Shut Down West Point and the War Colleges

[William F. Owen]

From Tom Ricks here

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 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/Military...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.

[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

[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.