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...