There have been plenty of great military men that weren't anywhere near the tops of their classes.
Being a math and English whiz does not indicate at all whether someone would be a great leader of men. You know that.
Perhaps the young man in question had that certain factor that makes people like him, want to follow him. Those kind of guys make the best officers.
The academies have such applications that a 3.5 can look ordinary, especially considering the differences between schools posting the grades. I like the fact that Congressmen have the ability to place those applicants with the intangibles that indicate good chances for success above those with stellar gpas and not much more.
Of course when they do that, the academies must determine whether they agree.
Let's be clear about some of these contentions:
1. We've ALL known anecdotes about the class anchor who won a Silver Star. Yes, plenty who've not been top performers in their class have become outstanding officers. Plenty more have not. Said another way, in fact, the military explicitly indicates that the top performers are the top prospects for the next step. Let's quit mytholigizing this one. The best ARE the best. Nearly always.
Think of this as a sliding scale in which the better the performance, especially in academics, the better the chance of success in the military. How do WE know this is the case? Because the military tells us so. It's the way they keep score and recognize soldiers and sailors accordingly. So even if it's not "true", it's the way it works. Get the idea that lesser performance is somehow excuseable out of your head. Anecdotes aside, it's myth
2. And while not exclusively a function of being a math and English whiz, that is THE major component in evaluating future officers. Consequently they are most often, in conjunction with their PT and military evals, the top prospects who get the top spots. Sorry. English and especially math count big time. Let's quit trying to falsely minimize this by pointing that "Well, I knew ol' Joe and he was a real claude in math but man could he shoot a gun
3. Yes, perhaps that young man managed a stellar performance with the Senator resulting in a principal nom. Perhaps not. None has a clue about what really precipitated. Don't speculate.
Perhaps the young man in question had that certain factor that makes people like him, want to follow him. Those kind of guys make the best officers.
Were this the case, the entire process would be dramatically different. This sounds nice, but holds no substance.
Now to the final point. It made me chuckle, suggesting that somehow a congressman or senator have this magical power to be able to discern who might make the best military leaser.
I like the fact that Congressmen have the ability to place those applicants with the intangibles that indicate good chances for success above those with stellar gpas and not much more.
You've far more confidence in these politicians than evidence might warrant, imo. I confess to really chuckling!