent) (percent) 26. How frequently have you witnessed academic cheating at the Academy? (percent) (percent) (percent) 27. When you were applying to the Academy, were you recruited to be an athlete for one of the Academy’s varsity intercollegiate athletic teams? (percent) (percent) (percent) 28. Are you an athlete on one of the Academy’s varsity intercollegiate teams? (percent) (percent) (percent) 18.2 29. How much emphasis does the Academy place on varsity intercollegiate athletics? (percent) (percent) (percent) 30. How much emphasis does the Academy place on intramural athletics? (percent) (percent) (percent) 31. How much emphasis does the Academy place on club athletics? (percent) (percent) (percent) 32. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following housing conditions, food services and other services/facilities at the Academy? (percent) (percent) (percent) 8.8 (percent) (percent) (percent) 1.1 (percent) (percent) (percent) 19.8 (percent) (percent) (percent) 18.1 (percent) (percent) (percent) 33. How adequate or inadequate is the amount of time you have to handle your personal affairs? (percent) (percent) (percent) 34. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with opportunities to use personal time as you would like to use it? (percent) (percent) 35. Considering everything, how would you rate your overall satisfaction with the Academy? (percent) (percent) (percent) 36. To what extent are quality of life problems at the Academy openly confronted and/or solved? (percent) (percent) (percent) 37. Which of the following best describes your career intentions at the present time? (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) 41. Are you either Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino? (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) 95.4 (percent) (percent) (percent) 43. Were you prior enlisted before enrolling in the Academy? (percent) (percent) (percent) 44. Did you attend the Academy’s preparatory school before enrolling in the Academy? (percent) (percent) (percent) 45. Is either of your parents a graduate of a military academy? (percent) (percent) (percent) 8.6 46. Is either of your parents currently serving in the active services or Guard/Reserves? (percent) (percent) 1. Considering all the students’ responsibilities, how would you characterize their academic workload at the Academy? (percent) (percent) (percent) 2. How much emphasis does the Academy place on academics, relative to what you think it should be?(percent) (percent) (percent) 3. How would you characterize the level of academic competition among Academy students? (percent) (percent) (percent) 4. How effective or ineffective is additional instruction available outside the normal class meeting time for students who need it?(percent) (percent) (percent) 33.1 (percent) (percent) (percent) 5. How would you rate the academic preparedness of students who attended the Academy Preparatory School relative to their classmates at the Academy?(percent) (percent) (percent) 6. Overall, how effective or ineffective are Academy instructors as teachers?(percent) (percent) (percent) 7. Who among the following have ever tried to improperly influence you to modify the grades in any of your Academy courses? (percent) (percent) (percent) 1.4 (percent) (percent) (percent) 8. Based on your experiences, how would you rate the overall academic program at the Academy? (percent) (percent) 9. Considering all the students’ responsibilities, how would you characterize their military development workload during the academic year? (percent) (percent) (percent) 10. How would you rate the Academy’s performance standards for developing students as officers? (percent) (percent) (percent) 11. How effective or ineffective is the four-year class system for developing students as officers? (percent) (percent) (percent) 12. How effective or ineffective are the summer military development activities (not including initial entry summer training) for providing students with the skills needed to be an officer? (percent) (percent) (percent) 7.5 (percent) (percent) (percent) 13. Based on your experiences, how would you rate the overall military development program at the Academy? (percent) (percent) (percent) Discrimination: Academy policies or practices that lead to unfair adverse treatment of a person or group based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion. Harassment: Derogatory comments, gestures or other actions aimed at race, gender, religion, or ethnicity that interfere with an individual’s performance or create an intimidating, offensive or hostile environment, including unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. (percent) (percent) (percent) 2.7 15. How much emphasis does the Academy place on the prevention of gender-based discrimination of students, relative to what you think it should be? (percent) (percent) (percent) 16. Based on your experiences, how would you rate the overall Academy atmosphere for women students? (percent) (percent) (percent) 17. How much emphasis does the Academy place on the prevention of race-/ethnicity-based harassment of students, relative to what you think it should be? (percent) (percent) (percent) 18. How much emphasis does the Academy place on the prevention of race-/ethnicity-based discrimination of students, relative to what you think it should be? (percent) (percent) (percent) 1.3 19. Based on your experiences, how would you rate the overall Academy atmosphere for members of racial/ethnic minorities? (percent) (percent) (percent) 20. Based on your perception, how were students in the following groups treated during the admissions process relative to other applicants? (percent) (percent) (percent) 46.6 (percent) (percent) (percent) 43.0 (percent) (percent) (percent) 21. To your knowledge, how are members of the following groups treated at the Academy in general, relative to other students? (percent) (percent) (percent) 1.7 (percent) (percent) (percent) 27.7 (percent) (percent) 22. How much emphasis does the Academy place on the moral/ethical development of students, relative to what you think it should be? (percent) (percent) (percent) 23. To what extent is the Honor Code/Concept practiced as it is taught? (percent) (percent) (percent) 24. To what extent is the Honor Code/Concept fairly applied to students with similar violations? (percent) (percent) (percent) 6.3 25. How frequently have you witnessed academic cheating at the Academy? (percent) (percent) (percent) 26. How much emphasis does the Academy place on varsity intercollegiate athletics, relative to what you think it should be? (percent) (percent) (percent) 27. How much emphasis does the Academy place on intramural athletics, relative to what you think it should be? (percent) (percent) (percent) 28. How much emphasis does the Academy place on club athletics, relative to what you think it should be? (percent) (percent) (percent) 45.9 (percent) (percent) (percent) 29. To what extent are quality of life problems at the Academy openly confronted and/or solved? (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) 31. Are you a military or civilian member of the Academy faculty? (percent) (percent) (percent) 14.5 32. Are you a graduate of one of the military academies? (percent) (percent) (percent) 33. Are you a tactical officer (USMA), company officer (USNA), or air officer commanding (USAFA)? (percent) (percent) (percent) 34. In the past 4 years, have you participated in the admissions process? (percent) (percent) In addition to the individual named above, Gabrielle M. Anderson, Nancy L. Benco, Carolyn M. Boyce, Brian G. Hackett, and Joseph W. Kirschbaum also made key contributions to this report. Military Education: DOD Needs to Enhance Performance Goals and Measures to Improve Oversight of the Military Academies. GAO-03-1000. Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2003. Military Education: DOD Needs to Align Academy Preparatory Schools’ Mission Statements with Overall Guidance and Establish Performance Goals. GAO-03-1017. Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2003. DOD Service Academies: Problems Limit Feasibility of Graduates Directly Entering the Reserves. GAO/NSIAD-97-89. Washington, D.C.: March 24, 1997. DOD Service Academies: Comparison of Honor and Conduct Adjudicatory Processes. GAO/NSIAD-95-49. Washington, D.C.: April 25, 1995. DOD Service Academies: Academic Review Processes. GAO/NSIAD-95-57. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 1995. DOD Service Academies: Update on Extent of Sexual Harassment. GAO/NSIAD-95-58. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 1995. Coast Guard: Cost for the Naval Academy Preparatory School and Profile of Minority Enrollment. GAO/RCED-94-131. Washington, D.C.: April 12, 1994. Military Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities. GAO/NSIAD-94-95. Washington, D.C.: March 17, 1994. DOD Service Academies: Further Efforts Needed to Eradicate Sexual Harassment. GAO/T-NSIAD-94-111. Washington, D.C.: February 3, 1994. DOD Service Academies: More Actions Needed to Eliminate Sexual Harassment. GAO/NSIAD-94-6. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 1994. Academy Preparatory Schools. GAO/NSIAD-94-56R. Washington, D.C.: October 5, 1993. Air Force Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities. GAO/NSIAD-93-244. Washington, D.C.: September 24, 1993. Military Education: Information on Service Academies and Schools. GAO/NSIAD-93-264BR. Washington, D.C.: September 22, 1993. Naval Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities. GAO/NSIAD-93-54. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 1993. DOD Service Academies: More Changes Needed to Eliminate Hazing. GAO/NSIAD-93-36. Washington, D.C.: November 16, 1992. DOD Service Academies: Status Report on Reviews of Student Treatment. GAO/T-NSIAD-92-41. Washington, D.C.: June 2, 1992. Service Academies: Historical Proportion of New Officers During Benchmark Periods. GAO/NSIAD-92-90. Washington, D.C.: March 19, 1992. DOD Service Academies: Academy Preparatory Schools Need a Clearer Mission and Better Oversight. GAO/NSIAD-92-57. Washington, D.C.: March 13, 1992. Naval Academy: Low Grades in Electrical Engineering Courses Surface Broader Issues. GAO/NSIAD-91-187. Washington, D.C.: July 22, 1991. DOD Service Academies: Improved Cost and Performance Monitoring Needed. GAO/NSIAD-91-79. Washington, D.C.: July 16, 1991. Review of the Cost and Operations of DOD’s Service Academies. GAO/T-NSIAD-90-28. Washington, D.C.: April 4, 1990. The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Summary: The Army, Navy, and Air Force each operate an academy to educate and train young men and women to become leaders and effective junior officers in the military services. The approximately 4,000 students who attend each academy undergo a challenging 4-year program of academic, physical, and military education that culminates in a bachelor's degree and a commission as a military officer. In addition to completing academic course work, students must participate in rigorous military training and in mandatory athletic activities. In return for their free education, these students must serve on active duty for 5 years after graduation. In two reports, GAO reviewed all three service academies and their preparatory schools. In this report, GAO surveyed students and faculty to obtain their perceptions of various aspects of student life at the academies. GAO conducted a Web-based survey of 12,264 students and 2,065 faculty members at the three service academies on questions related to such student life issues as academic and military programs; gender- and race-/ethnicity-based discrimination and harassment; and preferential treatment. GAO's survey did not query students and faculty on specific incidents of alleged sexual assault at the academies. We are making no recommendations in this report. DOD reviewed a draft of this report and had no comments. The majority of students who responded to GAO's survey expressed overall satisfaction with their academy, although students gave wide-ranging responses to a variety of quality-of-life questions. About 59 percent of students at the Military and Naval Academies and 71 percent at the Air Force Academy reported that quality-of-life problems are openly confronted and/or solved to some, little, or no extent. Over 90 percent of students rated their academic programs as good or excellent. About a quarter to a third of students rated their academy's performance standards for developing military officers as too low. Most differences in student responses on academy emphasis on prevention of gender- and race-/ethnicity-based discrimination and harassment were generally between male and female students and minorities and nonminority students. Over 80 percent of students who were not recruited as athletes responded that recruited athletes receive preferential treatment during the admissions process. The faculty members who responded to the survey generally agreed with the students' perceptions of student life at the academies, but they were less likely than students to say that quality-of-life problems are seldom openly confronted and/or solved. About a quarter to a third of faculty agreed with student perceptions that performance standards for developing military officers were too low. Faculty perceptions varied on issues associated with gender- and race-/ethnicity-based discrimination and harassment and preferential treatment. More than 90 percent of faculty who participated in the admissions process in the past 4 years at the Military and Naval Academies and 72 percent at the Air Force Academy responded that recruited athletes receive preferential treatment during the admissions process.