I have a lot of problems with the article, which I had to read 3 times to make sure I understood all his points. "I thought I was long winded"
First and biggest problem I have, is that you CAN'T teach at a military academy for 25 years, COMPLAIN about pretty much it's entire existence, and NOT BE PART OF THE PROBLEM!!! Therefor, I put very little credence in his opinion, when he IS part of the problem. And yes, I do agree that the academies have their problem. Number one of which, "I believe and is my opinion", is that in the last decade or so have put too much emphasis on political correctness and diversity recruitment, but NOT in the right way. They put too much emphasis on race, ethnicity, gender, and similar characteristics. And they have lowered the standards in order to reach their goals. While standards may also be lowered for athletics, this is a much smaller percentage of the student body and isn't as big of an issue. Issue? Yes. Just not as big.
Next; for someone who has been there for 25 years, he has absolutely NO IDEA what the academies are or what they teach. To allow transfers and not have a cadet/plebe participate for the entire 4 years is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I won't even debate that. If he doesn't understand the whole concept of BCT through to graduation, teamwork, class, etc... then he's an idiot.
Accepting older student??? Again; he doesn't know anything about the academy. People need to realize that someone who spent 25 years there, and doesn't understand the reason behind some of these policies, is the real waste at the academy.
The academies aren't "Infantilizing" students. He has no concept that you can't effectively LEAD, until you know how to follow. Live off campus? What a tart. I have absolutely NOTHING against ROTC or OCS; but the number one difference between them and the academies is that the academies are 100% military 24/7. You can't be that if you aren't living with each other 24/7. And disagree if you want; this is probably the #1 benefit the academies have over ROTC and OCS. They aren't 1 or 2 days a week for a couple hours.
What shows Mr. Fleming's IGNORANCE, and even stupidity, is that a couple points later he says we should stop awarding pay and benefits to the cadets at the academies and prep school. So how the hell would you allow them to live OFF BASE like you suggested. I suppose he'll want them to be allowed to have part time jobs too to raise money.
My last point; and believe me, I could list at least a dozen more inaccuracies, points of ignorance, and plain B.S. opinions; is when he says that those graduating from the academies are "Frequently perceived by enlisted military as arrogant ring knockers". I have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE with this. Most of you who know me know; I am NOT an academy grad. I am NOT an ROTC grad. I am NOT an OCS. I AM NOT A COMMISSIONED OFFICER. I am a Retired NON-COMMISSIONED Officer. I AM the enlisted folk he is talking about. And in the period of 1978-1999 (And for a few years beyond when I was still close to many friends still on active duty); the enlisted military, at least in the air force, thought very highly of academy grad officers. Nothing against ROTC grads, but we (The Enlisted), knew exactly how competitive and challenging it was to get into the academy and to graduate from there; and we thought higher of academy grads than we did ROTC and OTS. And as senior NCO's; many with B.S/MA degrees ourselves; we found MOST academy grads 2Lt new to active duty to be very willing to learn from their more experienced NCO's, and they wanted to be better leaders. And their 24/7 military mentality from the academy made them much more understanding of young enlisted personnel and their problems when they became O-3 and were commanding. No, I have nothing against ROTC and OCS, but my first hand experience has been that of the 3 commissioning programs, the enlisted force generally had the most respect for the academy grads.
Anyway; that's why I find very little merit in Mr. Fleming's "OPINION". It is full of misunderstandings of the academies, ignorance on the purpose of the academies, and he is biased because he doesn't recognize the fact that it is HE who is part of any problems at the academies. And if he can't recognize that, then he sure in hell can't recognize what the real problem is.
I am however very impressed by the rebuttal by Rajiv Srinivasan
http://rajivsrinivasan.wordpress.co...tive-point-average-rebuttal-to-bruce-fleming/