West Point is having no problem attracting top talent. Northern Virginia Districts have ten elite candidates per district (only 2 or 3 get in). They should start increasing the commitment length to align what is best for the Army with the current market demand.
NOVA is a unique district since that area is littered with military/federal government workers, making it inherently more competitive than say a state like North Dakota due to the congressional nomination process. It's similar to the district around Annapolis since the Naval Academy is so close.
Is confining SA grads with more time doing things for OER bullets really the best use for the military or the grads themselves? The military is too restrictive in ways, doesn't allow the opportunity for people to flex their creative muscles or become true subject master experts in their craft. The world we live in today is built off data and information. The military uses outdated equipment and processes that's not in line with the private sector.
Tell me, why should the head of the cyber branch be someone who's been in armor or aviation their whole career and doesn't have the slightest clue around a command line? Oh yeah, it's because of how the military promotes its officers and those who are competent in a desirable skill have long since taken off. I don't see orthopedic surgeons or dentists really sticking it out for the 20 years, for instance. Many of them actual resign their commissions so there's no chance of them getting called back and taken away from their families and private practice. If you own your own practice you don't want to get deployed as that's bad for business.
It's funny, sitting through TAPS the DoL lady asked us which group of military members had the hardest time transitioning. I hit it on the nose with senior officers. She hands out her contact information to all military members who go through her class and mentioned how there was a Navy 3 star who kept saying he was worth 300K to F500 companies. That's probably what he was making when all-combined at the time, but it's not realistic for the private sector. There's no such thing as specializing in "leadership". It's all about being competent in something as a specialist and then moving up. The military's system of promoting officers leaves these senior officers sacrificing a lot of their potential, or encourages those with competitive skillsets to leave for greener pastures.
You also have to consider, most people retire from the military when they are in their 40s or early 50s. That's when those in the private sector are at their highest earning years. To get your income cut down to 1/3 at that point (pension is really 1/3 of income when considering no BAH/BAS. This doesn't include VA disability of course), with potentially a family/kids to get through college is daunting. And then to enter the workforce and work your way back up at a private sector company. Just because you were an O6 doesn't mean you're entitled to a high position at a company. Google isn't going to make you a senior product manager or director because of that.
I think the service academy grad who leaves service at the 5-8 year mark is probably the best positioned for a clean break from service. Typically they won't have kids at that point, although they may be married. They're late twenties/early thirties which is certainly young enough to career pivot. They could get an MBA from a Top 20 school for next to nothing thanks to the GI Bill, and then enter either a F100 company or go onto investment banking at a bulge bracket or management consulting at MBB. Plus there's other great professions like legal, medical, etc. that can be covered thanks to the GI Bill.
I'm proud to have served and to be a Service Academy graduate, but I saw a lot less than stellar leadership during my time in. I mean, I was an EE/Computer Science guy too and saw how limited organizationally we were for top tech talent. The economy is heavily built off tech nowadays, and techies respect competence and flatter organizations than the rigidity that is the military echelon.
I'd rather capitalize on my skills and choose where I live rather than getting told where to go. Also the system really doesn't incentivize innovation or hard charging. I'm not getting a bonus no matter how hard I work, and the choice job I want may not even be available due to the billet system. I may not even get a decision on what I do, for instance. Why would I sacrifice my potential which could come back and bite my family in the butt financially?
Particularly with the blended retirement system, it's best to be a reservist with the right skill sets. There's no doubt the pension is handy later in life (70s on), but a SA grad sacrifices too much earning and career potential staying in the military for 20.
