Having cadets plan training isn't exactly the blind leading the blind, but would you rather have your cadet learn the basics of shooting, moving, and communicating from a platoon of soldiers who've done it in Iraq and Afghanistan, or a 21-year-old cadet whose overseas experience was a language AIAD in France?
I don't think cadets are dumb or incapable. Just woefully inexperienced.
I suppose it all depends to whom you talk. I've met more old grads than I can count who think the Corps lacks the crucible aspect of old, to its detriment.
All valid points.
If the sole purpose of USMA was to train cadets in the basics of enlisted soldiering, the answer is very clear. Apply experienced NCO's to the plebes, don't bother trying to provide the upperclassmen with experience on how to lead as officers.
There is probably some validity to the cruciable aspect. But for every "the corps has" story, there are counterpoints. Did running in black boots really produce better officers? Military movement in Dress Grey? Taking a shower/go for a swim? Hanging out? Tougher, maybe. More physically fit? Jury is out on that, I've seen arguments both ways.
I've not heard a single old or recent grad indicate that they believe making the upperclassmen accountable & involved in training their juniors was a bad thing. And most I've heard indicate it was an improvement in leadership training over what they experienced. Specifically that the current program exposes cadets to more real world leadership responsibilities and learning opportunities than they had.
I tend to give the most credence to the 2nd gen (and sometimes 3rd) discussions. When a grad who was a career officer in a line leadership is comparing experiences & learnings with their recent grad cadet who is just back from A'stan, etc.
One that comes to mind was a discussion about the role of firsties.... recent grad felt the firsties were on the whole, motivated to help their juniors succeed and become a better officer. And structured learning opportunities to help do so. And the 70's & 80's grads made a very clear point that was not the case for them, firsties largely just made their life miserable. Any true leadership development they received were in spite of upperclassmen, not because of.
This is probably less about whether having RA staff teach vs upperclassmen...
But does raise the question- is the experience a rising cow gets as squad/patrol leader in CBT cadre make them a better officer? Does it allow them to make mistakes & do their critical learning in an environment where the penalty for making a mistake is less? And if positive, does that outweigh the price a plebe pays for dealing with an inexperienced leader vs a senior RA NCO?
It's all a bit moot, the USMA program is what it currently is. It changes a bit from year to year, and based on comm's. And apparently even company. DS is in a "hot" company. His experience is different than friends in other companies. But I suspect good officers (and not as good) will come from each.
As a non-grad parent, it's all academic... Interesting to hear the grad viewpoints, but given the variety of opinions we just have to recognize that there are some common themes, yet every experience will be different. Good & bad leaders will come from each class both because of and in spite of whatever USMA did at the time.
