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.