Shut Down West Point and the War Colleges

[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

[William F. Owen]

Intellectual honesty is not the most valued trait in a planner

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

They were originally designed to be conducted after a small scale atomic weapon strike 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.

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?

[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?

Better he do that than me...

[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

[Uboat509]

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



LINK

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.

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.