Entropy - what defines a "better officer?" Is that really the point? Or is "the point" yet another in an endless and long-running trend of attacks on the service academies?

I'm a grad, and years ago I wrote an ill-advised and ill-researched paper on Academy grads vs. OTS vs. ROTC, out of which I concluded (mostly off a superior officer satisfaction study conducted sometime in either the 70s or 80s) that the academies did not do so and ought to be abolished based on this fact. You can probably guess my grade...

Really, this isn't about the counterpoint, which wouldn't exist without the original point in the first place, which is that the service academies are hurting. Whether or not the author's points are valid seems moot to me, as it reads more like the rant I wrote as a cadet than a well-informed and supported argument. But I can get behind the concept...

I think the institutions deserve some pretty hard looks and transformation. As other discussions on this board illuminate, easier said than done when dealing with a military bureaucracy.I have some ideas where to start, but I would like to hear some logically presented arguments on why service academies don't produce better officers, why they're in trouble, etc...