What's your take on this article and the premise that midshipmen aren't the Best and Brightest

Thank you for apologizing, because when I read your first post I was about to get pretty huffy. I was about to debate the rigors of USNA compared to an SMC, but I will leave that one alone. My DD is in her second year at VMI. She is on a Marine scholarship, and I would absolutely debate the Marines DO pick THE best and the brightest......instead of the best out of ten (or less in some areas), on a slate. USNA has it’s hands tied. USNA cannot just stack all the applications in the nation and pick the 1,100 best.....while NROTC and the other branches can. And they do.

So please, do not think your kid is any more elite than a ROTC student. My NROTC-MO won her scholarship competing against thousands across the nation. Your kid beat the nine other kids in your district. And yep - they will hold the exact same rank.

As opposed to ROTC competing with kids applying at the same school? It is pretty much the same thing.

Plus NROTC is also trying to achieve geographic and demographic diversity, so they can't "just take the best" either.
 
I've posted my thoughts on Professor Fleming on other threads. The bottom line, while there is certainly some truth to what he says, his conclusions are wrong. He turns limited observations into generalizations, and I really don't think he understands the mindset of the average Midshipman despite his years working with them. Does USNA have room to improve? --- absolutely. It is not perfect from either the Admissions or the operations perspective, but has done a pretty good job turning out Naval Officers and Leaders over the year.

There is plenty I didn't agree with when I was a Midshipman, and still from observations now. I also don't begrudge Professor Fleming for pointing out perceived flaws .. USNA should encourage more criticism , and use that as a basis for self improvement. Looking back, I recognize that the USNA education suffers to some degree from Group Think. Most of the Midshipmen have essentially the same profile, albeit from different socio-economic backgrounds, and then are molded into Naval Officers who largely think the same. Having someone like Professor Fleming stir the pot a bit can be good (but I would prefer to that he use internal channels intead of the press). As an aside-- I saw the same Group Think problem at my daughters East Coast Liberal Arts schools , from the opposite side of the spectrum.
 
Mr. Fleming is a professor and they all have there opinions ! He makes some valid points that are interesting to read , however seems like he’s over generalizing the student population as not worthy which is sad . My DS is a hopeful USAFA candidate and I would be a little hurt to read something like this if he were in there. I guess what I take out of it is the kids that don’t get in an academy and take another route to becoming an officer should not feel bad or unworthy , even the elite service academies have their issues !
 
QUOTE="EOD/SEALmom, post: 607825,
Thank you for apologizing, because when I read your first post I was about to get pretty huffy. I was about to debate the rigors of USNA compared to an SMC, but I will leave that one alone. My DD is in her second year at VMI. She is on a Marine scholarship, and I would absolutely debate the Marines DO pick THE best and the brightest......instead of the best out of ten (or less in some areas), on a slate. USNA has it’s hands tied. USNA cannot just stack all the applications in the nation and pick the 1,100 best.....while NROTC and the other branches can. And they do.

So please, do not think your kid is any more elite than a ROTC student. My NROTC-MO won her scholarship competing against thousands across the nation. Your kid beat the nine other kids in your district. And yep - they will hold the exact same rank.
I'm sorry. That came out as unfair toward NROTC. I guess it's just hard for me to put the two (NROTC and NA) on an equal playing field as far as the rigor and discipline that the NA inherently has. But yes, you are certainly correct in stating that they all have produced the best and worst officers.

DS was applying NROTC, but then ended up committing to NA. Personally, I would have preferred NROTC (for selfish reasons, i.e., less restrictions on him) and also because I feel that NROTC is the best of both worlds. We know of young men who received appointment to the NA, but chose NROTC instead.

Thank you for apologizing, because when I read your first post I was about to get pretty huffy. I was about to debate the rigors of USNA compared to an SMC, but I will leave that one alone. My DD is in her second year at VMI. She is on a Marine scholarship, and I would absolutely debate the Marines DO pick THE best and the brightest......instead of the best out of ten (or less in some areas), on a slate. USNA has it’s hands tied. USNA cannot just stack all the applications in the nation and pick the 1,100 best.....while NROTC and the other branches can. And they do.

So please, do not think your kid is any more elite than a ROTC student. My NROTC-MO won her scholarship competing against thousands across the nation. Your kid beat the nine other kids in your district. And yep - they will hold the exact same rank.

EOD/SEALmom,
I don't feel any one commissioning source is better than the other, and all once commissioned are the same rank, and will serve and lead well, or some won't.
However to say ROTC scholarship winners compete against thousands across the nation, and an SA appointee only had to beat nine(or less) others is well....
Let's just say many SA appointees have some or all of the following:
- multiple SA offers
- merit based scholarships to multiple universities
- accepted to Ivy(s) and/ or top universities
- accepted to SMC (s)
- merit based scholarship to SMC(s)
- 4 year ROTC offer(s)


This would mean those SA students competed highly (and won) on many levels against more than nine people. There are of course the ROTC cadets who share these same things, and there is no debating that.
So I don't feel any path is more "Elite" than another , but a personal choice for those who earned the options and opportunities to make. It just came across that ROTC was more competitive than an SA in your post.
Congratulations and best of luck to your DD at VMI, it too is a good path!
 
I'm sorry. That came out as unfair toward NROTC. I guess it's just hard for me to put the two (NROTC and NA) on an equal playing field as far as the rigor and discipline that the NA inherently has. But yes, you are certainly correct in stating that they all have produced the best and worst officers.

DS was applying NROTC, but then ended up committing to NA. Personally, I would have preferred NROTC (for selfish reasons, i.e., less restrictions on him) and also because I feel that NROTC is the best of both worlds. We know of young men who received appointment to the NA, but chose NROTC instead.

Thank you for apologizing, because when I read your first post I was about to get pretty huffy. I was about to debate the rigors of USNA compared to an SMC, but I will leave that one alone. My DD is in her second year at VMI. She is on a Marine scholarship, and I would absolutely debate the Marines DO pick THE best and the brightest......instead of the best out of ten (or less in some areas), on a slate. USNA has it’s hands tied. USNA cannot just stack all the applications in the nation and pick the 1,100 best.....while NROTC and the other branches can. And they do.

So please, do not think your kid is any more elite than a ROTC student. My NROTC-MO won her scholarship competing against thousands across the nation. Your kid beat the nine other kids in your district. And yep - they will hold the exact same rank.

Not an elitist myself (yeah OTS!) but just pointing out that to charge one as an elitist and then say your 'kid' won a more competitive scholarship than an academy appointee can be perceived at best, as being incredibly defensive and at worst, elitist. Many who are appointed to the academies have also won National and Type I ROTC scholarships to state schools and elite universities, mine included. The whole debate to me is silly...different people thrive in different situations and thank goodness there are three commissioning sources from which to produce future military leaders. The elitism and defensiveness on all sides is just not productive.
 
Not an elitist myself (yeah OTS!) but just pointing out that to charge one as an elitist and then say your 'kid' won a more competitive scholarship than an academy appointee can be perceived at best, as being incredibly defensive and at worst, elitist. Many who are appointed to the academies have also won National and Type I ROTC scholarships to state schools and elite universities, mine included. The whole debate to me is silly...different people thrive in different situations and thank goodness there are three commissioning sources from which to produce future military leaders. The elitism and defensiveness on all sides is just not productive.

I agree. I took deep offense last night with the original post, saying that rotc kids were not the best and brightest and then questioning how they could be on the same playing fields as SA kids. I came off more harsh than I intended, and I am sorry. Probably should have slept on it before I replied!
 
I guess it's just hard for me to put the two (NROTC and NA) on an equal playing field as far as the rigor and discipline that the NA inherently has.

I think you totally missed the point. It's pretty clear that you don't have any idea of what goes on at a military school.
 
My DS didn't get into USNA and didn't get a NROTC contract, but I'll still consider it a loss to both. Instead he will receive over $150,000 in merit based scholarships, joined an honors diploma program and has guaranteed summer internships that turn into employment after school. He may or may not take advanced standing and commission.

My point is there's not room for all the best and brightest in 5 or 50 schools. The VP of Institutional Advancement at Lewis and Clark College was AROTC. He encouraged DS to think outside the box because in the end, the better you absorb everything you have to learn In as many subjects as you can learn, the better and more well rounded leader you'll be. There's something to be said for a liberal arts education.
 
I'm sorry. That came out as unfair toward NROTC. I guess it's just hard for me to put the two (NROTC and NA) on an equal playing field as far as the rigor and discipline that the NA inherently has. But yes, you are certainly correct in stating that they all have produced the best and worst officers.

DS was applying NROTC, but then ended up committing to NA. Personally, I would have preferred NROTC (for selfish reasons, i.e., less restrictions on him) and also because I feel that NROTC is the best of both worlds. We know of young men who received appointment to the NA, but chose NROTC instead.

Thank you for apologizing, because when I read your first post I was about to get pretty huffy. I was about to debate the rigors of USNA compared to an SMC, but I will leave that one alone. My DD is in her second year at VMI. She is on a Marine scholarship, and I would absolutely debate the Marines DO pick THE best and the brightest......instead of the best out of ten (or less in some areas), on a slate. USNA has it’s hands tied. USNA cannot just stack all the applications in the nation and pick the 1,100 best.....while NROTC and the other branches can. And they do.

So please, do not think your kid is any more elite than a ROTC student. My NROTC-MO won her scholarship competing against thousands across the nation. Your kid beat the nine other kids in your district. And yep - they will hold the exact same rank.

Not an elitist myself (yeah OTS!) but just pointing out that to charge one as an elitist and then say your 'kid' won a more competitive scholarship than an academy appointee can be perceived at best, as being incredibly defensive and at worst, elitist. Many who are appointed to the academies have also won National and Type I ROTC scholarships to state schools and elite universities, mine included. The whole debate to me is silly...different people thrive in different situations and thank goodness there are three commissioning sources from which to produce future military leaders. The elitism and defensiveness on all sides is just not productive.
Exactly. That last paragraph about ROTC being a nationwide competition was equally demeaning. My 17 Mid won both. My 20 was qualified for almost every school in America. So what? Who cares? Neither of them do. Because of their character and because of the Academy instilling in them humility and a true servant’s heart, they move on from past accomplishments and focus on their next set of responsibilities.

My 17 finished TBS this year. He grew to respect the ROTC and OCS kids very much. He has become fast friends with many of them. He, however, is very gung ho and seriously committed to the excellence demanded by the Corps. If they didn’t have the same, he wouldn’t have become close to them. That said, he did notice that the ROTC kids, in general, weren’t as ready for the military part as Academy kids. They still did well and caught up, but they had not lived the military life as had those who attended the Academy. He didn’t make a big deal of this, because it wasn’t important in the scheme of things. It was just an observation.

Great officers come from all of these paths. Crappy officers do as well. That ROTC chip on the shoulder is unflattering and, given the excellence of most ROTC officers, unnecessary.
 
Not an elitist myself (yeah OTS!) but just pointing out that to charge one as an elitist and then say your 'kid' won a more competitive scholarship than an academy appointee can be perceived at best, as being incredibly defensive and at worst, elitist. Many who are appointed to the academies have also won National and Type I ROTC scholarships to state schools and elite universities, mine included. The whole debate to me is silly...different people thrive in different situations and thank goodness there are three commissioning sources from which to produce future military leaders. The elitism and defensiveness on all sides is just not productive.

I agree. I took deep offense last night with the original post, saying that rotc kids were not the best and brightest and then questioning how they could be on the same playing fields as SA kids. I came off more harsh than I intended, and I am sorry. Probably should have slept on it before I replied!
Well, the good news is they are on the same playing field when it matters. ROTC and SA’s both serve us very well with the finest men and women imaginable. I’ll leave that superlative in place!
 
A colonel explained to him that the SAs value a combination of brains, brawn, and leadership somewhat equally. Only about one third of the incoming class is selected for academics; the other 2/3rds are chosen for other equally shiny traits. All are academically capable, but only that third is what you might label as “scholarly.” Our son eventually found that the brain trust is there, but he had to seek it out freshman year. Once he was fully into his major, he was fully tapped in to it and is no longer disappointed.

Perhaps an over simplification, but some truth. The oversimplification is that no candidate is going to be wholly within one of those categories , we try to get those that can max out in all categories, but naturally some are going to be stronger in one than the others.

While there are always some exceptions, I would agree that as a whole, the Service Academy experience is not particularly "scholarly" if you mean sitting around the library or laboratory discussing and stretching the boundaries of critical thinking. That's where professors like Prof. Fleming add something to USNA--pushing the Midshipmen and the Administration to evaluate what they are doing.
 
There are 1/C Mids being separated these two weeks for conduct/honor offenses - one month before commissioning! I imagine these incidents could happen in any college and in ROTC as well. It is just sad to see these self-destructions after putting in all the work for so long. They are definitely not the best or brightest.

Outstanding and mediocre naval officers come from both ROTC and USNA.
 
There are 1/C Mids being separated these two weeks for conduct/honor offenses - one month before commissioning!


I think this goes to show that there are certainly some standards being upheld, and in part refutes the broader assertions that might lead one to believe that the current state of the academies is akin to a remake of "Animal House" (hey, if Fleming can reference Disneyland, then I feel at liberty to make my own pop culture reference here). As the father of a USMA cadet, as well as having family connections to USNA, I have my own thoughts about both the Fleming article and its references to Heffington’s letter regarding USMA.


In brief, it is obvious to any critical reader that Fleming is much more concerned with being an iconoclast or provocateur than with giving a fully accurate account of some of the modern day challenges that (rightly or wrongly) the academies face. Replete with hyperbole and generalizations, it reads more as propaganda than a serious critique, damaging its credibility and the arguments that do merit scrutiny.


The Heffington letter, which Fleming describes as giving him such “personal joy” can be found here for any who are interested: https://medium.com/@UlisseRJ/open-letter-to-grads-from-ltc-ret-heffington-659dac71511f. It has been discussed extensively on this forum in the past so there is little to be accomplished by rehashing it here. However, despite the larger points that it makes which might bear some validity, my personal opinion is that it is overly anecdotal and personal in nature — once again painting with far too broad a brush.


In Fleming’s treatment of this letter, he refers only to Superintendent Caslen's initial generic statements on it without any mention of the more detailed point-by-point refutation that he subsequently made. Fleming could have chosen to take issue with some of General Caslen's counterarguments, but to simply pretend that he never responded to the letter’s assertions beyond “evoking” graduates is disingenuous.


One related question that I have regards “The Federalist” and why they chose to publish this incendiary piece by Fleming in the first place. Without involving politics, and despite what this media outlet purports to be, it is increasingly under scrutiny for its penchant of disseminating Kremlin-based agitprop and there is curiosity as to who actually funds “The Federalist”? Further questions could center around who exactly is served by making such inflated accusations against the honesty and value of our national institutions.


My personal disappointment in these two treatises only involves seeing the negative effect on interested parents and prospective candidates — calling into question the overall value of the academies and their impact on cadets and midshipmen. Our DS had four-year scholarship offers for both AROTC and NROTC at fabulous schools (as well an another academy appointment) and made his own decision to attend USMA. From our perspective, all I can say is that neither he nor our family have any regrets whatsoever and we could hardly be more thrilled with what we have experienced during the past two years.
 
There are 1/C Mids being separated these two weeks for conduct/honor offenses - one month before commissioning!


I think this goes to show that there are certainly some standards being upheld, and in part refutes the broader assertions that might lead one to believe that the current state of the academies is akin to a remake of "Animal House" (hey, if Fleming can reference Disneyland, then I feel at liberty to make my own pop culture reference here). As the father of a USMA cadet, as well as having family connections to USNA, I have my own thoughts about both the Fleming article and its references to Heffington’s letter regarding USMA.


In brief, it is obvious to any critical reader that Fleming is much more concerned with being an iconoclast or provocateur than with giving a fully accurate account of some of the modern day challenges that (rightly or wrongly) the academies face. Replete with hyperbole and generalizations, it reads more as propaganda than a serious critique, damaging its credibility and the arguments that do merit scrutiny.


The Heffington letter, which Fleming describes as giving him such “personal joy” can be found here for any who are interested: https://medium.com/@UlisseRJ/open-letter-to-grads-from-ltc-ret-heffington-659dac71511f. It has been discussed extensively on this forum in the past so there is little to be accomplished by rehashing it here. However, despite the larger points that it makes which might bear some validity, my personal opinion is that it is overly anecdotal and personal in nature — once again painting with far too broad a brush.


In Fleming’s treatment of this letter, he refers only to Superintendent Caslen's initial generic statements on it without any mention of the more detailed point-by-point refutation that he subsequently made. Fleming could have chosen to take issue with some of General Caslen's counterarguments, but to simply pretend that he never responded to the letter’s assertions beyond “evoking” graduates is disingenuous.


One related question that I have regards “The Federalist” and why they chose to publish this incendiary piece by Fleming in the first place. Without involving politics, and despite what this media outlet purports to be, it is increasingly under scrutiny for its penchant of disseminating Kremlin-based agitprop and there is curiosity as to who actually funds “The Federalist”? Further questions could center around who exactly is served by making such inflated accusations against the honesty and value of our national institutions.


My personal disappointment in these two treatises only involves seeing the negative effect on interested parents and prospective candidates — calling into question the overall value of the academies and their impact on cadets and midshipmen. Our DS had four-year scholarship offers for both AROTC and NROTC at fabulous schools (as well an another academy appointment) and made his own decision to attend USMA. From our perspective, all I can say is that neither he nor our family have any regrets whatsoever and we could hardly be more thrilled with what we have experienced during the past two years.

This is the single best post I have seen on this topic....or on this forum for that matter. Well done @Grateful Nation
 
I think we need to move beyond the desire for “best and brightest” labels. Just be comfortable with what you’ll be asked to do and how you plan on doing it. Don’t expect more of others than you would have them expect of you.

Everything else SHOULD work itself out.
 
Bruce Fleming is kind of infamous on campus. He is a notoriously tough grader and does lots of unorthodox behaviors during class times. He does have a few points but these issues apply to all colleges including the elite ones. Most students I talk to regard him either negatively or as a clown. I would not take his writing too seriously.

What courses does Bruce Fleming teach at USNA?
 
My DS sat in his class, during a CVW last Fall. For what it's worth, Bruce was not on his soapbox that day.
I read a couple of Bruce's diatribes, and I too was incensed by a couple of his points.
Nevertheless, I will defend his right to make them.

If USNA wanted to fire him, they would. I don't believe that he has tenure (Not sure of that, though).
The fact that they don't (fire him), speaks volumes (at least to me) that they are fair in their assessment of his value as a professor, in spite of these annual re-hashed diatribes.

If you ask 50 Mids what they think of him, 25 will tell you they loathe him, and 25 will tell you that he's the best professor there.
I have never met the guy, but my DS said that he got the feeling that this man truly cares about the Mids he is teaching, and it's not "just a job" for him. Even though my DS is only 18 years old, I value his opinion in these matters and I like the fact that he has an open mind.
Okay, I had something to do with that, I know.

He is currently under review for inappropriate behavior and not teaching this spring. My Mid had him for a few weeks before he was removed from the classroom. Fleming's reading material/choice of texts being studied are being used and are very much in keeping with Fleming's beliefs. Hope he's removed for good.
 
Back
Top