As an old grad, I respectfully disagree. I believe West Point's Engineering program is consistently rank pretty high in most undergraduate engineering rankings.
Probably, West Point has one of the best military history program, again for the undergraduate program. My perspective, an undergraduate degree should be seen it as what it is, a foundational degree. West Point is not best in many areas as an undergraduate institution as it focuses on producing well rounded graduates. West Point's English department is not competing against another college's English department to publish more paper or send more students to Masters or PhD programs.
My point was simply if you want to be the best in some field that is not Army officership, there is some place you can go that will most likely be better for it. We focus on producing well-rounded graduates. Well-rounded, as in a jack of all trades but master of none. If one wishes to be a master in some field, West Point is not the place to become such a master. This candidate clearly has some goal that he wishes to, and probably should, pursue vigorously. West Point isn't even on the same azimuth as his goal. So why should he waste his time?
Will he learn useful skills? Sure he will. If one learns to cook one has learned a useful skill, but learning to cook isn't going to make you the best football player in the world. If your goal is to be the world's best football player, why waste four years learning to cook? Because it's useful and will make you more well-rounded? Sure, but then you're four years behind your competition who spent their time learning to be better football players.
Yes, there is no doubt that the goal of West Point is to produce Army officers. However, that is not the only goal. If so we don't need West Point as ROTC and OCS can produce quality Army officers just like West Point. I think West Point is special because it produces more than Army officers. It produces future leaders of our country. Typically, 50% of a class leave the active duty when their service obligation is over. If so, West Point is not working as we are spending more than ROTC/OCS to produce Army officers, but more than 50% leave after 5 years. But their service to our country doesn't end there. I would say most, if not all, members of the Long Gray Line will acknowledge that West Point and Army experience contribute to their successes.
I acknowledge that I am most likely speaking naively when I say this, but I would argue that West Point has not produced the caliber of graduate that can outshine his ROTC/OCS peers in such a way as to warrant the distinction in cost per graduate, between the various commissioning sources, for quite some time. One would think there would be a noticeable difference between a graduate who went through ROTC and a graduate who went through a program costing more than twice what was spent on his ROTC counterpart. I think going to West Point positions you where you have easier access to success. It doesn't necessarily make the individual any better, it just puts them higher up on the ladder.
One more thing, wait until your 10 year reunion to see who is still in and who is still out. People change. Many things in life are not absolute.
I'm aware of this, but the advice I have given many and will continue to give is that you should go to/stay at West Point to be an Army officer. I fully believe that if you're not at West Point to be an Army officer your time can be better spent at some other institution. That's not a knock on the Academy just a reality of what it's about.
By the way, if you just graduated, congratulations. Some of my classmates I thought that will be lifers are out and some of my classmates I thought they will be five and fly are still in.
Thank you. I came in believing I'd leave after five, but after having spoken with some other five-and-fly folks who stayed longer than they initially anticipated, perhaps I'll stay in longer. Time will tell.
