Point/Counterpoint: Are the Service Academies in Trouble?
By Starbuck at Small Wars Journal:
This week, two instructors at the US Naval Academy discussed some of the challenges, strengths, and shortcomings of America’s service academies. The first is Dr. Bruce Fleming, a professor of English who is set to release his book Bridging the Military-Civilian Divide in August. Dr. Fleming penned an op-ed in Thursday’s New York Times entitled, The Academies’ March Toward Mediocrity.
Quote:
Instead of better officers, the academies produce burned-out midshipmen and cadets. They come to us thinking they’ve entered a military Camelot, and find a maze of petty rules with no visible future application. These rules are applied inconsistently by the administration, and tend to change when a new superintendent is appointed every few years. The students quickly see through assurances that “people die if you do X” (like, “leave mold on your shower curtain,” a favorite claim of one recent administrator). We’re a military Disneyland, beloved by tourists but disillusioning to the young people who came hoping to make a difference.
Quote:
In my experience, the students who find this most demoralizing are those who have already served as Marines and sailors (usually more than 5 percent of each incoming class), who know how the fleet works and realize that what we do on the military-training side of things is largely make-work. Academics, too, are compromised by the huge time commitment these exercises require. Yes, we still produce some Rhodes, Marshall and Truman Scholars. But mediocrity is the norm.
Quote:
Meanwhile, the academy’s former pursuit of excellence seems to have been pushed aside by the all-consuming desire to beat Notre Dame at football (as Navy did last year). To keep our teams in the top divisions of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, we fill officer-candidate slots with students who have been recruited primarily for their skills at big-time sports. That means we reject candidates with much higher predictors of military success (and, yes, athletic skills that are more pertinent to military service) in favor of players who, according to many midshipmen who speak candidly to me, often have little commitment to the military itself.
Dr. Shaun Baker, a professor of philosophy, provides an excellent counterpoint to Dr. Fleming in an entry on his blog at Themistocles’ Shade. Dr. Baker received his PhD from Wayne State University, and is the Assistant Director of the James B. Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership at the US Naval Academy. He teaches philosophy, coaches the Academy's Ethics Bowl team, and is the Stockdale Center's webmaster.
Quote:
In the Naval Academy, there is a very strong tradition of exhortation to moral excellence, honesty, integrity, ideals taken very seriously, and as more than one mid on more than one occasion has put it, "pounded" into their heads from day one Plebe Summer. Yes, this exhortation may heighten the sort of sensitivity to inconsistency that gives rise to cynicism, but I believe it also has a pronounced effect on the day-to-day thinking of a majority of the mids.
Quote:
They do take these values seriously, even as they recognize their own shortcomings, those of other midshipmen and the faculty and staff. In general, I would say that this does not diminish the fact that they do take these values seriously, and think about them, have them in the forefront of their minds much more so than would people that did not go through four years of such rigorous exhortation to ethical thinking and exemplary character.
Quote:
Not only do all midshipmen go through a rigorous 4 year cycle of classes intended to drive home the importance of ethical thought, and ethical leadership, classes that explicitly take up and rationally discuss cynicism, among other germane topics (just war theory, international law, military justice, principles of servant leadership, followership, constitutional principles, and etc..) but the very nature of the institution they live in for four years puts them in a good position to understand the position of the enlisted people they will eventually work with. In many ways the academy does two things at the same time. It prepares for leadership at various ranks, in various ways intellectual, moral and emotional, but it also drives home how it is to be a lower level "cog" in a big quite hierarchical command-structured institution, and teaches one how to deal with that reality, and the cynicism that naturally results.
More education for more commitment
I am unfamiliar with the history of the Academies' woes, however is there any precedent in making them six year institutions, awarding Masters Degrees and requiring six years of service? If the problem is one of commitment perhaps upping the ante would help. On the other hand, perhaps the problem is who selects/retains the staff as well.
Also, forgive my heretical bent, but is there any truth to the decline coinciding with the coed student body and more liberal leaning in the institutions?
This ties into another thread that pointed out that USMA officers tend to do their four years and split. Perhaps they were not as prepared for the demands of military life as they thought the institution would prepare them? (Not relative to other sources of commission but to their expectations mind you.)
Agreed on all points, with caveats on all points...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Schmedlap
That is not professional education. That is mass production.
Our professional education has its most immediate roots in the mass production of leaders for the previous two world wars. A great deal of thought and effort was put into how our nation will mass produce "good enough" leaders to accomplish their job in the next similar war. The threshold of pain required for a massive change simply hasn't been reached. And if Korea and Vietnam didn't do it, I wouldn't expect our current conflicts to come close.
I wholly agree that we need to improve our officer producing schools. Across the board. I am not as adverse to creating stress through meaningless chores, attention to detail (particularly insignificant ones), or properly executed hazing. Hallmarks of any good military academy. If it is all well done, it can be quite a good professional education.
I think you are advocating a modernization of the tactics taught. I agree to that to an extent. I think you are also saying that the focus should be on adaptive leadership instead of conformational leadership. That I have an issue with since the trend in our society is counter-conformational and I believe that will create a monster. What is needed is more discipline, not less. It is a hierarchical Army after all.
And that LT might not have looked so foolish had an observer adjusted rounds on top of that position. Situation dependent of course. He didn't do nothing, and I'd say that is a sign of good training. Also of training that puts a great deal off on the institutional side of the house (wrong in my book). Lucky he had good NCO's, but he would not have been wrong to move his men 200m either. Just very cautious.
Personally, I would like to see a year's "internship" for PL's between their Jr and Sr year regardless of source.
Agreed, marct, with a caveat ....
Quote:
from marct
I think there are two different meanings to the word "discipline" that we would do well to keep in mind. The first is the concept of obedience often associated with training, i.e. he is well disciplined, while the second refers to a professional "discipline", which is a set of principles that have been internalized and from which solutions to professional problems are generated.
An internalized set of principles to generate solutions to problems is scarcely restricted to "professionals" - since, what you have defined, is really "self-discipline" (available to anyone who bothers to develop an internalized set of principles).
Our "professional disciplines" (whether doctor, lawyer or military chief) do provide a generalized framework (e.g., as in the professional codes of ethics, too seldom read - at least by lawyers) that can aid in developing an internalized set of principles. But all professionals do not take that path.
The concept is similar to my dichotomy between "rule by law" (principles imposed by a third party, which may be perfectly OK because they are accepted) and "rule of law" which is the self-expression of the ruled population group.
Moving away from theory - Have there been any responses by That Place on the Chesapeake grads (especially those who have elected the Marines) to the two articles linked in the OP ?
Regards
Mike
Well obviously, the corps has
Both Tom Ricks and Dr. Fleming are correct. USMA floundered starting June 1, 2000 after we graduated. The class of 2000 was the last "real" class. Everything softened after that leading to this debacle.
Just trying to bring a lil levity
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Umar Al-Mokhtār
Spoken like a true parochial ring knocker. ;)
As much as should be expected :D.
Quote:
I'll bet your company was the toughest in the Corps as well. :D
Well, the football team sucked, the rugby team placed second in Div One finals, and my cadet company had the least amount of first picks to infantry ever...So, a mixed bag I suppose.
Quote:
The first likely prospect was, in typical recruiter's fashion, promised a "life of high adventure in service to Country and Corps". And, as an extra bonus: If enlisted now he would receive a free tankard of ale...
If only...I've had the high adventure, but a free tankard of ale sometimes slips my grasps ;).
On a more serious note, I would suggest that as a measure of reform, USMA should attempt to undo the social awkwardness of cadet isolation. Back in the day, cadets were NOT isolated despite their strict displinary standards. The world came to them. Outside of football games, it is not so much so.
v/r
Mike