Shut Down West Point and the War Colleges

[William F. Owen]

From Tom Ricks here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/16/AR2009041603483.html)

OK, I can go with the basic argument. I can't see what West Point adds to mix, in the same way I can't see the point of Sandhurst in the UK, the attachment to which is purely emotional. Neither of these institutions are required to produce first class officers.

But...


We should also consider closing the services' war colleges, where colonels supposedly learn strategic thinking. These institutions strike me as second-rate. If we want to open the minds of rising officers and prepare them for top command, we should send them to civilian schools where their assumptions will be challenged, and where they will interact with diplomats and executives, not to a service institution where they can reinforce their biases while getting in afternoon golf games. Just ask David Petraeus, a Princeton PhD.

That's pure rubbish, or a data free opinion. If the problem is as Ricks opines, then closing down the collages does not solve it. If you don't need the War Collages, then you do not need Officers to go and get PhD's. PhDs do not make better officers.

Most of the brilliant commanders of the 20th century lacked PhDs, or any other form of higher education. However, most had been to War Collage or an equivalent.

[Schmedlap]

Here is what Ricks wrote:

These institutions strike me as second-rate. If we want to open the minds of rising officers and prepare them for top command, we should send them to civilian schools where their assumptions will be challenged, and where they will interact with diplomats and executives, not to a service institution where they can reinforce their biases while getting in afternoon golf games.The funny thing is that I, as a former Soldier, have the same impression about the "profession" that Ricks is in (I mean journalism, not ego-driven self-promotion).

Journalism schools strike me as second-rate. If we want to open the minds of rising journalists and prepare them for the top news outlets, we should send them to military schools where their assumptions will be challenged, and where they will interact with future military officers, not to a left-leaning civilian institution where they can reinforce their biases while smoking weed and protesting.

[jmm99]

(from linked article)
Why not send young people to more rigorous institutions on full scholarships, and then, upon graduation, give them a military education at a short-term military school?

One answer, from the Officer Retention thread, is that they (OCS shakes & bakes) have the worst retention rate. But, I suspect that even more basic issues are involved in Rick's syllogism.

Is the better sequence, creation of the officer (an undifferentiated "educated" person) and then transmutation of that officer into a soldier (via a short term military education - do you really mean that, Tom ?);

or creation of the soldier (a differentiated person) and then creation of the officer (a differentiated soldier) ?

I think the latter is more akin to Wilf's concept based on my perception of what he has posted in other threads.

In short, I think that Rick's syllogism is nuts. That perception is no doubt clouded by my own little world. I was lucky to be able to spend the last half of law school (besides punching the right tickets there) to work at the actual practice of law (ghost-writing appellate briefs). After that, all of my formal education has been in law (CLE) - cuz that's my profession.

That's not to argue that stabs into other worlds (formally or informally) are bad - and obviously I've stabbed there (as here) also. But, the profession (once you elect to go that route) has to be central. And that does not mean you have to be a narrow person.

[Ken White]

Wilf raises an interesting and I believe extremely valid and important point in his comment:
"PhDs do not make better officers...Most of the brilliant commanders of the 20th century lacked PhDs, or any other form of higher education. However, most had been to War Collage or an equivalent."With respect to the first item, having worked for and with a fair number of Officers who possessed a PhD, my observation is that only the exceptionally good Officer can overcome the Phd to be an effective Officer as opposed to being a PhD in a funny suit and accorded some rank. Thus I very much agree with the statement.

That applies only to the possessors of doctorates; the Masters guys and gals are a mixed bag -- mostly because for a great many but certainly not all, the Masters is only a check the block item. That is not an insult or meant to be derisory, it's merely a statement of fact based on my experience, observation and conversations with many hundreds of Officers over many years. People differ markedly and they differ in the importance they personally accord things -- including advanced degrees.

Wilf's second quoted statement is of course true. I suspect that is true for several reasons aside from the obvious change in both societal and military attitudes, mores and rules in the intervening years. One reason is that, fortunately, we have had few big wars for people to demonstrate operational or tactical brilliance. There are others.

Something about 'Jack of all trades and master of none' occurs to me...

[MikeF]

As is Ken. JMM backs them up with facts.

nuff said.

[Surferbeetle]

As a 2-year-non-scholarship ROTC guy with three degrees (2 undergrad, one grad), two plus decades of service, and over a decade spent living overseas I understand Tom Ricks’ sentiment but disagree with his solution. GWOT has been good for us in the sense that the USG, to include our military, has been forced to reconcile the comforting dreams of ideology with the cold hard reality of the world as it is. There is a balance point between the two, and our excellent military educational process is working to catch up and prepare our forces for what is needed for our nation to not just survive but excel in the rapidly changing times of today as well as for the future. As the old guard retires and our folks who have spent time on the line take their place we are seeing what’s equivalent to spring turn over in lakes and ponds: oxygen and nutrients are being distributed and new growth is doing what it’s made to do: adapt, overcome, and replenish. As with most things of quality it takes time and will not occur at the pace found in a Burger King drivethrough.

All military schools are trade schools as they should be. How can I, or anyone else, effectively do my/our job without it? Military education does not stop at the schoolhouse door however; military service/OJT and worldwide travel are an incomparable/irreplaceable component of a soldier’s education just as they are of a journalist. Fortunately for us, congress has finally considered the needs of the nation ahead of their own for just a moment and passed a comprehensive GI Bill. Military service followed by time spent in our nations various schools pays the nation dividends as we all know from studying the history of our nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GI_Bill) as well as examining our own family histories.

Education is something our nation must invest in if it wants to continue, and so we must continue to improve our military training facilities instead of closing them.

[Bob's World]

Most officers are products of ROTC, and accordingly, most generals are products of ROTC as well. That said, tradition is very important to a profession, and the service academies are an important part of that tradition.

I do think there is some merit in the points Ricks is making, but that is no reason to act on them. It wouldn't hurt though if more officers were offered the option of pursuing a civilian degree in lieu of attending a service college. Diversity usually makes an organization stronger, and diversity of thinking is essential to keeping an organization fresh. At the 20 year mark, the Darwinian effect of the OER process has narrowed the intelectual gene pool down to a group of people who are far more similar to each other than they probably realize. Sending some out to mix it up with the civilians also helps keep the populace aware of how sharp, professional and dedicated these men and women are and keeps a human face on the military.

I don't think Ricks is suggesting that PhDs make a better general, I've never met a Colonel who was not capable of earning one, so it is a fairly irrelevant observation that he makes rather than a main point in his argument. (And off course most current military leaders went to a war college...its a pre-requistie. Kind of like noting that most Doctors went to medical school)

Anyway, if you focus on his point over his argument and recommendation, it has merit.

[jmm99]

Rick's argument and his recommendation - what exactly is his point ?

You (BW) have a point - allow options. Surferbeetle presents a general outline for a program.

I might suggest (getting ready to duck incoming) is that the service academies be more of grad-professional schools. Entry based on any 4-year degree or 4-years in service. Possibly better retention, since the people would be 4 years older.

Not to start too much of an argument, but the Annapolis > Marine retention rates seem pretty good from what limited sources I've read. In effect, a double self-selection process there.

[patmc]

I remember reading "Getting West Point Back on Mission" in Mar-Apr 06 Military Review that suggested USMA was failing at its mission to create career officers. It was a response to the high attrittion rate coming out of recent USMA classes.
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/oldsite/English/MarApr06/Richardson.pdf

The author argues that the school's mission is to create career officers, and if it is not doing that, meaning most of the class gets out at 5+/- years, reassess who it is recruiting and re-evaluate its training. He worries that if it is not accomplishing its goal, it is not cost effective, and could theoretically close. That's a pretty honest assessment, which takes the emotion, history, and tradition out of it. His main concern was the mission change to a "lifetime of service to the nation" which made it ok to serve outside the Army. He is happy the mission has returned to "lifetime of service to the Army." He also argues that recruiting and daily training need to indicate that the point of the school is a career in the Army, not free college for a couple years.

I see value to USMA, but like any other school, it produces good officers and poor officers. Ask a grad, he'll be the first to tell you about some of the characters that should not have made it. My OBC class was 2/3rd West Point, and after the first 2 weeks, the mafia broke up because many realized they did not like each other. In my first unit, there were 3-5 grads. When I left 4 years later, there was only 1 or 2. My current CCC class only has a handful, probably near 10%, of grads. The Army is growing its officer corps, largely through expanded ROTC and OCS. Calling for an evaluation or assessment of the academies is valid. Calling for their outright closure to save money, maybe not as valid. I stayed in a USMA barracks during a summer lacrosse camp during middle school, and did not find it luxorious, but maybe they could cut back on the fun elsewhere (I've never heard a grad refer to fun while they were there, though).

Disclosure: I was a 2 year ROTC scholarship cadet, and am finishing my 5th year of service. I will keeping searching for the article. If anyone else is familiar with it, please let me know.

[Entropy]

The problem, ISTM, is not the academies or war colleges - the problem is the retention and promotion system. I don't know about the other services, but in the Air Force, selection for in-residence PME and then a war college is one of the primary predictors of who will advance, especially to Col. and beyond. The problem, to me at least, is that other options (like a PhD or whatever) are not valued by the system that creates our senior officers. That system is the real problem, not the service academies and war colleges.

[Schmedlap]

If USMA grads are getting out the Army at higher rates than ROTC, then this suggests to me that the difference due to...
a) who they are recruiting
b) how they are training/educating them
c) both

If it is recruiting, are they going to West Point for family approval or due to family pressure, neither, or both? There is a tendency for children of Army Officers to go to West Point. Perhaps they are going there for the wrong reasons? Maybe it is time to rethink whether that should be considered in the admissions process - by the school or the congressmen.

If it is training/education, is it because their expectations for the Army are too high? Or are they unprepared to cope? Aside from those, I don't see how you blame retention on the training or education.

If their expectations are too high, then I suppose one response would be to lower their expectations. I hope that we're better than that and, instead, improve the organization that they are entering into so that it meets their justifiably high standards.

[Culpeper]

Close them down? Use ROTC? Sort of fits the federalism model of a republic. Let the states produce the best officers through state university ROTC programs. Sooner or later a handful of programs will stand out from the rest. Of course, there are also many other military academies that can fill the void if you think there might be a void. So yeah, it would save a lot of the taxpayer's money.

[carl]

The service academies will never be closed, nor will they be significantly restructured; they are too deeply ingrained in American culture for that to happen. Movies, novels, Army-Navy football games, etc, all have insured that they will go on as they have gone on. The only thing that might change that is if the US were to suffer a disastrous defeat in a really big war.

But it is still an interesting question to discuss.

One thing I have read in the past is that both the academies and ROTC share a weakness. That is, they try to gauge gauge military leadership ability on the basis of an 18 year old's track record, or they figure they can teach it. That seems a chancy thing to do.

Perhaps a better thing would be to have potential officers serve in the ranks and thereby see if they have some potential. If they do, they go on to what ever officer training program you care to create. If they don't, they serve out their term and go about their lives. I think the Germans did something like this in WWII.

[selil]

Another thread of we don't need no stinking education and anybody with a PhD can't be an effective officer. Next will be "all civilians are lazy drunk SOB's" followed by the spoiled brats of the apocalypse.

Was Ricks right for all the wrong reasons?

[Ken White]

...they try to gauge gauge military leadership ability on the basis of an 18 year old's track record, or they figure they can teach it. That seems a chancy thing to do.That's absolutely true and yet, they do make it work out adequately -- not great but adequately. The system culls at Captain level, normally and then it just gets tighter. It works pretty well.

Your suggestion and several other ideas can ameliorate that and approach 'great' -- but the Services, the Congress in particular (and most Americans), do not want great if the cost is lack of equality of access.

Or if the product is an Army that is too competent; they all want good, yes, absolutely -- but not too good. Too good smacks of elitism -- and a potential threat. Seven Days in May and so forth.

The services also do not want a great decline in officer accession numbers, they are more worried about mobilization than they need to be...

[Culpeper]

There is just too much politics to make such a move a reality. Closing a base and everything that goes with that is one thing but closing one of the prestigious academies? Forget about it.

[tankersteve]

I could see changes being made - tweaks in the system.

Most brand new West Point lieutenants were eager to accept the challenges the Army presented to them. Many were pretty jaded to the West Point experience, but were well-prepared to be platoon leaders and junior staff officers. Many ROTC cadets, depending on the quality of the program they came from (did the PMS really give a @#$% or was he in the act of retiring?), are not. But then, living/breathing/acting Army for 4 years should make some kind of difference. The WP LTs I saw were ready to conduct briefings and felt like they new what was expected of them.

Some participated in research programs for the Army while at West Point or had a role in a meaningful program with an aim at bettering the military. It can be a let-down to show up as a butterbar and have 23-year old E5s with 2 combat tours be respected while you are 'tolerated'. The Army in general tends to discount 2LTs, probably based on the poor level of training that used to exist in the basic courses (I hope it is better than what I got :o) Hopefully this will change and a new LT can show up to a unit and be seen as an extremely well-trained Soldier, expert in the uses of the systems in his charge, but without a lot of practical experience that the NCOs can help provide.

However, a shortcoming that many may have seen is the 4 years of social retardation that the academies deliver - 4 years of an acetic lifestyle hurts Joe from growing up socially, while Joe College was living it up. We had some DUIs when I was in my basic course - all new WP LTs who were living away from Mom/Dad/WP for the first time in their lives. Perhaps we can start offering these guys/gals a bit more freedom in their lives so they can be more well-rounded upon graduation.

Tankersteve

[Culpeper]

Another thread of we don't need no stinking education and anybody with a PhD can't be an effective officer. Next will be "all civilians are lazy drunk SOB's" followed by the spoiled brats of the apocalypse.

Was Ricks right for all the wrong reasons?

I don't think that is what this thread is about. All is well.

[Culpeper]

I could see changes being made - tweaks in the system.

Most brand new West Point lieutenants were eager to accept the challenges the Army presented to them. Many were pretty jaded to the West Point experience, but were well-prepared to be platoon leaders and junior staff officers. Many ROTC cadets, depending on the quality of the program they came from (did the PMS really give a @#$% or was he in the act of retiring?), are not. But then, living/breathing/acting Army for 4 years should make some kind of difference. The WP LTs I saw were ready to conduct briefings and felt like they new what was expected of them.

Some participated in research programs for the Army while at West Point or had a role in a meaningful program with an aim at bettering the military. It can be a let-down to show up as a butterbar and have 23-year old E5s with 2 combat tours be respected while you are 'tolerated'. The Army in general tends to discount 2LTs, probably based on the poor level of training that used to exist in the basic courses (I hope it is better than what I got :o) Hopefully this will change and a new LT can show up to a unit and be seen as an extremely well-trained Soldier, expert in the uses of the systems in his charge, but without a lot of practical experience that the NCOs can help provide.

However, a shortcoming that many may have seen is the 4 years of social retardation that the academies deliver - 4 years of an acetic lifestyle hurts Joe from growing up socially, while Joe College was living it up. We had some DUIs when I was in my basic course - all new WP LTs who were living away from Mom/Dad/WP for the first time in their lives. Perhaps we can start offering these guys/gals a bit more freedom in their lives so they can be more well-rounded upon graduation.

Tankersteve

I could never tell the difference in the field where the officer came from. Some were good, some were bad. Almost all were mediocre. Joseph Heller wrote the greatest book on the mediocrity of officers in the military.


Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.

From Joseph Heller's Catch-22. Paraphrase of the original 'some men are born great...' from Shakespeare's Twelfth Night.

[Culpeper]

Of course, Catch-22, in its entirety, is written in code so no officer can understand it let alone stand it. Of course, I'm being facetious. Of course.

[Ken White]

Another thread of we don't need no stinking education and anybody with a PhD can't be an effective officer...He said the PhD -- not education per se -- was not needed to be an effective Officer. That sort passes the "Well, yes" test.

I essentially said that it took an exceptionally good and militarily dedicated officer to use his Phd to be a better Officer rather than spending more time and effort on his PhD field or interest than his military requirements. That,too should pass the "Well, yes" test -- latest learning experience and all that...

Since I've seen a dozen or so examples in the field, I'm quite comfortable with that statement, I can even name them, the times and locations -- but not on an open forum.
Next will be "all civilians are lazy drunk SOB's" followed by the spoiled brats of the apocalypse.I thought the former was a given. I'm a civilian and I resemble that remark... :D

It's up to you, Educator, to keep those SBOTA under control. ;)
Was Ricks right for all the wrong reasons?Not IMO. He had a point; the academies are expensive and are not the only way -- possibly not even the best way -- to do the job. But he knows they aren't going away for all the reasons stated above so he just got some of bias out in ink and his War College crack was totally wrong -- plus, as I said, he also knows Petreaus' PhD is only one of many in the Armed forces and that virtually all Officers, MAJ/LtCdr and above, have advanced degrees. Poor propaganda piece on his part. He's usually a little more subtle than that...

[William F. Owen]

Another thread of we don't need no stinking education and anybody with a PhD can't be an effective officer. Next will be "all civilians are lazy drunk SOB's" followed by the spoiled brats of the apocalypse.

Was Ricks right for all the wrong reasons?

...and Ken got there before me, so I will merely add, that I think there is a place for some officers to have PhDs. In fact most of my friends of Lt Colonel, Colonel and above, do, or are working on them!

Having said that, most of the complete garbage military thought has recently produced came from PhD equipped officers.

I think Officer education is absolutely vital, but a PhD is not synonymous, or in any way relevant to the operational skill and practice we need.

[wm]

Perhaps not exactly germane to Ricks' point, but I wonder whether any research has been done on retention rates at USMA since the decision was made to increase the numbers of civilian members on the faculty.

When I taught at USMA in the mid-late 1980s, the faculty had a very small number of visiting civilian professors; a few, more permanent, civilian faculty members wewre in such fields as foreign languages and phys. ed.; the majority of the faculty was serving officers in the grade of O-3/O-4, most with command time or Bn/Bde primary staff experience. The faculty turned over almost completely every 3 years.
David Petraeus and Marty Dempsey were on the faculty at the time as were Dan Bolger (CG 1CD)., Mike Scaparroti (CG, 82d) and Bob Williams(Commandant, USAWC); Generals Chiarelli (VCSA) and Ward (AFRICOM) had just left; at least 8 of the current Army LTG's were there during the same time frame as faculty members, btw. (I'm sure some other current Army GO doers and shakers were there at the time: forgive me if I missed them.)

I understand in more recent years the teaching faculty has become about 1/3civilian (still temporary, 3-year turnover I believe).

It would be interesting to see whether these two two sets of data points (increasing civilan faculty, decreasing post-graduate retention) correlate.

[Steve Blair]

We've seen all this before. Close the service academies...blah...blah...blah... Except back then it was because they were "threats to the Republic," not because they were supposedly second-rate schools.

[Hacksaw]

WM,

I taught in Sosh 96-98, I think our dept was pretty close to 1/3 2/3 ratio, so I can provide a data point wrt whether I think it made a difference...

- The civilians in our department were absolutely dedicated to the mission, might even say they often seemed as much or more committed to ensuring they properly prepared our young charges...

- Much like embedded reporters, if some latent bias or emotional junk existed prior to accepting a position in the dept, they were quickly flipped into "true believers"...

- If a study were performed and the percentage of 1 and outs went up following the transition to more civilian instructors, I'd like to see how all the other factors were controlled, very skeptical that bring more civilians into the faculty was somehow to blame for a decision made 5 years later...

- Don't get me wrong, sometimes our civilian faculty made me nuts, in dept sessions they'd challenge some of our assumptions that we held dearly to our hearts, but never did I note a single civilian in anyway undermine the mission of the department or institution...

Now I think I have an appreciation for where you are coming from and only throw out the hypothetical for grist, but I want to make sure those who are not familiar with the institution don't jump to conclusions...

As a side note... during my tenure in Sosh we had John Nagl, Mark Tien, Chris Gibson and Mike Meese... by the way, all with PHd's being put to great use...

Deep Breath.... Live well and row

[Steve Blair]

Having said that, most of the complete garbage military thought has recently produced came from PhD equipped officers.

I think Officer education is absolutely vital, but a PhD is not synonymous, or in any way relevant to the operational skill and practice we need.

And how can we be sure that those same individuals wouldn't have produced garbage without the PhD? Sorry, but I don't necessarily see a connection. PhDs often allow idiots to hide their stupid ideas behind bigger words, but that's it. There was also a time when the higher service education programs were maligned as being form-fitting trade schools with no real-world application.

[William F. Owen]

And how can we be sure that those same individuals wouldn't have produced garbage without the PhD? Sorry, but I don't necessarily see a connection. PhDs often allow idiots to hide their stupid ideas behind bigger words, but that's it.

I concur. T'was to that, which I was alluding. No more. Most of the thinkers I respect are former military officers and PhDs.

Now if we want to discuss stupid ideas hidden behind big words, then pull up a chair... I'd love to point some fingers..!

[Hacksaw]

Found this in response to another Rick's piece on line about a growing trend amongst "elites" going into military service...

Reconciling this article with the Washington Post piece
by Welcome Wagon on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 10:38pm
Mr. Ricks,
First, I will preface this with the fact that I am a junior at the United States Military Academy at West Point, ranked the 6th best college in the USA and the number one public university, ahead of Yale and Columbia, as well as the top liberal arts school in the country, ahead of well...everyone else. Not bad for a "community college".
In this post you comment that students of prestigious universities are joining the military because they feel unchallenged by the years they spent at their Ivy League school.
"There is too much drinking and dope-smoking and too little sense of commitment to anything larger than one's own ambitions and appetites. Ultimately, they tell me, they didn't feel challenged to be more than themselves, intellectually or morally."
Yet your piece in the Washington Post about closing the Service Academies says: "Why not send young people to more rigorous institutions on full scholarships?". If the supposed rigourous institutions are not fulfilling our student's sense of accomplishment, where are the schools that you want to send me and my fellow cadets to? I can say with experience that cadets at the service academies recieve intense academic, physical, military, and leadership education. In the course of a week, one of our freshman can be expected to attend calculus classes, do a project for their American Government class, engage in training on tactically clearing a room, be graded in a two round boxing bout, play in a intramural football game, attend classes on ethics..the list goes on. Graduates of USMA as well as other academies are committed to at least 5 years of service to the country. 70% of each USMA class must branch combat arms, meaning that they will most likely deploy to a combat zone in the first year following graduation. Rules and regs limit the drinking and prohibit the dope smoking, and provide us with a sense of commitment that transcends education, to our country, our values, and each other. If service academies can provide our young men and women with purpose and direction, then why close them

On a side note: your attempt to use General Petraeus as a example for the superiority of civilian schools is laughable. A) Gen Petraeus went to a small community college called West Point for his undergrad education. B) We are purely an undergrad institution. C) This means all of our grads would need to get their PhDs elsewhere.

If I could do better I would... well said anonymous cadet

[J Wolfsberger]

"... but too often they're getting community-college educations." A number of engineers who've worked for me and with me were service academy grads, Army, Navy and Air Force. Their performance, both as engineers and leaders, was comparable to grads of Cal Tech or Virginia Tech. (Those that weren't stood out as exceptions.)

I'd also like to know just what "assumptions" and "biases" Mr. Ricks would like to see "challenged," and exactly what useful outcome he would like from interacting with "interact with diplomats and executives."

Finally, having spent the bulk of my adult life working with PhDs, I learned a long time ago that many are educated well above their ability. It's the person who makes a difference, not the credential.

[Courtney Massengale]

An idea I’ve always thought would be interesting would be to combine USMA, CGSC (old term, I know - ILE, SAMS, et al), and The War College into one physical campus. Then as a part of being MEL qualified, they would be required to instruct or lecture at USMA.

The idea being that after an Officer’s MOS specific education is completed (BOLC, OBC, CCC), they would be responsible for not only learning, but instructing as well. I’m not saying replace civilians or the FA for West Point, but rather agument with experienced, career Officers who have dedicated their lives to the profession. These schools already have coursework that requires academic scholarship, why not make it applied?

I think it would help Cadets by exposing them to a wider variety of role models with successful careers that span the Army. This might help retention if we give them some alternative career paths aside from Macarthur and Eisenhower. More seriously, it would give a direct connection between the most senior leaders about to go become Battalion and Brigade Commanders with the newest generation of Soldiers. Now that’s some powerful training.

It would also benefit the Seniors by pushing them out of the comfort zone and having to defend many of their sacred cows (much like the original article pushes for). I can’t think of a better audience to challenge than the future LTs who will have to execute policy at the tip of the spear.

Just my pie in the sky thought for when I get to be grand poobah.

[selil]

I concur. T'was to that, which I was alluding. No more. Most of the thinkers I respect are former military officers and PhDs.

Now if we want to discuss stupid ideas hidden behind big words, then pull up a chair... I'd love to point some fingers..!

Hey hey hey.... Put that finger away... :D

[J Wolfsberger]

"$300,000 per West Point product vs. $130,000 for ROTC student..." and Ivy League schools.

What is the cost of an Ivy League education today? And how many of the schools have ROTC programs?

[Ski]

I think the current system is working ok, like most things in the US military. They work ok, not awful, not great.

The three headed system of producing officers allows for greater breadth. I did not want to be in the Army at age 18, but by the time I was 21, it seemed like a fine career and so I joined ROTC and went through the two year program.

I have no comment on the War College argument as I haven't (and most likely won't) been through the program.

[slapout9]

Finally, having spent the bulk of my adult life working with PhDs, I learned a long time ago that many are educated well above their ability. It's the person who makes a difference, not the credential.

Could not have said it better myself. As I have mentioned before I grew up with the space program and as such most people don't realize what a shortage of or total lack of competent Engineers there was. The Guvmint yes the Guvmint fixed it!! by starting Engineering schools inside Defense/Aerospace factories and paid them to learn by doing plus theory after hours or by correspondence courses, this bled over and formed the basis of many of the college Engineering schools in Florida. There is a lesson to be learned here:wry: As in maybe Ricks should join the Army and go through Army Journalism AIT and.... git him sum reel schoolin:wry:

[Ken White]

"As in maybe Ricks should join the Army and go through Army Journalism AIT and.... git him sum reel schoolin :D"'Course, I'd probably enjoy him at Infantry OSUT even more... :cool:

[Old Eagle]

if for nothing else, to provide college athletics not affiliated with the NFL/NBA farm systems!:D

[Hacksaw]

They'd surely like to be included in the farm system... probably don't need to open that can of worms agin' :D

[RYNO]

I have an interesting perspective to share:

My senior year at USMA, during one of my core courses, "History of the Military Art," I had Phd-equipped civilian instructors for both semesters. I was initially disappointed--as a cadet, I was looking forward to a commissioned officer, hopefully with wartime experience, to be my instructor for at least one of those semesters. Both instructors have some notoriety as good writers at present.

The first semester, the instructor never left a seated position behind his desk in 40 lessons. He spoke in a monotone voice, and lectured each day for 50 minutes straight. It was an opportunity for me to get an extra hour of rack after the morning strength and conditioning practice in the morning and wrestling practice in the afternoon. My disappointment continued.

The second semester, the instructor's first impression didn't help. He looked like the antithesis of a military man. His teaching style, however, was fantastic. Kept the audience engaged. Spoke with passion. Extremely well-read. Always prepared. Facilitated discussion and student learning. Understood that he had a responsibility to help us prepare for eventually leading men in combat. It was my favorite class of 4 years and I considered him the best instructor I had while at the Academy, regardless of status. He was one of my early role models of "teacher, coach, and mentor." Whatever you think of him or his views now, he was an incredible teacher.

As I teach 2LTs and Captains now in Armor BOLC III and MCCC, I know his example made me a better teacher, coach, and mentor.

The moral of the story: No matter the institution or the population, in any large group of people, you're gonna get some good ones and some bad ones. Wanna produce a better student? Then the quality of instruction is very much dependent on the quality of the instructor.

The first guy will remain nameless. The second guy was Fred Kagan.

Had West Point not existed, I would be an overweight, homeless, alcoholic Italian right now. (USMA has postponed my dream for 15 years, and I still have 9 more to go!! So far away!!)

[RTK]

Had West Point not existed, I would be an overweight, homeless, alcoholic Italian right now. (USMA has postponed my dream for 15 years, and I still have 9 more to go!! So far away!!)

I know Ryno. He has a nice house....

:D

[Blackjack]

I know this thread has been up awhile, but I have been a bit busy lately and it is an important topic to me. Please accept my apology for such a late post.

According to Mr. Ricks the cost per student to the taxpayer is $300,000 as opposed to $130,000 for an ROTC graduate. I wonder if he actually looked into how those figures were calculated, or how the money was spent? I am curious about his statistical sources and collection methods. How much of the budget for West Point was instructional, and how much was administrative, how much was spent on the student? Too many unanswered question here in regards to sources and statistics.

In an rebuttal criticizing Mr. Ricks' arguments for closing the service academies, three West Point graduates who are now Congressmen claimed the cost per graduate was $200,000. If the $200,000 per graduate number is correct than it closes the cost gap between ROTC and USMA graduates significantly. Even a person with a grasp of basic math can see the difference between $170,000 and $70,000.

Mr. Ricks goes on to claim that some commanders prefer ROTC graduates to West point graduates. Using these commanders alleged preferences, he tries to make the case that ROTC students are better educated and less cynical. Mr. Ricks should remember that the word some is not indicative of a majority if he desires to make a case against West Point, or the other service academies. Anyone could easily say that if some commanders prefer ROTC graduates over service academy graduates than the majority of commanders prefer service academy graduates, or OCS graduates over ROTC graduates. Has he factored in the commanders who could care less about the comissioning source of their officers, but asses them based on the merit of their martial works?

Mr. Ricks manages to insult not only the service academies, but the community college system that many civillians and soldiers rely on for their first years of higher education. Mr. Ricks states rather boldly that,“They [West Point Graduates] remind me of the best of the Ivy League, but too often they're getting community-college educations.” This argument is little more than Mr. Ricks displaying his adherence to the credentialism and academic elitism that has infected America. His point seems to be nothing more than the academic environment and the degree obtained from university X is superior to the same degree from university Y, or community college Z.

Academically speaking no university is truly superior to another. It is simply a matter of people thinking, or being told one university, or form of higher education is superior to another. While community colleges may only offer an associates degree, the class loads and standards are often the same for that level of education.

In all fairness to Mr. Ricks I have run into the same brand of credentialism and academic snobbery from a fair share of both French and US military officers, senior NCOs as well in recent years. The behavior is abhorrable to say the least and has been warned about by both military and civillian leaders as far back as Cyrus the Great.

As Mr. Ricks' bemoans the lack of professors with doctorate level degrees credentialism strikes again. Isn't it reasonable to conclude that if a professor has graduated from a 4 year institution covering the subject matter that he or she should be able to teach that subject matter? I think it is quite reasonable, particularly if said profesor goes on to earn a masters degree. To say otherwise implies that the professor did not truly learn the subject matter as an undergraduate student and all the vellum hanging upon his wall is worthless.


Is anyone else seeing a reoccurring theme in his article? Credentialism, elitism, academic snobbery, and narrow minded views from a journalist who makes a feeble attempt at sensational journalism, and fails.

[selil]

Academically speaking no university is truly superior to another. It is simply a matter of people thinking, or being told one university, or form of higher education is superior to another. While community colleges may only offer an associates degree, the class loads and standards are often the same for that level of education.

I agree with a lot of what you say analyzing Mr. Ricks, but I have to disagree with the above. It is not true that all university educations are the same. The goals of the institution make huge differences on the quality of the education. Class size, instructional methods, resources for learning, lab equipment, size of the library, average age of the instructional staff and faculty, all of these things have huge impacts on the institution as a teaching institution.

It is great if a university has the next Einstein. If you can't take classes with them, or all classes are taught by second year grad students with English as a poor second language the instructional mission will fail. A community college with small class sizes and high quality instructional staff might be far superior to a research institution then.

Of course a small liberal arts University with teaching as a primary mission may provide a far superior learning environment to any public University.

There are wide and substantive gaps between University educations. A situation that vexes them terribly.

[Blackjack]

Yes, I admit that was poorly worded on my part. Most of what you speak of is equipment, which is important. I was speaking more to the snobbery and my degree mill is better than yours attitude tone that Mr. Ricks put forth in his article. Mr. Ricks focused his arguement on people, so that is what I focused my counterpoints on. It is true that poor instructors make for poor graduates.

[jmm99]

the student who will take on independent studies (informal as well as formal), which does have something to do with the teacher (see I acknowledge your worth, Sam :)) and the institutional culture - but ultimately, the quanta of education is up to the individual student. And, yeh, I also perceived some condescension in the article.

[selil]

An institution often has a continuing education legacy that creates dramatic effects on the students who graduate from there. I work for one University but I'm affiliated through marriage, friendship, or colleagues to several others. At one institution an "A" in a course is the standard achieved by doing the work. At another institution a "C" is the standard achieved by doing the work. An, "A" represents above and beyond surpassing the expectations.

At some institutions a student will show up for class like a bucket ready to be filled at the effort of the professor. These are people who never got out of the high school mentality. Higher education to them is a service and they are a customer. This makes higher education nothing more than a drive through diploma mill. Would you like fries with that history degree?

There is a difference if subtle and obscured between a teacher and professor. It is the job of the professor to prepare and examine knowledge with students. Personally I believe in open ended problems that are examinations of knowledge and epistemological adventures. The students from the latter environment will squeeze knowledge from a professor and continue through out their lives to wring ideas from those they come into contact with.

Some have placed the higher education conundrum in a Bacon v. Milton battle of the ages. A rumble of the ages in the lecture hall of memetic intolerance. On the one hand Bacon felt that education was a tool for application of knowledge in the applied service to society. On the other hand Milton felt the purpose of education was to prepare through wisdom so that people could service society well.

Now we look at this and an inkling of an idea forms. Elitist, snobbery, followed by credentialism, and a rapacious hunger to fill hollow souls creates an ivy league education system. Higher, better, cleaner, neater, nicer, better connected, more competitive, and for what are these ivy league schools known? In a circuitous leap of indifferent logic ivy league schools are known for having ivy league graduates. Snobbish schools down the ladder have given us Wharton and Wall Street fiascos, Princeton and Harvard have given us hazing and ritualistic pseudo satanic rituals. The ivy league system provided us with an oligarchy of elitism at the expense of society.

I'll be the first to say painting with such a broad brush is as egregious as the hysterical snobbery of ivy leaguers. I am friends with several ivy leaguers and married to a woman who used to work at The Harvard Medical School. When the knives come out the Ricks of the world pull out the cloak of elitism and hide. They don't like being reminded that after WW2 the ivy leagues failed in droves to provide ROTC, and in many cases severely curtailed their activities. Unlike previous generations of war the current crop has failed at the primary service to country they were known for before. Whereas, on our main campus the number of uniforms has increased. The ROTC program is bursting at the seems.

In the turbulence of educational dogma, hysterical nannyism, and changing foibles of political acceptance on campus. It is important for the country to keep at least a few institutions ponderously moving in the direction of public service and national military service bereft of at least some of the horrors of public higher education.

When thinking about institutions of higher education there is an interesting lesson in my backyard. I work at a third tier, regional university, within a state technical school system based on the land grant act called Purdue. My campus is Purdue University Calumet. Likely if you don't know me you've never heard of it. Yet there is another school 60 miles away that has the same student population, nearly the same programs, many of our faculty have taught there, they don't pay as well, and they are way more picky about who they accept. The primary difference between the two institutions is they have their own football team, are private v. our public status, and have a hugely different reputation. The school is Notre Dame.

[Hacksaw]

Of course a small liberal arts University with teaching as a primary mission may provide a far superior learning environment to any public University.

You just described West Point!!! I reveled in explainin to my fellow instructors, most of whom were alumni, that USMA in all but name provided a liberal arts education - and rightly so!!!

I was considered a heretic....

Then again I was a big hit as a planner at FT Campbell when I opined over beers that the only thing dumber than a true large-scale air "ASSAULT" was the large scale airborne operation... Air movement, operational maneuver utilizing rotary and fixed wing a/c is great, but not an air assault... Not that both don't have a time and place, but those times and places are few and far between (except for small unit type things) - and it ought to be a last resort...

Intellectual honesty is not the most valued trait in a planner :D

[William F. Owen]

Intellectual honesty is not the most valued trait in a planner :D

Pass the Pipe and the Speaking Stick to Brother Hacksaw. Ain't that the truth!

[slapout9]

Then again I was a big hit as a planner at FT Campbell when I opined over beers that the only thing dumber than a true large-scale air "ASSAULT" was the large scale airborne operation... Air movement, operational maneuver utilizing rotary and fixed wing a/c is great, but not an air assault... Not that both don't have a time and place, but those times and places are few and far between (except for small unit type things) - and it ought to be a last resort...

Intellectual honesty is not the most valued trait in a planner :D

They were originally designed to be conducted after a small scale atomic weapon strike:eek: or what was called Brushfire Wars (COIN) in the late 50's and 60's. Over time this has been completely forgotten.

[Coldstreamer]

Wilf...what have you done.....Sandhurst...outmoded??? HERESY!

1. Regardless of system, only about 10% of Officers are 'First Class'. They are life's naturals. If they weren't in the Army, they'd be pushing Donald Trump or Alan Sugar out of the Boardroom and taking over. The bottom 10% will be worse than useless - actually corrupt or the most dangerous officer - the hard working moron who appears impressive because they keep their mouths shut. These tend to go quite far.

2. Therefore the system has to be optimised to make the remaining 80% 'goog enough'.

3. RMAS and USMA have evolved to develop programmed 'leaders' to fit the social norms of their times, but the pace of external change has outstripped their internal evolution.

4. Significant external social changes are neither welcome nor appropriate for the management of legitimated violence and acceptance of unlimited liability, as we do. Therefore we need to guard our core values.

5. Current operations highlight todays mandated 'bottom line' - fit for purpose leaders who turn up at their units 'good to go'. 1 x Platoon Commander, trained, qualified, fit, edumacated (enough), and competent (functionally competent, all weapons systems, all radios, the biz). In Army systems must then take them on - Captains courses, war colleges etc.

6. Therefore, issue is - do Academies deliver this? Do War Colleges deliver relevant training. The time for on-the-job apprenticeships is over - because rookie errors are paid for in soldiers' blood.

7. And if all training is optimised for today, will it be of use for tomorrow - from COIN back to MCO when we all meet for G&Ts in the PyongYang Ritz next summer.

8. From my experience of both US and UK junior officers on operations, the vast, vast, majority are producing the goods in abundance. Motivated, sincere and highly professional.

9. UK observations: RMAS still has a dimension of being an overpowered boarding school. When I instructed there I formed the opinion - which I still hold - that there's scope for change. Term 1 (of 3 - total course 1 year) is about right - accelerated & compressed soldiers' Phase 1 & 2 training, with lots of pressure to turn wheezing layabout into human being fit for Her Majesty's sight. However, Terms 2 & 3 largely continue this model, with little genuine responsibility exercised by Cadets other than when in Command Appointments. IMHO, Cadets should receive probationary commissions when for the remainder of the course, and be trained as Young Officers (in effect, equivalents of young professional executives in any other profession), and trained to a far higher standard in Personnel and administrative management of their troops. This may - and I balk to say it - come at the expense of a surfeit of Drill. There. I've said it. God forgive me.

10. I'll forego detailed US observations, not having worked within your system, but it does strike many UK Officers as interesting that there are so many routes to being commissioned into the same role at the same age band. Is there an argument for USMA departing from its Academic role and providing the sole military concentrated training for all - be they graduates or non-graduates? Given that formal academic achievement is no guarantee of a useful officer (though it doesn't always hurt)?

Thus - I think 'getting rid' of the academies is a false economy that throws the baby out with the bathwater. By the same token, we have to improve relevance and do justice to our young. I can't buy into the fact the truncated training, no matter how well targeted, will suffice. So much happens by osmosis - especially with young people who are often learning real life lessons of self-reliance, trust etc for the first time. It takes a while to 'get it' for many - who then go on to great things.

[Old Eagle]

BUT

I recommend that anyone trying to come to grips with Herr Ricks academy thesis need only read two popular Afghanistan coming of age stories -- This Man's Army by Andrew Exum (aka Abu Muqawama) and The Unforgiving Minute by Craig Mullaney.

Give it a try; let me know what you think.

[RJ]

Coldstreamer posted -"1. Regardless of system, only about 10% of Officers are 'First Class'. They are life's naturals. If they weren't in the Army, they'd be pushing Donald Trump or Alan Sugar out of the Boardroom and taking over. The bottom 10% will be worse than useless - actually corrupt or the most dangerous officer - the hard working moron who appears impressive because they keep their mouths shut. These tend to go quite far."

Thank you for all of your points.

The above outline of the officer corps was laid out to me as a 17 year old Marine boot at Parris Island, SC, by a Marine Drill Instructor, S/Sgt. William T. Mc Neill.

After 53 years of life experience in the military and corporate America, Sgt. Mc Neil's distilled comment always held up in any part of the society I happened to wander through. He was a Boston Southy, who looked like an Arkansas razorback. His language was quite colorful.

One in ten will be outstanding and another one in ten will be ignorant, nasty and dangerous to everyone around them. He opined that it would be our job to follow or lead the 90% and eliminate the bottom 10% as quickly as possible.

In my time in the Marines, I encountered two officers who could be considered as minus 10 percenters. Neither one of them were line company officers. My personal experience is antidotal and a long time ago.

Most line company enlisted Marines had high expectations of our officers. Almost all of whom were products of the Marine Officer Basic School in Quantico. Only a small number of USNA graduates are select to be Marine officers and I only had one who was a graduate. He was an excellent leader from the get go. His only fault was being extremely susceptible to sea sickness. A lot of VMI graduates take the Marine route. And if there were any negatives coming from that education, Quantico usually "adjusted" those who might have leaned towards arrogant side of things. Ditto for Texas A&M as well.

Both my sons are Aggies, and the oldest was a Navy Aviator via the AOCS track. Having a series of Marine S/Sgts and Gunnery Sgt. assigned to that officer training facility, gave him an appreciation for the Marine Corps.:rolleyes:

At that time and place, the Navy accepted 6,000 AOCS candidates and produced 1,500 annually. (Limit allowed by Congress). The 4500 that didn't receive commissions were eleminated by said Marine NCO's or academic, physical ability or eye sight issues. DOR, ala "An Officer and a Gentleman" was the exit route for most. At Tom's commissioning the Admiral pointed to G/Sgt. Breckinridge and told the assembled family members of the commissioning class of 32, that the Navy uses Marines like Sgt Breckinridge to make our sons and daughters go home. The distilled group receiving commissions, are the most highly motivated, dedicated and intelligent individuals the Navy needs to send to pilot training. He then laid out the 25% of 6,000 candidates accepted, allowed to be commissioned by Congress thru the AOCS process information. Tough. You betcha! Fair?
Not part of the consideration to achieve the quality necessary.

I believe the service academys should be maintained. They set the bar high and that is a very good thing. Worth the cost? Absolutely! In a nation who's population has just passed 300,000,000, the need for a high standard, highly visible group of schools focused on the defense of the nation is necessary. The cost is minimal in that context.

I suspect the whine about "are they necessary" is part of the "wish list" mentality of most progressives. It will not fly, IMHO.

[William F. Owen]

Wilf...what have you done.....Sandhurst...outmoded??? HERESY!
Wow... You sound like my old Company Commander,
"Corporal Owen! Why's that man bleeding? Why's my wife crying? Where's my dog and why are you naked!" ... it never stops.. and I don't think I did have a go at Sandhurst... but now you say it.


9. UK observations: RMAS still has a dimension of being an overpowered boarding school.

Yes too much Drill, and quite a lot of silliness, that may or may not translate into operational effectiveness, or even good old Leadership. Personally I'd put all Officers through basic training, to the stage they can join their units as soldiers and then, send them to 8 weeks at Sandhurst, with no passing out parade, to weed out the non-hackers/idiots, plus get them grounded in all the admin skills, and then onto their special to arm officer training.

[davidbfpo]

Intrigued by this thread and the recent comments on the system the UK and USA use. Mindful of Wilf's last thread, with the implication officer training can be shortened and still effective, what happened in WW2? After May 1940.

Were OCS courses shortened to enable the re-constituted British Army, at home, to function? I recall reading a book on the re-training the entire home Army had prior to D-Day, alas only details retained was the use of battle schools.

Just an idle thought.

davidbfpo

[William F. Owen]

Mindful of Wilf's last thread, with the implication officer training can be shortened and still effective, what happened in WW2? After May 1940.

I would not wish to imply that Officer training needs to be shortened. I don't think it does. In fact it might need to be made longer, but I strongly believe that all officers need to pass out of a complete basic training, with the other ranks, before embarking on that part of their training to make them officers.

[Alfred_the_Great]

This may - and I balk to say it - come at the expense of a surfeit of Drill. There. I've said it. God forgive me.



Are you really a Coldstreamer?! Would you dare say this in front of the AcSM? :D

[gute]

I think it would be unfortunate to close the academies, but I do understand Ricks' argument to a point. The military academies have produced some extrodinary leaders and I believe this country needs a small officer professional corps that is not at the whim of Congress and easy to make ROTC cuts. How about combining all three academies and becoming truly joint. How about stopping the political correctness and affirmative action b.s. How about becoming the cream of crop - again. Ricks claims the academy is not academically hard enough - maybe, but just because your elitist prof does not have a PhD does not mean he does not know what he is talking about. I'll take a military class from Ordinaro before I take one from Ricks. Also, where does Ricks get off using the Ivy League as an example - for Pete's sake how many military officers come out of the Ivy League these days - not many. I could see sending military academy juniors to Harvard or Yale during their junior years and make Harvard and Yale students attend ROTC.

Carlton Meyer argues in a recent article that nepotism is a huge proble with the academies and if you are the son of an academy grad you can not attend - dumb. There's nepotism in everything. Plus, the liberal arts degree is a joke. It's for a bunch of profs who could not make it in life unless they get paid for running their traps.

Ricks is a good writer and so forth, but it's pretty clear from his article that he has an Ivy League corn cob stuck up his wazoo. He writes how colonels should attend schools other then the war colleges to have their views challenged. Amen! How about having the faculty of Harvard and Yale attend the War Colleges to have their views challenged. Ricks claimes to have talked to officers who prefer ROTC grads. Where the officers he talked to ROTC grad themselves?

You want better officers start promoting platoon seargents and other intelligent and gifted enlisted persons to platoon leaders. Stop with this liberal arts degree bull. I have one and taking theater arts, music, dance, poetry, etc did not prepare me for my career, but these really smart profs got big salaries because I did.

I wrote this really fast and have to run so I apologize for my spelling.

Oh, I know the military academies are paid for by the tax payer and Harvard, etc are private - but they do get a lot of government money.

[Ken White]

Are you really a Coldstreamer?! Would you dare say this in front of the AcSM? :DBetter he do that than me... :D

[Alfred_the_Great]

is a Coldstreamer - he must be turning in his drill boots! Although, lets be honest, he probably knew 'Coldstreamer' as a young Subaltern and has far too many "interesting" stories to tell!

Anyway, back to topic: If you do go to a joint service New Entry route, be careful about loosing the ability to inculcate your single service ethos etc into your junior Officers. We had a review of training, both Officers and Other Ranks, and specifically noted that phase 1 (i.e. New Entry) training should remain single service despite possible cost savings. Once you are firmly Dark Blue, Green or Light Blue (or USMC, don't have a colour for that!), then you can think about mixing it up with the other services.

[jkm_101_fso]

Forbes releases 2009 list. Guess who's #1?


America's Best Colleges 2009
By Richard Vedder and David M. Ewalt,

The best college in America has an 11:30 p.m. curfew. It doesn't allow alcohol in the dorms, which must be kept meticulously clean. Students have to keep their hair neat, their shoes shined, their clothes crisply pressed. They also receive a world-class education, at no cost, and incur no debt--except for a duty to their country.

The college, of course, is the U.S. Military Academy, or West Point, and it tops our second-annual ranking of America's Best Colleges, compiled by Forbes and the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. In this report, the CCAP ranks 600 undergraduate institutions based on the quality of the education they provide, the experience of the students and how much they achieve.

LINK (http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/02/colleges-university-ratings-opinions-colleges-09-intro.html)

[Uboat509]

Forbes releases 2009 list. Guess who's #1?



LINK (http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/02/colleges-university-ratings-opinions-colleges-09-intro.html)

I did not see AMU on that list. Since that is who I am getting my BA through I was kind of hoping that they would be near the top. I will have to assume that it was an oversight. :D

SFC W

[AmericanPride]

They based 25% of the rankings on 4 million student evaluations of courses and instructors, as recorded on the Web site RateMyProfessors.com. Another 25% is based on post-graduate success, equally determined by enrollment-adjusted entries in Who's Who in America, and by a new metric, the average salaries of graduates reported by Payscale.com. An additional 20% is based on the estimated average student debt after four years. One-sixth of the rankings are based on four-year college graduation rates--half of that is the actual graduation rate, the other half the gap between the average rate and a predicted rate based on characteristics of the school. The last component is based on the number of students or faculty, adjusted for enrollment, who have won nationally competitive awards like Rhodes Scholarships or Nobel Prizes.

I'm sure those things are not as difficult when a school has a Congressional mandate, tuition and room/board is paid by the taxpayer, and employment is guaranteed upon graduation.

[Shek]

tuition and room/board is paid by the taxpayer, and employment is guaranteed upon graduation.

Indentured servitude?

[AmericanPride]

The difference is that indentured servants incurred a debt prior to their labor commitment, while West Pointers agree to exchange X years in the Army for an education and a job. If other universities could gurantee employment after graduation, I'm sure their numbers would increase too.

[jkm_101_fso]

I did not see AMU on that list. Since that is who I am getting my BA through I was kind of hoping that they would be near the top. I will have to assume that it was an oversight. :D

SFC W

I'm slogging through an AMU Master's. I hear ya. BTW, I'm not a West Pointer.

[h2harris]

U.S. News and World Report university rankings for 2010 have been released.
As was the case last year, West Point has again been ranked as the #1 Public
Liberal Arts College, and tied for #14 overall Liberal Arts College, in the
nation.

In the Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs category, West Point was
ranked #4 overall, with our Civil Engineering Program #2, Mechanical #8, and
Electrical #9.

Using last year's reported data, High School counselors also ranked Liberal
Arts schools, with West Point coming in #3 in "best education for students."

This is from the August 20, 2009 issue of U.S. News and World Report,
currently available on newsstands.

See:

http://rankings.usnews.com/best-colleges/liberal-arts-top-public

Larry D. Smith, '62
wpp-net moderator
SMITH Larry Dennis 1962 23969 K1 <Larry.Smith@west-point.org>

At least some people like the Old Gray Line - h2harris