Quote Originally Posted by ganulv View Post
I have an acquaintance who taught at West Point immediately prior to her retirement from the Army a couple of years ago and the next time I have a chance I will try and remember to ask her about the logic of the application process. But at first blush I wonder if the criteria may be geared toward selecting those individuals most likely to see the West Point experience through to its conclusion rather than toward selecting those individuals most likely to be good officers. From afar my impression is that the right to wear a class ring from a U.S. Service academy is a first rate achievement. But I also have the impression that a lot of the tasks mastered (or at least borne) do not necessarily have anything to do with the training of a good officer. I am sure some reading the above will say, “What the hell does this guy know?” while others will say, “That’s putting it politely.”

For what it is worth, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy is the most difficult of the Service academies to gain admittance to, as well as one of the most difficult of all undergraduate institutions in the United States for the same.
I am sure that every aspect of human endeavor can be improved upon and at least refined.

My first question is whether the aim of the officer training is to produce future generals or to produce thousands of officers who then make their way in the military on an 'up or out' basis. In just about every case it is the latter... but the question needs to be asked, is this the right way?

Then based on the above and other considerations how important is it to throughly test and screen potential officers before they are taken into service and start training? We have variations from the five day British (and other) AOSB (Army Officer Selection Board) to a paper assessment with an interview (and then use the training course itself as the main selection mechanism).

The next aspect is the weighting of the selection criteria for admission to the training. Is the 60:30:10 (academic:leadership: physical) weighting correct or should a specific SAT/ACT score be a pass without weighting. The same with the physical should an assessment be made as to the physical health and potential of an individual be made on a pass or fail basis (and as the kid will be between 18-22 one would take into account how much the individual will 'fill out' over the training period). Next, should the military rely on the leadership assessments of high school teachers? I suggest not. So here we have a major issue which (will not be changed anytime soon but) deserves some thought.

Then there is the issue of the timing and composition of the degree course which officers (undoubtedly) require. Sandhurst nowadays takes in cadets 80%+ of which have degrees (of their own choosing). The US seems to have different models but effectively demand a degree before promotion to the rank of captain. Or is the trick to get them bright eyed and bushy tailed between 18-22 and select and filter carefully (with an eye on identifying those with general staff potential) then taking them through company level command before assessing whether there is a long career ahead. If yes then you sit individually with each officer and plan his future (subject of course to his achieving certain laid down milestones along the way) and send him off to university (on full pay) for a few years to prepare him for the future. Attendance on the Command and Staff Course and the degree wiuld be required before promotion to Lt Col. (which would be after 15-20 years of commissioned service).

Now rather than the rather brutal 'up or out' policy those who are not considered to have general staff potential are offered a 'low road' career option or an exit from the service. The exit process would involve attendance at a university on full pay to enable the person to obtain a degree to prepare him for a second career after the military. It is important that young men who have given the best years of their lives to the service are not discarded but treated with dignity and respect.

There is another side to this and it is that if the selection process was more focussed on the long term potential of potential officers it would mean that a greater reliance would fall on creating platoon and other company level officers from the ranks. This would lead to marked reduction in the quality of company level NCOs if the 'best' were commissioned (or made platoon commanders) unless a serious leadership and NCO development programme was developed concurrently.

It is really all about thinking. The current systems 'work' for most countries but outsider logic and clarity often helps with the process of improvement. If you can ask people in the service the 'why' question and they can't answer the problem lies with them and not you.

Remember too: The Mind Is Like A Parachute, It Only Works When It's Open