USMA vs USNA

From what little I know, (and that is very little) ALL the SA provide a high quality education. Forget Forbes, Newsweek, and othe other ratings, and focus on what you plan to do AFTER graduation. Then select schools based on THAT! The rest of your life is much longer than the four years you will spend in college.
 
To the OP,

Forbes ranking is very different. When they rank colleges, they factor in all sorts of variables. Don't misunderstand me, their rankings are still accurate from a different perspective. If you want a ranking based off of academics, look at U.S. World News rankings. Navy is ranked slightly higher than west point. On forbes, West Point is ranked slightly higher than Navy. Again they both look at different aspects.

TO davidhwang,

I am not trying to argue with you. I know 100% that you didn't mean for your post to sound like it did. I just want you to see what we read from your post, from our perspective. It was probably just mis-communication.
Your first post seems very disrespectful. Do you think anyone joins to go die for their country first? no. People join because they want to SERVE their country and are gladly WILLING to die for it.
You say "I mean, what are the ACTUAL chances of naval officers receiving direct fire from the enemy? We are no longer in WWII or Cold War. This is the 21st century. Chances are, naval and air force officers will have lesser chance of dying in combat."
It makes it seem like your saying that naval/air force officers are less honorable, less brave, less dedicated to serving our country because you think that they joined to not die because they will not be receiving direct enemy fire. Other countries have ships, jets, subs, and other means of completely destroying American vessels in times of war. You say you know what the future of fighting will look like, but let me ask you this, do you think when war in the future starts, America will just send massive amounts of Army first to invade, lets say, Russia? no.. The future of fighting involves more Navy and Air Force than Army. Think about it. American Revolution? French Revolution? the Korean War? the American Civil War? Yeah. All wars from the past. All 99% Army Army Army. Then came World War I? World War II? hmm interesting.. they started to use Navy and Air Force in World War I and II.. Do you see the pattern now. In today's day and age, using Air Force and Navy are vital to winning a war. We can't just send in our Army troops into a country to win the fight.

I obviously know that wasn't your intention haha, and I am positive you have the utmost respect for all veterans, but I am simply trying to show you what your post sounded like to the rest of us.
 
TheGrandInquisitor said:
To the OP,

Forbes ranking is very different. When they rank colleges, they factor in all sorts of variables. Don't misunderstand me, their rankings are still accurate from a different perspective. If you want a ranking based off of academics, look at U.S. World News rankings. Navy is ranked slightly higher than west point. On forbes, West Point is ranked slightly higher than Navy. Again they both look at different aspects.



TO davidhwang,



I am not trying to argue with you. I know 100% that you didn't mean for your post to sound like it did. I just want you to see what we read from your post, from our perspective. It was probably just mis-communication.

Your first post seems very disrespectful. Do you think anyone joins to go die for their country first? no. People join because they want to SERVE their country and are gladly WILLING to die for it.

You say "I mean, what are the ACTUAL chances of naval officers receiving direct fire from the enemy? We are no longer in WWII or Cold War. This is the 21st century. Chances are, naval and air force officers will have lesser chance of dying in combat."

It makes it seem like your saying that naval/air force officers are less honorable, less brave, less dedicated to serving our country because you think that they joined to not die because they will not be receiving direct enemy fire. Other countries have ships, jets, subs, and other means of completely destroying American vessels in times of war. You say you know what the future of fighting will look like, but let me ask you this, do you think when war in the future starts, America will just send massive amounts of Army first to invade, lets say, Russia? no.. The future of fighting involves more Navy and Air Force than Army. Think about it. American Revolution? French Revolution? the Korean War? the American Civil War? Yeah. All wars from the past. All 99% Army Army Army. Then came World War I? World War II? hmm interesting.. they started to use Navy and Air Force in World War I and II.. Do you see the pattern now. In today's day and age, using Air Force and Navy are vital to winning a war. We can't just send in our Army troops into a country to win the fight.



I obviously know that wasn't your intention haha, and I am positive you have the utmost respect for all veterans, but I am simply trying to show you what your post sounded like to the rest of us.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right, and I guess I came off a little rude. I am sorry I didn't use the correct language to argue my side of the perspective. But I think I did learn a lot from other's perspective. It was a very interesting discussion. Thanks for giving me different perspectives that I didn't know about.Thanks! :)





Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top