It's interesting that the writer left SMCs out of the equation. Where would the SMC officers fall on the stereotype scale? Seems some might fall in line with "ROTC" for the "regular college" life that is available to those who look for those experiences (TAMU, UNG, VTCC), but other schools might be closer to the "all military all the time experience" of an academy (Norwich(?), Citadel, VMI). Probably comes down to physical preparation, talent, innate leadership potential, common sense, academic preparation, adaptability and mission focus. It's a fairly individualized distinction, but going into it, the academy recruit would generally have an edge in terms of academic preparation.
The overall message I get from that is that education, and continuing education, is key. That would hold true for an academy grad, an SMC grad, an ROTC grad and an OCS grad as well.
I don't think this is something the general public appreciates about the military. (It is certainly not something I fully recognized until I started paying attention to it.)
(P.S. Norwich has a civilian population, but I don't know if the cadet experience is more like the "all cadet all the time" life at VMI, or more like the "you can choose to participate in outside-the-corps college life in your free time" like at UNG. Which is it?)
