The US Air Force Academy: Elite Undergraduate College?

I have had a couple instructors who clearly did not know how to teach well

Skies, and anyone else... Surely this has never been any issue at any school you've ever attended or even one which sent you their brochure. :lolatyou: I know, it's a little bit of a whine on my part, but really... you think all the graduate students from China who "teach" Calculus to the students at Flagship State U are actually good teachers, qualified to teach anything? Many of them can barely speak English.
 
When you can't attack the merits of the article directly, might as well make a vaguely racist ad hominem attack, eh?
You could say that there are a great many non-native English speakers that can't teach because they can't communicate to their students! Some teach calc, some teach a variety of other subjects. Regardless of the level of the University or the level of the teacher's education, there are going to be some terrible, and some excellent teachers. Some terrible teachers have a doctorate. Some have a GED. Some teach at the Community college, some teach at top notch "elite" schools.
 
Scoutpilot is, as usual, spot on. While the writer veers off at the end into broad criticisms that aren't that helpful (and may be laced with personal dissatisfaction at life choices made), his underlying assessments seem reasonable, especially with regards to research opportunities and the expertise level of professors. More to the point, it seems like a conversation worth having, and the reflexive defensiveness of most of the answers on here is a little disappointing.

SAs clearly provide a different kind of college experience than other undergrad institutions. It stands to reason that the very things that make them different -- and, in many ways, more holistically challenging -- would involve trade-offs that mean they place less priority on the things that other institutions value. This is useful to recognize. Especially if and when the marketing language used to attract students mimics the language of these other institutions.

His question isn't: Is AFA providing a better education than TAs in entry-level classes at Flagship State U? It is: Is AFA providing an education that is equivalent in expertise, opportunity, and teaching to the elite undergrad college experiences out there? As in: MIT, CalTech, Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Amherst, Swarthmore, etc? It'd probably be useful to speak with the (small sample of) students who transfer between these institutions in either direction. I might expect to hear that the opportunities for pure research and general intellectual inquiry and scholarship that you find at Williams or Princeton or Pomona exceed those found at USMA or USAFA, but that the overall human and personal challenges and opportunities that you find at the SAs exceed those found at the other institutions. Different strokes for different folks, but it's worth it to be straightforward about these differences when guiding kids in making the choice in one direction or the other.

I do think that human and personal challenges count as 'education' of an extremely important variety and are a reason to go to an SA (or do any number of things in life, military or non-military). But that's not what accrediting bodies rate colleges on, and it's not what is meant in the course of this article -- or general conversation -- when discussing 'elite education' in the higher ed context.

This exact issue came up in a thread a few months ago with the kid who wanted to transfer out of one of the SAs (was it USMA?) because he didn't feel as academically challenged as he'd hoped to, and didn't think that the professors or classes would provide the depth of focus in his area of academic interest that he found himself craving. He articulated the exact cadet experience that this article provides the institutional framework for understanding. If the OP is still reading, I'd suggest you try to find it.

The SAs seem to be handily meeting their needs as institutions that serve the purposes of the service without providing that particular kind of education, so it doesn't seem to be an important issue. Most cadets and midshipman actively choose to prioritize the holistic challenges of an SA over that other kind of educational experience -- which is not JUST the opportunity to drink beer in your dorm and go to parties (as it's sometimes caricatured) but is also the opportunity to focus exclusively on your intellectual interests & maturation in a way that, honestly, you'll never really get again in life. And to do so with true experts in your field who might very well be pushing the boundaries of that field.

Life is a series of trade-offs, and recognizing that no single institution can be everything to everyone is worthwhile. Princeton wouldn't pretend that it's better at building leaders or physically challenging its students than West Point even if some of its students happen to be elite marathoners or rowers or eventually become generals or admirals. They're comfortable with that. They have a different mission.

Some individuals on this forum may not heavily value that other particular kind of intellectual pursuit, but it is an element of how 'elite' education is defined and is something that is generally considered to have worth in society. So, yeah, it's a trade-off, and it's useful to acknowledge it as such for the handful of kids who're mulling over that particular question.
 
Hi again everyone. Thank you for the incredibly thorough responses - I really appreciate it. I just wanted to clarify that my main issue/concern was whether or not USAFA would be able to offer the same depth of education as other institutions. The article seemed to corroborate concerns I had about the quality of education offered at USAFA, which is why I sought more information. Nevertheless, I understand that the US service academies are institutions whose main goal differs from that of traditional colleges and universities - service academies produce military officers first and foremost. Once again, thank you for the insightful responses and information.
 
I find some of the author's critiques odd. He criticizes the requirements placed upon instructors frequently, but rather glosses over the fact that many of them exist to provide more opportunity for cadet learning (hence the high rating in instructor availability). The bit about research taking away from teaching applies here, as well. USAFA instructors are there to teach, and research is a secondary consideration. If that bothered him that much, he should seek a position at a research institution.

USAFA may not be the best at producing Masters of one topic (although it ranks very well in several degrees). The prevailing theory is to educate in many areas. Not many schools have the same variety and number of required courses. One of USAFA's goals is to provide grads with foundations in many topics. I'm no NASA engineer, but when I talk with one, I'm not instantly lost. Similarly, the behavioral scientist and I can have a decent conversation.
 
To that end, they generally lack the credentials of their civilian counterparts at elite national universities. The Academy is about more than academics, but from a pure curriculum standpoint they are not the equal America's best academic institutions. This is borne out by numerous metrics.
It depends. Our son was a full time college student in high school for 2 years. He said there was absolutely no comparison between the two (USAFA by a mile). But that experience wasn't an Ivy school (rather a State Flagship).

From a pure curriculum standpoint, there is another path inside of the USAFA called the Scholars Program. My son would argue that this is a world class path. Several of the instructors are extremely accomplished (scholars themselves, published, etc). I predict if you compare the metrics of some paths inside of USAFA, they will equal America's best UG schools. In 2016, there are indeed several unique opportunities offered at USAFA to motivated and accomplished cadets that are beyond any Ivy. PM me if you are interested in knowing the details. They are incredible.

As a whole, USAFA instructors goal is to teach. Too many highly ranked UG programs are really taught by TA's. At the risk of being politically incorrect, they are disproportional taught by foreigners. Too many key classes at universities (especially the 1st 2 years) are taught by thick accent TA's. The busy professors pop in from time to time and are not exactly around to answer questions. When attempting to learn math, physics, or accounting, I don't need someone who is accomplished and published but rather someone who can do a good job teaching. It's different when you are learning advanced concepts. So it makes sense to pay attention to who is teaching you for your Masters program (their industry and academia accomplishments).

In fairness, I know some cadets who are not happy with the instruction at USAFA as well. I talked with them and they were sincere. They think the focus is not on academics. If I am reading them correctly, they have buyers remorse. Of course I can point you to forums where people who go to Harvard think they too are getting a less-than-ideal education. But no institution is perfect.

I went to the UofMN for Engineering. Back in the day, it was a highly ranked program. I thought it was terrible because of all of the TA's, professors who only wanted to do their research etc. My best instructors BY FAR were extension teacher who were teaching part time and worked in industry. That is because they wanted to educate the students. They were passionate about their work.
 
Last edited:
It depends. Our son was a full time college student in high school for 2 years. He said there was absolutely no comparison between the two (USAFA by a mile). But that experience wasn't an Ivy school (rather a State Flagship).

From a pure curriculum standpoint, there is another path inside of the USAFA called the Scholars Program. My son would argue that this is a world class path. Several of the instructors are extremely accomplished (scholars themselves, published, etc). I predict if you compare the metrics of some paths inside of USAFA, they will equal America's best UG schools. There are indeed several unique opportunities offered at USAFA to motivated and accomplished cadets that are beyond any Ivy. PM me if you are interested in knowing the details. They are incredible.

As a whole, USAFA instructors goal is to teach. Too many highly ranked UG programs are really taught by TA's. At the risk of being politically incorrect, they are disproportional taught by foreigners. Too many key classes at universities (especially the 1st 2 years) are taught by thick accent TA's. The busy professors pop in from time to time and are not exactly around to answer questions.

In fairness, I know some cadets who are not happy with the instruction at USAFA as well. I talked with them. They think the focus is not on academics. If I am reading them correctly, they have buyers remorse. Of course I can point you to forums where people who go to Harvard think they too are getting a less-than-ideal education.
Therein lies the danger of comparing an opportunity reserved for a select few to the average opportunity at a Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, etc. The academies are great at coddling a few smart kids to provide outsized opportunities. It's how USMA has generated so many Rhodes Scholars.

We can still love our academies and love the scholar-leaders they produce while recognizing that there are far superior academics at other undergraduate institutions whose focus is much narrower.

We can't be the best at everything, especially with a focus so broad.
 
Hi everyone. I recently came across this article while researching USAFA (I'm an appointee trying to decide whether or not to attend). In the article, former USAFA and USNA instructor Jeff Dyche claims that the quality of education and instructors at USAFA is severely lacking in many ways. I was wondering if anyone could verify the information given in the article - are his claims relevant? Thank you in advance for any advice you can offer.

http://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/files/JAF/2012 JAF/Dyche.pdf

It depends on what you consider as a "quality education."

Many folks already posted some metrics to show that AFA provides "quality education." Any other college you are considering should have similar metrics.

Are there similar articles about other colleges. I think so? I am sure I could find better examples, a quick internet search shows

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/13/higher-education-college-university-column/4440369/

The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill might not have gotten quite to that point, but it has come close: More than 50 classes offered by the African Studies department, and very popular with athletes, appear not to have actually existed.
 
I just wanted to clarify that my main issue/concern was whether or not USAFA would be able to offer the same depth of education as other institutions.

I found the article you posted as both interesting and raising some concerns. I would certainly feel more comfortable with a faculty who were predominantly PhDs. Although, having a PhD does not necessarily mean one knows how to teach. I am also been interested in this question for my DS.

Most non-military career paths would require a graduate degree and as others have pointed out it is your graduate school which will be of greatest importance for subsequent employment. For non-military careers one might then assess undergraduate education by the quality of graduate school to which the undergraduate program helps you to gain entry. There it would seem the hearsay evidence is that the USAFA would provide you with an edge both for entry to elite graduate programs and internationally renowned scholarships.

Unfortunately, hard statistics on which undergraduate programs help one gain entry to elite graduate programs is not readily available. However, some MBA programs do publish statistics on their incoming classes. For example Harvard's MBA program reports that 5% of the incoming class have a military background.

http://www.hbs.edu/mba/admissions/class-profile/Pages/default.aspx

That military background presumably includes candidates from SAs and ROTC. However, at 5%, I do believe that demonstrates the SA path as providing an edge for gaining entry to an elite MBA program. Similarly, Stanford reports that 3% of their incoming class are coming from a Military background.

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/programs/mba/admission/evaluation-criteria/class-profile

The SA experience provides a quality undergraduate education with a number of unique offerings which you will not find at other universities, even elite universities with ROTC. Whether the USAFA is right for you depends on the interests you wish to pursue in your life. I suspect the question you should be focusing on is the career you hope to have. What do you want to be doing ten to twenty years after your undergraduate education and then focus on which undergraduate program provides you with the most likely access to that career path.
 
Therein lies the danger of comparing an opportunity reserved for a select few to the average opportunity at a Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, etc. The academies are great at coddling a few smart kids to provide outsized opportunities. It's how USMA has generated so many Rhodes Scholars.

We can still love our academies and love the scholar-leaders they produce while recognizing that there are far superior academics at other undergraduate institutions whose focus is much narrower.

We can't be the best at everything, especially with a focus so broad.
We agree. You cannot be the best at everything. Nor can Harvard, Yale, or Stanford. :)

As a side note, the Naval Academy is also great at generating scholars. In fact, this year a Naval Academy student won the Rhodes. Last year a USAFA student won. This year there were 2 finalists from USAFA out of about 190 college finalists in the USA. Neither won. The Rhodes is just one scholarship though.

While you label it as codding, I would call an unbelievable opportunity to stretch someone to their maximum potential. Hence, an accurate descriptive is World Class. Might I say beyond anything at any college anywhere? It's also more than a few students.. USAFA has a total 200 cadets in the program. But they do compete inside of the program and it is competitive. As an example, not everyone can apply for the Rhodes.

The reality is Stanford or Columbia teaches Calc, Chem, Physics, and english just like USAFA does. If you think that they do a better job teaching core UG classes than USAFA, I think you are mistaken. While some people won't like this next statement, there are a lot of USAFA students that could not get into Stanford or Harvard. AND there are a lot students that got into Stanford and Harvard that could not get into USAFA. They are different. for the students that could get into both, they can apply to the Scholars Program and get this education if they want it. Some are offered it and turn it down. It consumes more bandwidth. Which is a better college? Well, it depends. :)
 
Most non-military career paths would require a graduate degree and as others have pointed out it is your graduate school which will be of greatest importance for subsequent employment.

Not to go off topic, but just to put it out there.... in the AF to get promoted later on (military career path), they will want the officer to have a grad. degree. It is masked for O4, but for O5 selection boards they will see it, and if you don't have a grad degree than the chances are you will not be selected.
~ Additionally, even though it is masked for O4 selection, your chances for in residence O4 PME will decrease dramatically without a grad degree. If you want to attend O4 PME at a sister school (Navy or Army) than you better have it. At CGSC when Bullet attended with 59 other AF O4s, all of them had that box checked.

It becomes a domino effect for a military career from a promotion aspect. No PME in residence as an O4, and your chances to get in residence PME as an O5 go down a lot! From there your chances to make O6 will diminish to a slim rate with no in residence PME. Just saying for the AF, out of the friends that we had that did not make O5, (36 years old) they all had 1 thing in common. No grad degree.

Now I will admit most of these officers did their grad degrees on base at night through the base education dept., and in that aspect we are not talking about applying to a program like a traditional grad school, more like pay as you go. However, again for most prior service members, the grad school is just checking a box from an Equal Employment Opportunity aspect for the employers --- job requirements. They are hiring these people for their unique career experience and a grad degree means very little compared to their real life work experience. I.E. Rand, Raytheon, Booz Allen, SAIC, L 3 Comm, the DoD, Lockheed, etc..

I do agree that the OP needs to think about career aspects. Nobody expects an 18 yo to know with 100% certainty that they will do X or Y or Z, but if they want to go rated, than the aspect of job opportunities is moot because they will not be able to walk until @10 years after commissioning on a good day. Employers at that point will just want that box checked and do not care about where they earned that grad degree. They are being hired for their work experience, in this case, military experience.
~~ Lockheed needs engineers to design the 6th gen. airframe, but they also need people that have fighter experience, and that MIT grad. degree employee has no experience on how to make Beaaacccching Betty to shut up in a real life experience if they never served in the military. Same goes for RPAs or cyber warfare. Eventually, it becomes about real life work experience too.

Just saying that if you do the 5 and dive, than yep, going to an Ivy is probably a better option, but if you are looking at 10 years, than attending any SA impo is a better option.
~ Can we all spell N-E-T-W-O-R-K-I-N-G? That Commander will retire, and have a 2nd career, and can hire you.
~~ Bullet got a call from an old Commander at 19 1/2 years inquiring when his retirement date was because he wanted to hire him. Bullet hit the button as soon as he could (20 yrs---due to a PCS). He had 3 job offers in hand (F22 and 35) 5 months out from retirement. He never sent out resumes, they called him as soon as they knew he was retiring. Point is that they didn't care that his grad degree was from Webster University. They wanted him for his work experience.

Just my opinion, but for the 24 year old kids entering the work force, heck yes, where that grad degree comes from will matter, but for military officers, that work experience will matter more. SWA, United, Delta does not care if their pilots have a grad degree, they care about their skills landing a plane in stressful situations. Lockheed wants the person that understands the needs of the pilot in the airframe. Goodyear wants the pilot that knows how their tires wear and tear from an operational aspect, not just the guy/girl that has academic theories taught at Cal Tech.

Back on topic.

P.S. My DS2 is a bio-chem major, not military. He darn well knows that he will have to get a grad degree because that is the world now for the "real" world. Undergrad is now akin to HS diplomas in the 80s. Grad school is akin to undergrad back in those days. You need it for better employment opportunities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rkv
To the OP

The SAs indeed provide an 'elite' level of education and experience like no other.

As a general rule - if your goal is to be the 'best'/'most knowledgeable' undergraduate engineer in a narrow specialty upon graduation - the SAs (as a general rule) won't help you achieve that goal.

I have USAFA classmates with PhDs that teach at 'elite' STEM programs and that also taught at USAFA. They were limited to the time a project could require at USAFA vs a more traditional school. The limits were based on the full knowledge USAFA mandated extra classes, athletic time, and military.

Also 'elite' universities are normally rated 'elite' based on their graduate programs not their undergraduate programs. And of course the SAs have no graduate school connected to them

Anyone can argue one school is better than another depending on the criteria you select.

My sister has taught at Harvard and Brown and done research at both. Her opinion is students at the Ivy Leagues have a false sense of superiority especially undergraduates.

If your goal is to be challenged across a broad spectrum of academic, leadership, and physical challenges - no one does that better than the SAs.

Employers and graduate schools have a long history of seeking out SA graduates (and for that matter all military officers) because they realize SA grads tend to bring quite bit to the dance including academic rigor (though perhaps not the depth in some areas) leadership, unique life experiences, and the ability to get things done.

And for the record - very few people actually use the specific degree they were trained as an undergraduate.

USAFA is about preparing for life more so than preparing to be the best string theory physicist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rkv
Hi again everyone. Thank you for the incredibly thorough responses - I really appreciate it. I just wanted to clarify that my main issue/concern was whether or not USAFA would be able to offer the same depth of education as other institutions.
Again, it depends on what "education" means to you. If "education" means graduate school and a research career, then SAs offer no unique advantage. If "education" means access to wealth accumulation, consider a state maritime academy as their grads earn some of the highest starting salaries in the nation. If "education" means a balance among service, career, compensation, and academia, then any SA should facilitate that.
 
It's quite clear that a lot of people really need to believe that an SA education, generally provided by senior captains and junior majors with freshly minted grad degrees, is the equal of the world's best universities. It isn't, but perhaps that puts some people in the personally uncomfortable position of not being able to brag as much? I'm not sure. Perhaps it would be wiser to recognize that places like USAFA, and USNA, and USMA provide a world class experience but do so at the expense of the outright best academics possible. And when they do attempt to provide a higher academic experience, they have to make concessions in other parts of the leader development model.

I doubt this thread will change anyone's mind, though it seems that the people here who've actually received an SA education are much more willing to accept and recognize the realities of SA academics than a group of parents who have not.
 
This isn't really a complicated issue. No school, not even a Service Academy, is perfect in every way. I have lurked on this forum (with this account and others) for a while along my journey, and now more than ever I feel the need to say that people need to stop taking themselves so seriously. And people need to expose themselves to opposing viewpoints and argue against them with logic, not false analogies or personal attacks.

To the actual OP, you shouldn't come to USAFA if you want to get the absolute best education, because it is not the absolute best school (because that's not its purpose). But if you read the posts of actual graduates, they say that a USAFA education leaves them more than prepared in later academic endeavors. What more would you want? One professor's arguments against a USAFA education might have merit and are worth hearing, but I would bet you weren't interested in USAFA for only the academics.

FWIW, who cares if USAFA is the best school or not? Do you want to be an Air Force Officer? Do you want a decent education? Do you want to learn how to follow and lead? Seems like an easy decision to me. There are pros/cons to everything and OP needs to seriously weigh them and not succumb to the fallacy that Service Academies do no harm and have no disadvantages when compared to anything else.
 
It's quite clear that a lot of people really need to believe that an SA education, generally provided by senior captains and junior majors with freshly minted grad degrees, is the equal of the world's best universities.
We agree. everyone prefers a more experienced instructor versus a freshly minted graduate student. But unfortunately, UG classes are not being taught by those world class teachers at the Ivy's like you are assuming. Rather other UG students or TA's and lifting the educating load all too often. See http://harvardpolitics.com/harvard/harvard-undergraduates-teaching-harvard-doesnt-want-talk/
"For over 40 years, these “course assistants” have led sections, graded assignments, and held office hours.... the number of such course assistants has grown significantly in recent years." IMHO, that is a problem. In my experience at the UofMN, too many are being taught by thick accent foreign students. But the quote came out of a Harvard rag (from the horse's mouth). I can point you to other Ivy's that are also concerned about this legitimate problem. All things being equal, the newly minted grads that you accurately described is looking better and better.

As a side note, about 70% of the classes at USAFA have under 20 students and all instructors have a generous amounts of office hours. For me at least, that helps the quality of education. As a bonus, our son has been to China 2x, studied in Hong Kong, went to the Aspen Institute 4 times, etc. I can go on and on... Price? $0.00 and the education was priceless. I think that is another differentiator and helps define a world class education. Even things like jumping out of airplanes (490).

Perhaps it would be wiser to recognize that places like USAFA, and USNA, and USMA provide a world class experience but do so at the expense of the outright best academics possible. And when they do attempt to provide a higher academic experience, they have to make concessions in other parts of the leader development model.
As a whole, we agree. I pointed out a newer USAFA program where 200 cadets get an education that is not offered at an Ivy. So it depends.
I know some students that go to MIT. Their educational approach is the direct opposite of structure. It has more to do with teaching creativity. They use the "figure it out" approach even when picking out your dorm rooms in an effort to engrain this in their students. Stanford admissions for engineering mandates creativity. Meaning, what have you already invented? USAFA wants to know if you were a captain or eagle scout. Different missions and different styles. For engineering, (IMHO) encouraging creativity (Stanford and MIT) are superior engineering schools. So I'm not waving a USAFA flag without understanding the needed compromises. So USAFA is inferior in some educational categories and superior and others.

I doubt this thread will change anyone's mind, though it seems that the people here who've actually received an SA education are much more willing to accept and recognize the realities of SA academics than a group of parents who have not.
Actually, Cerberi is a USAFA grad and a parent. I think I still can grasp the realities and trade-offs. My point of writing was to help you realize there is no need to put some of the UG Ivy schools on a pedestal versus a SA. Both have their downfalls. My main point was that Ivy's teach calc, physics, Russian, chemistry, and history classes just like every other college. My exclusive point was I thought my son got a World Class education. I'm not saying USAFA is better but rather World Class academically. No. not so much with research (but he did get some research experience). Of course USAFA won't win in every category. Of course there had to be compromises because of the different mission. I didn't have to attend a SA to understand what world class education means. How good of an education you receive will depend if you take on those opportunities that are in front of you.
 
Last edited:
We agree. everyone prefers a more experienced instructor versus a freshly minted graduate student. But unfortunately, UG classes are not being taught by those world class teachers at the Ivy's like you are assuming. Rather other UG students or TA's and lifting the educating load all too often. See http://harvardpolitics.com/harvard/harvard-undergraduates-teaching-harvard-doesnt-want-talk/
"For over 40 years, these “course assistants” have led sections, graded assignments, and held office hours.... the number of such course assistants has grown significantly in recent years." IMHO, that is a problem. In my experience at the UofMN, too many are being taught by thick accent foreign students. But the quote came out of a Harvard rag (from the horse's mouth). I can point you to other Ivy's that are also concerned about this legitimate problem. All things being equal, the newly minted grads that you accurately described is looking better and better.

As a side note, about 70% of the classes at USAFA have under 20 students and all instructors have a generous amounts of office hours. For me at least, that helps the quality of education. As a bonus, our son has been to China 2x, studied in Hong Kong, went to the Aspen Institute 4 times, etc. I can go on and on... Price? $0.00 and the education was priceless. I think that is another differentiator and helps define a world class education. Even things like jumping out of airplanes (490).


As a whole, we agree. I pointed out a newer USAFA program where 200 cadets get an education that is not offered at an Ivy. So it depends.
I know some students that go to MIT. Their educational approach is the direct opposite of structure. It has more to do with teaching creativity. They use the "figure it out" approach even when picking out your dorm rooms in an effort to engrain this in their students. Stanford admissions for engineering mandates creativity. Meaning, what have you already invented? USAFA wants to know if you were a captain or eagle scout. Different missions and different styles. For engineering, (IMHO) encouraging creativity (Stanford and MIT) are superior engineering schools. So I'm not waving a USAFA flag without understanding the needed compromises. So USAFA is inferior in some educational categories and superior and others.


Actually, Cerberi is a USAFA grad and a parent. I think I still can grasp the realities and trade-offs. My point of writing was to help you realize there is no need to put some of the UG Ivy schools on a pedestal versus a SA. Both have their downfalls. My main point was that Ivy's teach calc, physics, Russian, chemistry, and history classes just like every other college. My exclusive point was I thought my son got a World Class education. It seems Stanford and Harvard agreed. Several of his friends are off to MIT and Harvard as well. I'm not saying USAFA is better but rather World Class academically. No. not so much with research (but he did get some research experience). Of course USAFA won't win in every category. Of course there had to be compromises because of the different mission. I didn't have to attend a SA to understand what world class education means. How good of an education you receive will depend if you take on those opportunities that are in front of you.
You make some fairly bold assumptions about what you suppose I must be "assuming" about undergrad and graduate education at Ivies. Thankfully the education in my family has been split between USMA, USAFA, Yale, Rice, Brown, and Dartmouth. I suppose I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention The U (which you as a Gopher know means Minnesota in the parlance of the Twin Cities). I don't have to guess at what goes on at the Ivies (which I find to be a foolish term of collective comparison, but it's the preferred catch-all here).

Your assertion that the program at USAFA offers an education that "isn't offered at the Ivies" rings quite hollow.

Is USAFA world class? Sure, most large American universities are. Minnesota and Holy Cross are world class, too. It's nice to be American. But are they the academic equal of America's best universities? No, and they never will be without a wholesale rethinking of their mission.

As for who is teaching, there are as many brilliant, capable TAs teaching at Yale as there are brilliant officers teaching well. Officers have spent less time in a true academic environment and have dedicated much more mental horsepower to military tasks than a TA or junior professor whose whole focus is academics. They makes for great mentors but not necessarily for great instructors.

Every opportunity you mentioned at the SAs is available in spades to elite students at elite universities. I traveled for free to learn. My sister traveled more, and paid nothing, too. The academies are far from alone in that academic opportunity space.
 
It's quite clear that a lot of people really need to believe that an SA education, generally provided by senior captains and junior majors with freshly minted grad degrees, is the equal of the world's best universities. It isn't, but perhaps that puts some people in the personally uncomfortable position of not being able to brag as much? I'm not sure. Perhaps it would be wiser to recognize that places like USAFA, and USNA, and USMA provide a world class experience but do so at the expense of the outright best academics possible. And when they do attempt to provide a higher academic experience, they have to make concessions in other parts of the leader development model.

I wouldn't sell West Point so short on academics (can't comment on other SAs), as most of my 300/400 level courses for my major were instructed by phD. Granted because of all the mandatory courses we had to take, I didn't take too many courses for my major. I attended an academically elite university for a year before going to West Point - my freshman year classes were instructed by TAs or a professor with a couple hundred students. Supposed, if I stayed at that university I would have experienced world class education my junior/senior level.

What is a world class undergraduate education? So how much better or good is a MIT engineering undergraduate degree vs USMA engineering undergraduate degree? Would MIT engineering undergraduate be better than a state university engineering undergraduate with a master's degree in engineering.

Perhaps I am getting old, but sometime I laugh at a college undergraduate majoring in International Relations - he or she should be more knowledge that average citizen, but say 10 college courses going to make someone expert on International relations?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top