"Universities that have provided preferential treatment for legacy students don't have a mission of producing military officers to lead our sons and daughters in dangerous places/situation."
The previous 4 Commanders-in-Chief have come from Ivy League schools. The conduct of the War in Iraq was as much dictated by the soldiers on the ground as it was by the men in Washington of which many were not trained military officers. I would like think that those who get us into combat are as competent as those who lead in combat, but that is not generally the case.
"In summary, we found that, on average, 1999 recruits were more highly educated than the equiv*alent general population, more rural and less urban in origin, and of similar income status. We did not find evidence of minority racial exploitation (by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). We did find evidence of a ?Southern military tradition? in that some states, notably in the South and West, provide a much higher proportion of enlisted troops by population."
Having lived in the South for 40 years and an understanding as of 1990 that 40% of our military came from 7 Southeastern States, it is a long-term view that an institution for the common good of its people must in the long-term represent the people which it serves. If you don't show the population from which you draw that there is opportunity for that population within this institution, you won't maintain the support of the populace. Our country is becoming more diverse, and lagging populations that are behind economically and educationally will need to be brought to standard if we are to survive as a country.
I am sure that throwing money alone will not resolve the issue. Given a choice and all things being equal, the same standard should be applied. Things are not equal.
