Great critique on the service academies

TOUCHE'. After I wrote it, I expected LITS to jump in and catch my fubar.

let me qualify the statement:

"This is why the "ACADEMIES" generally bring in "MORE" cadets/plebes than they "PLAN" on graduating.

LOL!!!:thumb:

I was going to say something but doing the math in my head was too hard. I'm a dumb ring knocker after all!
 
While I was a serving Marine officer (via PLC, I was not a USNA grad), I was part of a working group that spent some time at Sandhurst, the British Royal Military Academy, observing their system. Tom Ricks frequently suggests that the American service academies would be better off going to a Sandhurst model: basically, one post-college year of concentrated military instruction (in and out of the field). I think Ricks even proposes that West Point as an institution would not close, but would convert to the "Sandhurst" for the Army; USNA would be the variant for the Navy (in the UK, Dartmouth Naval College); with the same true for the other services.

There was a lot to like about Sandhurst, I thought, including very high levels of professionalism from the Senior non-coms in charge of training the Officer Cadets ("O/Cs"), and a growing degree of freedom as the O/Cs progressed through the training (they all lived on post but had significant off-post liberty privileges during the last third of their training).

HOWEVER, I found Sandhurst (and the British officer corps in general) to be very "posh" and old money -- and the Brits said they envied how our officer corps is much more representative of all walks of life and is not seen as "posh public schoolboys" by the enlisted ranks (or "other ranks," as they say). One great thing about the Service Academies, I think, is that the straight up guarantee of four years, fully paid, with a college degree at the end, draws in lots of middle class and working class kids. If you go to a "Sandhurst model" (the Brits don't even really have an ROTC equivalent), you get standardized and highly focused training, and candidates who tend to really know their own minds, but you also only get the people who had the money to go to college up front.

I also wholeheartedly agree with the good points already made -- just wanted to point out an additional plus of having the SAs as part of the overall officer accession program.
 
I was going to say something but doing the math in my head was too hard. I'm a dumb ring knocker after all!

I knew there was a reason!!!
:biggrin:

In all honesty; I've heard similar critiques and suggestions about our academies by many civilians and those ignorant of the military. But it still surprises me that a "SUPPOSED" educated person, who has been teaching naval academy students for 25 years, can't understand the most basic concept of the academies. What he says is what I would expect from an ignorant USC, Purdue, Georgetown, or Universityofwhereverthehell professor. This guy just proves he's part of the problem. To make so many false assumptions and mis-characterizations, shows that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
I'm guessing every cadet and midshipman can name at least one civilian faculty member who has worked at an academy for decades but is still clueless about the military.
 
I'm guessing every cadet and midshipman can name at least one civilian faculty member who has worked at an academy for decades but is still clueless about the military.

You sir, are not wrong... :yllol::yllol::yllol:

I know we had an instructor here who once wrote a memo to the Superintendent geared at forcing all cadet to salute not only officers but tenured faculty members in order to "increase the amount of respect given by cadets to civillian instructors."

He responded to the memo with an OCS Application :shake:
 
You sir, are not wrong... :yllol::yllol::yllol:

I know we had an instructor here who once wrote a memo to the Superintendent geared at forcing all cadet to salute not only officers but tenured faculty members in order to "increase the amount of respect given by cadets to civillian instructors."

He responded to the memo with an OCS Application :shake:

Wait a minute, I believe we had that rumor while I was there too. Was it a female with black wild hair?
 
If you are looking for some sort of analysis/studies about the miltiary, go to
DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER or www.dtic.mil and use the search function.
.
Quote:
We conclude that Academy graduates have the lowest retention rates, whereas OCS graduates have the highest retention rates. Among male officers, retention rates are higher for ROTC graduates than for those with Direct Appointments; among female officers retention rates are higher for Direct Appointments than ROTC graduates. The Promotion to O-4 Model
indicates that the effect of commissioning source is different within gender, race and marital status groups. The results of the promotion to O-5 model contrasts with those of the O-4 models. Academy graduates are more likely to be promoted to Lieutenant Colonel than those from other sources, followed by ROTC graduates and then Direct Appointments​

This pretty much confirms my suspicion.... and it's not surprising.

Some of this is the nature of "elite" credentials vs more mainstream. We can argue whether the rep is deserved or not, but the reality is that graduates of perceived elite programs have more options to move to different orgs. But will see higher/faster promotion rates in a given org.

IE: the stanford MBA has more headhunters chasing them than the MBA from localstateU. And both have more than the BS graduate.

US Service academy grads headhunters specifically targeting them at the 5 year point. And later. I've not heard of any for other commissioning sources, yet I could see it happen for ROTC grads from big name universities as well. But not for local_state_U.

The real question is: Is losing some percentage of academy grads at the 5 year point a problem? Or just a natural part of dealing with an org that pre-selects for top performers?

We see this in corporations.... the fast movers are very entrepreneurial. They zig-zag upwards by moving. Harder to do in the military, but you will have some who leave due to opportunities not offered to others.

But does that imply lack of loyalty? Probably.

So maybe the 2nd best, who is fully committed to the org might be the one you want to keep. But you can reach the other end of the extreme, where people stay, tough things out because they are risk averse or can't attract other options. Some percentage will be solid workers, but another chunk will be people reaching the limit of their performance capability. I think the military handles this via their "promotable" reviews, but I'll defer to others. It's hit or miss in the civvy world, there's not a magic filter. And diversity starts to skew things.

In large orgs, it's well understood that you'll probably be losing your top 5-10% on a regular basis. And usually lose your bottom 10% due to performance & abandonment. Corporations then work on the next bottom 20-30 percent either to get them up to performance or move them out.

Note that none of this has anything to do with the quality of specific officers from different commissioning sources. It's perception, that may or may not be deserved. With some long history indicating it is deserved.... on average, the academies produce some excellent leadership. But perception nonetheless.

Selection bias also factors into academy career results.... While I believe the academy process is a different level of leadership training than just a degree, I also see that post grad results can be partially explained by the fact that they pick from the top of the applicant pool to start with. Many are screened out even before applying just due to the core requirements.

All that said.... still back to my view that Flemming takes bits of truth and runs way farther with them than the facts support. And that our military needs all three commissioning sources.

Regarding Sandhurst- A brit co-worker familiar with Sandhurst and USMA grads and UK elite degrees commented that they are two totally different experiences and focus. To the point that even in the UK, people know and respect USMA more than Sandhurst. My impression is that Sandhurst is more like our war college experience. Maybe with a bit more focus on polish, but not to the extent of the US academies.
 
The real question is: Is losing some percentage of academy grads at the 5 year point a problem? Or just a natural part of dealing with an org that pre-selects for top performers?

My answer is no.

When dealing with human beings, how can we predict what they will do for next 20 to 30 years? I don't think anyone could devise a system that can predict with high accuracy of people's career path/career success.

If 50% retention after 5 year point for SA grads is low, what should be the percentage and why? If the answer is it should be higher, than would 55% work? 54%?

The USMA existed for 210 years and its graudates have contributed greatly to the success of our country.
 
This is something that many tend to forget. An academy education (As well as ROTC) and further training, doesn't just benefit that particular branch of the military. The experience, training, education, discipline, commitment, integrity, loyalty, etc... of these individuals makes them better employees and managers in the civilian world. Which in turn, makes for a better and more productive nation.

This is not to say that the military is a training and jobs program. It isn't. But if all the training and education we provide to satisfy OUR MISSION, happens to have side benefits for the country as a whole when these people leave military service, then that MUST be included in the equation.
 
An English Professor tellus us how to best prepare young men and women for combat service in the Army, Navy and Airforce? I don't think so. Go back to academia and write a book or something. Leave the warrier talk to warriers.
 
Acid Testing

It is very interesting to witness, how one article from one author, can stir so much passion and energy. This is good to reflect and re-evaluate the end result the SA is striving to obtain. I have always admired those who accept the challenges to prepare, compete, complete and lead through the lessons forged at the SA.

What is just as important as parents and mentors is to identify and challenges those who desire to work hard and attend a SA. It’s our responsibility to instill the core values the SA seek in our young people. Our schools across the country are failing our kids by not equipping them with the skills necessary to start college. The SA will suffer from ill prepared applicants and further more, we as a country will soon fall short in the ever-competing global markets.

In today’s ever changing culture, the “Where is my prize for participating?” and “everyone is a winner”, attitude will be sorely surprised in the difficult environment were only “Number One” gets the prize. The SA serves a very special purpose developing tomorrow’s leadership whether serving a career in our armed forces or leaving and being standouts in the business world. The SA does evolve to the changing enemy and must change. I do applaud the English teacher for causing us to debate the goodness of our SA and appreciate how special they are.
 
Well, after reading all six pages of comments, I guess Prof Fleming's review wasn't as great as I thought it was :rolleyes:

It sure is tough trying to cut away all the BS and find the truth

Never considered his history as a writer either and what might motivate him to write. Yes, I can agree that the "rick-knockers" part bothered me the most and goes against what current Army officers have told me in the past

I wish I could read the rebuttal that was posted several times...too bad wordpress is blocked for the time being on the West Point servers

I have to say...I know it sounds weird but I am pretty grateful to be at West Point and there really is nowhere else I'd rather be. This place has provided me with so much and changed me pretty radically in so many different ways (in good ways) that my previous civilian life could probably never have... I actually like this place a lot. I think it will be worth it in the long run. I mean, you can't really complain about getting paid while going to school as well as the other things that make West Point not such a bad place to live but are sometimes taken for granted. This is not to mention some of the fantastic opportunities that are offered here. Yes, cynicism will never end and most of my friends complain quite a bit. I have yet to meet a cadet who has something positive to say about being at the academy. There are certainly times when you can hear a collective sigh at the shenanigans that are sometimes forced down on us and at such times and I am guilty of having fits of anger at times when things got really ludicrous. But there's really nothing you can do about it and its hard to understand why some things even happen. I have to say it can get pretty confusing and easy to lose track of why you're here if you don't stay focused on the goal and keep a positive attitude.

-CS
 
Back
Top