- Joined
- Sep 18, 2008
- Messages
- 745
A relatively short interview hardly provides the proper insight - especially given the number of cadets being sorted. Moreover, the purpose of the change is to reduce the instances of "5 and fly". You shouldn't get to leapfrog me simply because you agree to a longer initial commitment- especially if I worked twice as hard as you as a cadet. Work ethic is a trait. If you don't have it as a cadet you wont just miraculously develop it as an officer. Just my opinion. I respect yours
Disclaimer: I am in no way knowledgeable of the inner workings of the assignment process for the U.S. Army or USMA.
That being said...
While it may be relatively short, an interview reveals the intangibles that a transcript or class rank will not (character, an ability to present their thoughts in a clear and concise manner, personality, etc). Assuming the Army has some similarities with the USCG, each community (branch) has a different personality and persona. The cadet needs to be able to fit that persona as well as demonstrate academic, physical, and military prowess. For example, USCGA cadets interested in flight school must take a written exam and interview in addition to being judged by their class rank. The interview is known as the deciding factor - I have seen cadets get the top score of the test and ultimately be denied flight school and I have seen cadets at the bottom of the class be awarded a position. Just because a cadet has a high rank, it doesn't mean they are the best fit for the branches they are interested in.
Furthermore, I think it is poor logic to assume that because a cadet has a higher class rank, they must have worked harder. Yes, there are cadets/midshipmen at all SAs who are content to only meet the minimum in any or all factors of class rank. However, there are cadets who struggle on a day to day basis despite doing everything in their power to learn the material needed to pass a class. Just as physical fitness comes easier or harder to others, so do academics. I can tell you the number one cadet in my class was extremely intelligent and, although she put the work in, there were several subjects that just came easily to her. That doesn't devalue the effort she put in or her accomplishments by any means, but it doesn't make her better than the cadets who didn't have a natural aptitude but spent several hours in tutoring and with their instructor outside of classroom hours only to barely scrape a C.
I agree with you in that you absolutely need a good work ethic to truly succeed as an officer. But an officer's duties and responsibilities are vastly different than a cadet's, and are inherently less "academic." Leadership is key, as is organization, an ability to manage your time effectively, and being able to research and think critically (as well as several other things). Class rank may tell you some things, but I don't believe it reveals who will be a great officer and who will not.