Generally, that's true. In most cases when an airman has to serve with the Army he is given a stipend to make up for the substandard conditions. There are a few exceptions, like the air controllers who live with the Army all the time.
We had some air controllers, and a combat weather guy, at our camp. The wx guy got the squalor money, and the air controllers (next bunk over) got bupkus. It was almost like being in the Army for them -- heck, you could even get killed.
Like your prof, I also recommend the Air Force to young men and women. The Army simply doesn't value its people, especially enlisted people. And that is based on 8 years active, 8 Reserve, and 8 Guard -- and counting.
That said, did anybody else think it's weird that the report talks about a squalid barracks and quotes two senior NCOs? (E-7 and E-8). WTF, over? Whose exact responsibility....
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Not to turn this into an AF vs Army argument, but I've often believed that the AF valued its people much higher than the Army (especially its enlisted).
Part of it maybe that we required longer commitments upon enlistment or commission, and part of it maybe that we have a larger ration of very technical/skilled people (hence the longer enlistments).
A lot of enlisted jobs in the AF, they could require a lot of education, hence a large investment and not as easy to replace as quickly, while (according to relatives) the Army saw a lot of more of its people as being, for lack of a better phrase, easily replaced.
You can't just replace somebody that works on and with nuclear weapons, and when you have weapons systems that are around 50 years old (B-52s, etc.) you sure as hell do not want to lose the institutional knowledge that senior NCOs accumulate.