Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
The academic studies aren't just for jobs after the 12-year team or for improved recruiting success among good school graduates.

It's most relevant for forming thought processes, for opening the mind to learning, science, methodologies, independent work and much more. Studying engineering is for example much, much tougher than the learning in an officer course.

I believe I remember having read that Petraeus confessed that after many years of military service and military learning his experience at some university was a shock. Suddenly, it wall all very difficult and he couldn't easily convince people any more (command authority makes this much, much easier, apparently...). He had to add a lot to his repertoire for success in such an environment.

There are furthermore experiences of armies that did not emphasize academic learning for officers and tended to neglect technical and organisational aspects of the military as well as intellectual thought about what combat arms should do and how.
I don't have a problem with education per se.

I suggest that before the military invests hugely in an individual's higher education it should have a very good idea that he has general staff prospects.

As I have stated above there are two minimum standards to be set for potential officers and that being his attained education level (with the potential to study further) and physique and fitness level (with the ability to develop both further). Once you have put that stuff aside you will be able to concentrate on identifying the characteristics which are required of an officer.

The further education aspect can be revisited once he has been selected for training and passed the officer training course. With a bit of luck there may be a war on at the time and one can cycle the new officers through to gauge their combat performance. Thereafter as part of career development they can be sent to universities to do the appropriate courses. As I said put the horse before the cart.

I can't believe that it is worth the investment to put candidates through university degree before you are (pretty) sure they are likely to succeed. So when a premier military institution grades candidates on the following basis one tends to get a little worried;

A cadet's class rank, which determines his army branch and assignment upon graduation, is calculated as a combination of academic performance (55%), military leadership performance (30%), and physical fitness and athletic performance (15%)
Where one might ask is the assessment on leadership ability, tactical skill and understanding etc etc?

If you select on this basis then I suggest you need to believe that leadership can be taught. Now that's another story.

That being said, I doubt that the German system with special universities for the armed services is a good idea. It would make more sense to expose the students to civilian life more and get a wider choice of specialisations, but that would in turn require that some normal universities introduce trimesters.
I suggest we are in agreement on this. I have never been sold on the concept of military education whether high-school or university. These 'specialisations' I suggest should be selected to improve individual performance in the military environment.