Any Point to West Point?

Tom Ricks is not the first critic and he won't be the last. West Point has weathered critics for over two-hundred years and remained successful. One can appreciate his perspective; however, I question the legitimacy of his arguments. He does not provide any factual evidence to support his argument, or the citations to prove to his readers that he has done research on this topic. Has Mr. Ricks ever had the pleasure of visiting West Point and personally spoken with the staff, faculty, and cadets? Intelligence is not proven by a degree, it is proven by the impact one leaves on humanity. The impact leaders who have graduated from West Point provide pinnacles for our nation's history. Two-hundred years from now, no one will remember Tom Ricks. They will remember Eisenhower, Patton, Petraeus, and the countless other leaders who have left their footprints on humanity.

Among actual combat veterans if you wanted to live never trust an academy graduate.

Academy graduates make great staff officers whose main goal is promotion. Having an academy graduate around ensures you never need toilet paper as they suck so bad.

Every academy graduate should first be enlisted and then serve 10 years as payback. Either they are professional soldiers or civilians wearing a uniform.

It's disappointing to see personal attacks on Tom Ricks from current and former West Pointers simply for daring to ask a perfectly legitimate question. If his hypothesis is so preposterous, it should be easily disproven by logical argument without the need to resort to ad hominem attacks. No one doubts that West Point graduates have gone on to do great things in the service of their nation, but so have graduates of other fine institutions. The question was whether the service academies are a better value than the ROTC programs at civilian institutions given that they incur a higher per-student cost. While I have seen numerous commenters argue that Mr. Ricks has failed to support his position with factual evidence, I would argue that pointing out the per-student cost difference is evidence enough to shift the burden of persuasion back to those who defend the status quo. Can you provide any factual evidence to defend the higher cost to taxpayers per service academy graduate?

I would absolutely love for him to provide some actual hard evidence for his opinions. Just his "ten years covering the military" and "been told by SOME commanders" is definitely not enough. How can you say West Point gives its cadets a community college level education?!? As a cadet at West Point, I can say that I have a harder course load than all of my friends at universities and I have to balance my physical and military grades. I have heard from many NCOs during summer training that their BEST officers have come from West Point. That being said the they also said their WORST officers have come from here as well. Please do not group all cadets from service academies as more cynical and inferior to their ROTC counterparts. It is unfair to us and the sacrifices we are making. If I did not think I would become a better person, leader, and soldier by attending West Point, I would never have given up four years of college life. I welcome other opinions and do not think West Point is without faults, I would just like to see more evidence from people who advocate shutting down an institution that has produced some of the finest military minds in the history of the United States.

Yonkers, New York
20 April 2009

The suggestion to shut down the military academies--West Point, the Naval Academy and the Air Force Academy--is irresponsible and completely without a leg to stand on.

These three military academies turn out graduates that are thoroughly trained in their respective disciplines and provide the United States with a reliable pool of competent leaders in the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.

One need only mention a few of them-- Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, Bill Bradley, Bull Halsey, George Patton, Chester Nimitz, Hap Arnold, Hyman Rickover, Norman Schwarzkoff, David Petraeus--to prove my point.

There are thousands more of these outstanding graduates of the military academies whose mission in life is the defense of these United States. The United States cannot afford to entrust its defense to "irregulars" and civilians.

Mariano Patalinjug

First, do NOT ask any former military academy cadet to comment. Their comments would be biased no matter what they say.

In my opinion, the military academies are all a waste of time and money.

The "ring knockers" think they are better than their non-academy peers, and the services all treat the academy grads different than other officers.

.

The history books a repleat with great names who have started their professional careers at one of the service academies but that legacy should not be the final word in this debate.

During my military career I have worked with spectacular officers who entered through ROTC or OCS and I have worked with some worthless officers who entered through a service academy. This experience has taught me not to judge the professional qualities of an officer by their pedigree.

My reason for agreeing with Thomas Ricks is that I have not seen academy graduates to be any better prepared to assume their military duties than their cohorts who came from other officer programs. Instead of arriving with knowledge in-hand, they arrive at their first command with the same lack of professional knowledge that their peers from State U ROTC have. For all the extra time and money spent to educate academy graduates, it is reasonable to expect more.

Speaking of education, an academy grad once said to me "I didn't go to college, I went to trade school." To compare West Point or Annapolis to an automotive technician school may seem harsh, but it's not far off target. The education provided doesn't match what is provided at the better universities in the country. The daily regime often leads students to shut off their sense of curiosity, instead seeking out 'the gouge' that will get them past the next test. This carries over into their military careers where they are slow to question the why and how of things while they search for 'the gouge' to get-by.

Well the first 7 comments here are 180 degrees off from the 200+ comments made yesterday and the day before on the same question. Those postings ran 9-1 against Ricks.

What I detect here are comments issued from jealousy, bitterness, barracks rumor and sweeping generalizations that have even less facts to back them up than Ricks had in HIS generalizations.

One of the points in Rick's article that I take great offense to is the fact that he feels Cadets and Midshipmen do not mingle with students with varying opinions. I submit for review the many leadership and foreign affairs conferences hosted by service academies. For instance, SCUSA hosted by USMA and NAFAC by USNA are both great conferences that bring the best and the brightest students from around the world to discuss current events and formulate solutions. Further I would like to point to an effort made by Tufts University to break down the civil-military divide, ALLIES. This group is leading the way to better relations between our nation's future leaders. Please take the time to investigate these acronyms to see what they are doing to promote civil-military relations and how they affirm the need for service academies now and forever.

Rick's thesis is absurd in the extreme.
He ignores the dictum:
DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY.
He must have been a wash out of Basic.

What I disliked about West Pointers when I served was their snotty attitude towards officers that recieved their commission through other sources (R.O.T.C). I found them no smarter than others and lacking in ethics and true leadership skills. They take care of their own at the expense of others. Why should citizens pay 100,000 dollars or more a year to train these folks when they are no better than others?

I have taken the time to read Tom Ricks' thoughts on the services academies in his article as well as the comments offered by the panel members. I have also read the comments offered here as well as many of the comments posted online regarding the article.

That Tom Ricks dares to even question the continued existence and utility of the service academies seems to taken as a signal for open season for an assualt wave of ad hominum attacks on Mr. Ricks. That the vast majority of the online comments posted simply lambast Mr. Ricks for daring to even raise this question tends to lump this issue in with the other Mom & Apple Pie issues, where belief trumps thought.

In Apology 38a, Plato observed "...that the unexamined life is not worth living..." The lives of the service academies should be examined with questions being asked and the answers mulled over and then considerations being made based upon that examination.

The service academies are not sacrosanct as many would seem to believe. Their continued existence and the azimuth along which they are proceeding needs to be examined and done so without the emotionalism that seems to pass for analysis in this day and age.

Sound arguments can be made for both sides in the debate over the service academies. Indeed, this debate cannot -- and should not -- be isolated from the larger discussion of the military in American society.

I spent 33 years in uniform, going from a draftee serving in Viet-Nam in combat (in Lurp and Ranger companies) to being a 30-year old 2LT with a graduate degree after completing OCS, to finally retiring as a colonel. During that time, like most others in unifrom, I saw the good and the not so good produced by each of the commissioning sources.

In my personal view, which one is free to take or leave, I tend to think that ROTC and OCS are better investments in our human capital. This is not to say that I completely agree with Tom Ricks, but simply that the service academies, West Point in particular, tend to be self-referential in the justifications offered for their continued existence. This paraphrasing of Decartes, I exist, therefore I must continue to exist, seems to fall short of the mark when it comes to any analysis as to the continued existence of these institutions.

The academies are not necessarily what the defenders or the detractors say they are, but generally something in-between. I find myself not so much disposed against the continued existence of the service academies as rather perturbed by the fact that simply raising the question is deemed somehow unpatriotic, idiotic or whatever other term one wishes to toss in the fray.

I would like to think that Mr. Ricks has generated some healthy debate and discussion on the service academies, but it seems that we are once more being treated to yet another example of polarization in our society.

.
I was commissioned out of a state school into the Infantry, the most important part of the Army.

In my biased opinion, the average ROTC officer is a better officer than the average USMA grad. On average.

However, the top 10% or so of those from West Point are the top officers, period.
The value of the Military Academy is that it produces those top performers. 90% of the Corps of Cadets serves as little more than training aids for 4 years in order to develop those that become the cream of the crop, not all of whom are recognized as the best at the time of graduation.

And for the poster who grouped Petraeus the brown-nosing careerist among the pantheon of great generals, get a clue.
.

As another commenter said: "The service academies are not sacrosanct......." This nation's highest achievement is NOT our military service arms nor our military successes. Though I and every male (and several females) in my family's last 5 generations have volunteered (not a single draftee) for US military service, few before this generation venerated our mlitary as this nation's pinacle of accomplishment. I fear greatly where we are going when anyone does. We now have a mercenary military force. Just as the waning Roman Empire did.....

As E75Ranger said, somehow it has become unpatriotic to question institutions in this society today, while I recall that act being an admired essential in the American temperament in the past.........

Something is terribly wrong in the USA when we fear questions so.

Ricks asks a fair question even though he provides very few facts. West Point, where I taught, is indeed expensive because the Army pays for the graduate studies of most of the instructors, who then leave after a three year teaching tour. Recognizing this, West Point is increasing their civilian instructors, who pay for their own educations and stay a lot longer.

My own feeling is that no four year curriculum, regardless of the university, can complete one's education. In the Army this means that many officers will obtain Masters degrees as well as continued officer education within the service, culminating in the Army War College. This additional schooling, combined with actual assignments, combat and otherwise, provides the perspective needed in senior leaders. The Army is a profession that demands continuing education, including self education.

What West Point does, in my opinion, better than all civilian schools (I of course exclude from "civilian" such schools as VMI, the Citadel, Norwich, and others) is teach and train leadership. Over the centuries, especially the 20th, West Point has taught fewer and fewer engineering and military subjects, and more and more about other subjects. But they have never wavered in their focus on leadership and, relatedly, history, including military history.

It is that focus on leadership that drives the decision to put serving officers, who are more than just faculty, in the classrooms. Imagine, for example, being taught an English course by a young Major Eric Shinseki, limping from an injury (he lost a foot) in Vietnam. No Ph.D., it's true, but still a very competent instructor, and very possibly a good exemplar.

West Point graduates leave the Army at alarming rates. I think 50% go after the mandatory five years of service and 80% are gone after the 20 year mark.

But for the most part those early departures from the Army benefit society because West Pointers (I am not one) are usually very successful in other walks of life.

Finally, this. No nation that fights wars as often and as varied as the wars we fight can afford the symbolism of disbanding their military academies.

Law has its premier institutions, Business, Medicine and Art all have their premier institutions. Why should the field of military arts not? My little cousin just graduated Colorado Springs. Smart kid...

The difference... West Point and the like are free.

My beef.. like all prestigious learning institutions; they are rather elitist... to this day mostly available to white folk and that goes for West Point and The air force Academy as well.

As far as I am concerned; Asians and East Indians are honorary white people in societies eyes so they don't count

Mr Ricks in a response yesterday advocated a 3 option draft where one could opt out of public sevice with the libertarian view. The consequence would be the individual could never receive any federal funds.

I wonder if he would advocate that for the Ivies and other schools who have banned ROTC? This would include making students who attend these schools ineligible for financial aid i.e. Pell Grants, etc.
This would eliminate the cafeteria plan for schools who pick and choose what federal programs they like.

E75Ranger,

Your thoughtful and well written comments resonate with me. Thank you

All types of military training are useful and have served this nation since it's begining. In fact, the draft could play a large role in helping many people in today's society. I served for four years and it helped me to be a better person. Without question, a limited experience in the military would serve (and help)many of our inner city youth. Those who oppose military service are not open minded about it's benefits, and will say and do anything to curtail its use. Freedom comes with a price.

I agree with the writer all major fields of study and intellectual pursuit have major institutions to promote leadership and development in that field. In regards to the military- what is great about our democracy is that leaders come from various institutions (ROTC & military) and we should not be locked into one program. However, the service academies develop leadership, character, and moral framework in men and women for our country's military, which is something every taxpayer can see as perceived value versus other areas our Congress chooses to funnel money towards.

Contrary to a comment made earlier, "if you wanted to live never trust an Academy graduate", a non-commissioned officer with multiple combat tours in Vietnam told me, after he found out that I was a West Pointer, that he never saw an Academy gradute show cowardice on the battlefield and that he respected them for their leadership and that they consistently cared about their men.

It is unbelievable to me that in a time of war when our country has been attacked and the enemy is at the gates that this topic popped its head up again. I wonder if the gentleman who promulgated this view did so after careful observation of our young men and women Academy graduates in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I doubt seriously that Yale or Stanford in all of their diverseness and political correctness could do the same job as our academies and war colleges in teaching that art and science of warfare and what it takes to be a soldier-leader.

Well doh, of course we don't need military academies. What we need are "Luv" and "Peace" Academies. Ain't never been anybody good come out of mil. acads. Other than Grant, Eisenhower, McArthur, Rickover, Robt E Lee, and far too many more to mention. Where do we get the idiots who say no to USMA, USNA, AF Acad?

Saying "among actual combat veterans if you wanted to live never trust an academy graduate" and "They take care of their own at the expense of others" is as ignorant as any other "Those (insert demographic here) always do (insert stereotype)," be it Jews, Blacks, Irish, whatever.
Actual combat veterans? What single source of commissioning do you think provides the greatest percentage of combat branch officers? And West Pointers choose USMA knowing that they are going to deploy after graduation, and year after year, the Academy consistently runs out of Combat Branch slots because the cadets there CHOOSE those branches. Sorry your few experiences with a couple of West Point grads soured you on an entire institution, but grow up.

well another running dog leftist trying to take apart the basis of preserving freedom in America. no doubt this fool forgets that it took a denial of federal funding to prevent colleges from prevent rotc on campus!
so our brave soldiers dont have enough phd's - too bad, they have cib's and that is more important. typicle leftist - you are never good enough unless you have a piece of paper that says you are.
west point provides one of the best educations in the world. you go to a regular college and get rotc - well employers want to know about your degree and if it applies to what they are doing. you go in with a degree from the point or the navy or air force academy and they want to know when you can start, is today too soon?
maybe lefty does not want to remember that the first American traitor tried to give hudson high to the brits.
or that the father of the American navy is buried at the naval academy.
and from the ranks of the air force academy we got those individuals who will protect our borders even into space, and if necessary, as they were prepared to do in the 60's, fly a plane into an incoming missle to prevent it from hitting the rest of us.
duty, honor, country and the code make them excellent soldiers, sailors and marines, and airmen, and great citizens.
you should be half as good as they are and then you would not be such a fool and a traitor to America.

As a career Army officer who is not a West Point graduate, I have nothing but admiration for those who are. They are some of the most intelligent military officers I know, they are driven to success, and they are mission-oriented. I was 'loaned' to the Navy for several years and can say the same thing about the Naval Academy. These schools are nearly as selective as the Ivy League and they produce soldiers, sailors and airmen who pay their country back many times over in hard work and taxes.

Our service academies rank amongst the most academically rigorous in the country, if not the world. Having interviewed academy candidates and having interactions with ROTC candidates, I would prefer the leadership of academy graduates over ROTC graduates. Certainly fine officers can come from OCS or ROTC, but if the point is to develop the next generation of military leaders, then we need officers who have been trained in military code and conduct from the beginning of their training. ROTC candidates, while certainly hardworking and intelligent, do not experience the same level of rigor as academy graduates.

What many fail to understand about West Point is that those who attend and graduate have not taken the same path as an ROTC cadet. While many ROTC cadets are partying every weekend and enjoying the freedom afforded them by a civilian college, USMA cadets are 'stuck' at West Point. West Point is a very isolated place especially when it is taken into account that cadets are not allowed to have cars until their junior year after spring leave. Also cadet's spring and winter leaves are weeks shorter than their civilian counterparts on top of the fact that their summers are almost completely filled. Being at West Point is not an enjoyable experience but one filled with stress and little freedom.
These sacrifices are just part of the character building experience that West Point is designed to be. Another key component is the stellar education provided. Instructors come from both ROTC and West Point along with a smattering of civilian instructors. Forbes ranked it #6 nationally(2008) out of all colleges in the US for academics so to call it a community college education would be foolish.
As to quality of officers BOTH ROTC and West Point have created good and bad officers. But at West Point there is an atmosphere of camaraderie and purpose not present at other colleges. USMA cadets can never fool themselves as to what they will be doing when they graduate all they need to do is look at themselves in the mirror and see the uniform they are wearing to be reminded. As has been mentioned before; with their teachers being for the majority combat veterans there is always a source of knowledge at the tap ready to be used. To say that this has no effect on the overall quality of officers produced is inherently blind to reason.

As a current ROTC and Student I still feel that the academies are a necessity. Having professional volunteer soldiers is what are military strives on.I understand that the Academy costs more and i do agree with some comments that some West Pointers tend to not be as socially adept at being leaders ie. working with people I still think that the Academies not just West Point develop leaders of a high caliber. Not saying that all Academies have the best leaders but all have the potential to be good leaders. I still feel Professional military education is still the future of the US Military. ROTC offers this but not the full Military lifestyle so adjustment might be necessary, However ROTC can produce both good and bad leaders just as the academies do. Plus the academies are part of our history and culture which we should follow for years to come.

Very few officers are doing anything resembling their academic and/or research field. So, if we are basing the value of the Academy on instructors, and if the question is 'are West Point active duty instructors teaching what they know', the answer is absolutely not. We are often only a day ahead of the cadets in terms of classroom lessons. Apparently bad, that is reality. Fortunately, most instructors are 'sharp' enough to get by with it. I wonder every day, why don't 'they' let people (ie. instructors) do what they are good at, rather than typical 'Army' thinking that we will make a more well-rounded instructor by having him/her teach something which stretches their knowleadge. Please poll the many military officers with a master degree, or even PhD, to realize "it's not about your degree or what you know, it's about having a degree". That said, back to 'is West Point relevant today?', NO! For many reasons that all of the open-minded thinking people have and will come up with. Do not allow anything stand in the way of tradition! Plllllease, barf.

Mr. Ricks main criticism is the quality of a service academy education measured by the number of instructors having a Phd. Assumin this argument valid, surely it is apparent that a cure less drastic than closing the academies is available; improve the quality of instructors.

As a retired military officer I worked with “Hudson High”, Annapolis and Colorado Springs grads. I have also worked with ROTC graduates, and OCS grads. Although I did not share any of their officer education and training lineage, I enjoyed working with all my fellow officers. There were some that were the scum of the earth, and some, that were the best soldiers, sailors and airmen I ever served with. Some were men and some were women. What I really enjoyed about knowing and working with these individuals is the shared experience they had forging strong bonds with their fellow classmates that lasts a lifetime. These bonds, although I did not share with any of them, allowed me to experience and learn from their networks of leadership experiences. There was seldom a day when I did not learn to relish the perspectives they brought to any discussion or decision. All these perspectives had a genesis from their education in an academy, ROTC program or OCS class.

Thomas Ricks says, “Shut down West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force Academy, and use some of the savings to expand ROTC scholarships.” What a myopic view of the utility of military education and training. The military is all about the bonds created by selfless service. Each training setting provides a fertile environment to develop these bonds. For some individuals, leadership skills are also acquired, developed and used. But for most, the culture of “service” is forged, grows stronger and become the most important ingredient of a fighting force – shared allegiance.

What we gain is far more important than what we will lose. I know, for I gained more than most other officers because I was one of them, and yet not. For this I was accepted in all groups and this allegiance was beyond reproach because we all share the same allegiance to military service. If you have never served as an officer, you won’t get it.

Well, THIS has certainly been an interesting discussion. Mr Ricks definitely managed to generate a spirited debate!

From my reading of the comments, the biggest complaint people had was the offhanded "community college education" remark by Ricks, with no supporting data besides the input variable of how many PhDs are on the faculty. It is understandable that such a comment would strike a nerve (it did with me), but some of the ad hominem attacks were less then helpful (or useful in any debate). Other comments, demonstrating more "output-oriented" results like scholarships, awards, etc, were more helpful in giving a view of academic results.

Still, I look at the academic piece in a different way. It comes down to the fact that all of us are different. Different environments are better for each of us. A poster on some of the individual entries talked about how he found UNC to be more academically rigorous than USMA. That's fine. Does it mean UNC is a better school? No. It means UNC is a better school for him. I found USMA to be more academically rigorous than the large state university where I did my graduate work. Does that mean USMA is a better school? No. It means USMA is a better school for me.

Many folks have commented about how the different sources complement one another. I agree. And each puts out fine officers. I served with outstanding officers from USMA and ROTC (Clark and Casey to name two, USMA and ROTC respectively). I served with awful officers from each. I myself was something of a mixture (I was good at what I did, but never much of a martinet). But I think this fits into the point Ricks made regarding diversity. In my opinion, USMA, USNA, and USAFA add to that diversity, rather than detract. In that, I agree with many of the other posters.

Finally, while I think that some respondents did come across feeling that it is absurd to question the service academies' usefulness, I didn't get that feeling with most. Most pro-academy respondents didn't like the derisiveness attached by Ricks to those institutions' standards (particularly academic).

That said, it is absolutely healthy to discuss whether the academies have outlived their usefulness. I think they are still a vital commissioning source. But EVERY institution should be the subject of periodic review and evaluation. That goes for the academies, and all colleges and universities for that matter (including Mr Ricks' beloved Ivies). It also goes for government agencies, businesses, and any other organization. That's how we make them better.

I have to admit, as a West Pointer, that the worth of the service academies seems self-evident to me. West Point has molded me more than any other experience. West Point forms a significant part of the foundation of who I am. It forms the backbone for my character. West Point has given me the confidence to stand alone and has taught me the importance of the compassion to listen to the needs of others and of the humility to admit mistakes. I know I can and will succeed because I succeeded at West Point. West Point is my anchor, guiding me to focus on mutual respect, to be honest, to perform my duty, to choose the harder right over the easier wrong, to work harder for my subordinates than they work for me, to lead by example, and to lead by presence. And to be prepared to make great personal sacrifice for the common good. I really believed everything I was taught at West Point. Within these common values, my additional civilian education has only reinforced the value of candor I learned at West Point, by not only feeling open to challenge assumptions but feeling that respectfully questioning dogma / doctrine is my duty (within an appropriate forum).

Perhaps others feel as I do about their service academy training and see the question of whether service academies should exist as an attack on their self-identity (and thus feel compelled to attack Mr. Ricks personally). I agree that a robust discussion of the relevance of service academies is important, to inform us of how the academies can continue to be as relevant tomorrow as they are today.

Comparing a West Point education to a community college education is insulting and offensive and so while I do not agree with those that insult Mr. Ricks, I also understand their perspective and forgive them. Many other legitimate questions could have been raised, namely the retention rate of West Pointers after their committment... instead of provoking controversy with a comment that can only be perceived as a insult.

Perhaps Mr. Ricks would be willing to apologize for offending those of us who feel so passionately about their service academy experience.

I mean, c'mon, a community college education? Do you really mean that, Mr. Ricks?

Interesting Mr. Ricks is a winner of Journalism's highest award. Makes a good argument on what is wrong with the media today. I have read some of his previous articles and he talks about the growing divide between soldiers when they visit back home and society in general. Mr. Ricks, it is called values and integrity which was learned in the military. Oh,.. I forgot, you are in the media and do not undestand that concept much as you fail to understand Duty, Honor, and Country.

It is absurd to call for the abolishment of the service academies. The military needs a professional officer corps. Mr. Ricks kind os sound like one of the left wing nuts who pays tribute to the freedoms of the country by burning the flag. Maybe if we all sat around with al queda and shared our feelings-we could all get along? This is the kind of drivel rubbish is Mr. Ricks expounding.

The safety of the country-and is right to publish nonsense is defended by a volunteer military with a professional officer and NCO corps. He seems to somehow believe that this just materializes out of thin air.

Next he will publish an article that the Navy seals should not have shot the pirates because they could have been related to Obama.

I've understood the value of officer training.
Seems we need statesmen academies and diplomatic
academies. The USA leaves statemanship and
diplomacy up to politics instead of being
driven by training and values like the military.
Seems Duty, Honor, Country would be a real
improvement over "me first" and "charge of the
tax cut brigade" we have been governed by for so
long.
W

There are some pretty harsh opinions here. I took the premise of the piece to be that the service academies may be a luxury when you look at:
-The cost per graduate vs ROTC graduates
-The contention that the Nation and the military services get as many strong leaders from other college backgrounds as from the academies.

I served 30 years in the Navy as an officer and knew and respected many "ring-knockers" from the Naval Academy and as many who were not. In our small specialty corps, I rarely spent any time worrying about who was from USNA and who was not. For the record, I went to OCS.
I got closely involved in the base closure business in the early 1990's when there were many bases closed. I even opposed several I thought we could not do without, adding "we'll know we are serious about base closures when we close the service academies."
I had command of our specialty corps training school in the mid 1980's and could see a difference in attitude among the Academy graduates, especially the women: The young graduates from USNA seemed to be keen on working around "the system," as though that is what they were accustomed to back at the academy. I found many of them to be bright, but suspected they were not planning to stay past their minimum service obligation.
My Exhibit A hero: General Colin Powell.

The war colleges come in for suggestions that they can be done away with. I went to the Naval War College and found it of value to the Nation in giving mid-career officers a chance to learn more about their profession from their peers from othe services and branches. That serves the country in an intangible way. The war colleges are worth retaining.

I have only heard the discussion regarding whether or not to close the service academies, but couldn't the question be expanded to a third alternative, that is, to improve the level of education at the service academies? Given the amount of money spent per service academy student, I'd like to see my money's worth by ensuring that the quality of their education is on a par with the education those students might have acquired if they had not gone the service academy route. If Mr. Ricks is correct about the quality of education, then I'm for either improving that quality or shutting them down. To those who argue that the service academies have non-educational benefits that cannot be reproduced at other universities, then perhaps that argues for a more intensive training program, not perpetuating the service academies.

Hemmes made a good argument against the curriculum provided to future military officers at the service academies in his book "The Sling and the Stone". The military doesn't need to make aeronautical engineers and nuclear scientists. The public and private colleges and universities do a much better job of that. The academies should become the leadership centers of excellence for the services. We don't need platoon commanders trained to be engineers, we need platoon commanders (young 2nd Lts) who can understand foreign cultures, adapt to constantly changing environments, and understand the complex social networks they will operate in while conducting modern counter-insurgency operations. We don't need to get rid of the service academies, but we certainly need to change the focus of the education they produce.

I am a retired Colonel of ROTC who commanded officers from West Point, ROTC, and OCS. You get the good, the bad, and the ugly from each.

The War Colleges are a true graduate education that allow senior leaders to reflect and prepare for the next challenging assignment.

Newspaper reporters get to write about cooking, sewing, art, soldiering, and carpentry and must rely on second hand opinion and innuendo. Does not make them the expert.

I went to the Air Force Academy for 3 years and had to leave because of a medical issue. I transferred to UNC-Chapel Hill for my senior year, and realized at that point I had made a huge mistake. (I had a full ride ROTC scholarship to Carolina as well, but wanted the Iron Eagle experience)

In my opinion, college is about getting a breadth of education and forming your own ideas. At the AFA, your ideas are force fed to you, to the point where you cannot legally question the president, among other things. ROTC provides the military indoctrination piece, but also provides much more rounded individuals.

The professors at the AFA were serviceable, but those at UNC were incredible. Prior to my leaving (1998), an effort was ongoing to bring in more civilians, who were usually better. Some of the officers were great teachers - others, not so much.

The other thing that is rarely published is that the course load at the academies is extreme. I took 122 credit hours in 3 years (or enough to graduate from Carolina). There is a quality hit taken there, because the military requirements are largely in addition to that. I was ranked in the top 100 in my class, but would not say that I learned anything more than how to take tests very well. I transferred into Carolina with 90 of my 122 hours.

The other thing about the academies is that they are self selecting. There were a whole lot of other people who looked like me, thought like me, and had the same goals as me. For a military that has a hard enough time understanding outside cultures, it makes for a pretty incestuous environment.

Finally, I have a lot of friends in the military still, and count them as good friends. They are extremely intelligent, driven, and serve our country to great effect. There is nothing to say that they wouldn't be able to do that in ROTC.

BH61,

The various folks who rate undergraduate institutions would disagree with your assessment that colleges and universities do a much better job of teaching engineers than the service academies. The academies all rank near the top.

You make some good points about needed studies. Many of these are in the curriculum, though it is entirely possible that there could be more coverage.

I will leave it as an exercise to the reader as to whether those serving aboard a submarine under the Pacific Ocean would like their officers to have a clue about the power plant that runs it.

I agree with some of the other posters that Mr. Ricks, as a US taxpayer, has a right to ask if his tax dollars are being used optimally by the military schoolhouses (which are, after all, part of the US Gov't). We Americans pride ourselves not only on the diversity of perspectives allowed (and encouraged) in this society, but also our right to challenge our government if we do not think it serves us as we think it should ("...of, by, and for the people..."). As a military retiree (ROTC grad) who has guest lectured at and worked with faculty from West Point, I see both as valuable sources of commissioned officers (and OCS as well). Yes, there are differences between USMA and ROTC graduates once they initially come on active duty, but those tend to disappear by approximately the time those officers are promoted to major. ROTC and Service Academy grads bring different skills and perspectives to our military, and I believe our Services benefit from those multiple backgrounds. Personally, I don't believe we should do away with the Service Academies, but perhaps we as a society should periodically evaluate how well those institutions are doing what they are designed to do. One thing I think both ROTC Institutions and Service Academies could do better is eduacate the Anmerican public on what their military members do to defend this society, and how well they perform that vital function (especially since less and less officials in our government have military experience these days).

From my earliest childhood my grandfather, a West Pointer and Vietnam veteran, conveyed the intellectual and personal significance of his years on the Hudson. The historical and cultural significance of the USMA to our military culture cannot not be overstated, and the academic rigor certainly should not devalued. Focusing on academic merits and the nature of leadership, however, misses the most fundamental and compelling aspect of Ricks' argument:
Even if West Point graduates are better officers (which this thread of comments shows is certainly debatable), are they more than TWICE as good? Because if not, an extra $170,000 of taxpayer money per graduate is hefty price for "camaraderie"

This has been one of the most interesting discussions I’ve seen in quite a while. Congratulations to Mr. Ricks and the Post for sparking it. I’m a graduate of SUNY Albany, where in the 1970’s ROTC was banned. (Don’t shoot, it’s since come back) I cross-enrolled to a private school, Siena College, and was a distinguished military graduate with a 2.55 GPA, and commissions RA in the Chemical Corps. Within a couple of years I was getting better marks than my USMA peers. I attribute that to personal drive, and boy scout training in marching and maps. Seriously, nothing more. After the Gulf War I took advantage of a voluntary separation initiative and left military service as a junior Major and joined the civil service. I didn’t leave because I was failing, I left to get married and stop moving. Why do I tell you so much? In the subsequent 17 years, I’ve worked in Washington, DC, for three agencies, and worked with many others. I see a big problem in government that needs a big fix. We have no mid-level leaders, and we have bad managers. Veterans have a clue, but they are concentrated in DoD. We need leadership throughout the government. Now here’s the idea I haven’t seen discussed in these threads. What if we don’t eliminate the Service Academies, but instead expand them? What if we recruited 17-18 year olds for government service, and provide them a free education, but not just for military service? What if we provided a core curriculum to these young Americans, then let them intern with various government agencies every summer, or part-time as seniors? What if we let them choose a branch of military service if they qualify for that kind of duty, or the coast guard, or become civil servants in Homeland Security, or CIA, or DoD, or even as a foreign service officers in the Department of State? What if a few dould go on to medical school or law school? What if they were all obligated to serve a set number of years, depending if they took the military or civilian route, and how long they were educated? What if we took the service academies and turned them into colleges within a United States Government Service University System? What if we included the Service Staff Colleges, the National Defense University, the Defense Acquisition University, and even the Department of Agriculture’s system? ROTC and the service academy prep schools could be a satellite organizations contributing to the whole, or just the military. I suppose that would depend on the numbers needed by the Services. At some point in the system, students would elect a major, and a career path, and seek selection by their chosen agency/Service and if they don’t get their first choice, they would then be assigned to fill a government need – or repay the government for the education. I’ve seen so much competition between and among separate agencies that I suspect that if government managers and military officers had gone to school together, or could relate like alumni do, they might actually get along. Just a thought for more discussion.

I have some questions for Mr Ricks. Do students at non academies receive any state or federal support at their schools? Are there endowments that contribute to their support? Should we test and select the best leaders from our student age population and tell them where they will be educated? Are you a competent leader? Why do you think you are qualified to tell a good leader from a bad one? Did you ever apply and were you appointed to a service academy? HAVE YOU EVER VISITED WEST POINT?
Just wondering.

Mr. Ricks:
I’m not sure where to begin with a response to what appears to me to be a strategically myopic and either uninformed or ill-informed assessment of the United States Military Academy (USMA) and the other two service academies’ value to the Nation, our Nation’s national defense and the Nation’s deliberate (and thoughtful) investment in strategic and long-term leadership for the Nation and the American people. Please permit me to share a different perspective on this discussion. I graduated from USMA in 2006, but before that I studied at the University of North Texas and the University of Texas at San Antonio, where I was in enrolled the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) program. Seems to me that about the only correct judgment you offered in your assessment is that ROTC and Officer Candidate School (OCS) commissioned officers are well trained and bring just as much to the tactical fight and level of warfare as their West Point contemporaries. I have trained (and suffered) with ROTC and OCS graduates in Ranger School, fought alongside them in combat, and in my judgment, they are some of the best young leaders the Nation has to offer.
However, the rest of your argument appears to be an academic excursion in abject, ill-considered pettiness — the metaphor that comes to mind is “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.” The premises of your argument are not only untrue and unsubstantiated; they reveal your ignorance on a subject of vital importance to our Nation and all Americans. Yes, it costs more to produce a West Point officer because he or she has a different mission than an ROTC or OCS officer. The mission of the United States Military Academy is not just to produce platoon leaders to fight at the tactical level of warfare. West Point’s specific mission calls for it to produce leaders for the Unites States Army dedicated to a life of selfless service to the Nation. Show me one college or university that has that mission as its primary goal or purpose. West Point cadets take an oath to serve the Nation for their entire lives. They begin the challenging task of living up to values and virtues virtually unheard of in contemporary civilian life. Beginning the day they arrive at West Point, cadets are expected to understand, embrace, internalize — and eventually come to deeply appreciate — a life of selfless, sacrifice and service to others. They have chosen to forgo the free time, partying, and fun that a regular American four-year college experience ordinarily brings. Instead, West Point cadets have chosen to be part of something much larger than themselves; they have chosen to serve their Nation and — by extension — the American people. This point reminds me of Woodrow Wilson’s insight: “You are not here merely to make a living. You are here in order to enable the world to live more amply, with greater vision, with a finer spirit of hope and achievement. You are here to enrich the world, and you impoverish yourself [and I would add “and the world”] if you forget the errand.” Too bad the great bulk of American colleges and universities today fail entirely to ask students to live up to Wilson’s vision. But West Point does, and to make this sort of commitment, cadets at West Point are expected to embrace and live up to the three words that make West Point standout from the schools their ROTC brothers and sisters attended: Duty, Honor, Country. My point here in no way denigrates any of the fine schools from which ROTC and OCS officers have graduated. My wife is a University of Florida graduate, and I am extremely proud of her and completely respect her educational background. There are excellent universities and colleges in our country that produce educated and well-rounded professionals.
What you apparently fail to appreciate is that if our country wants to continue to have the best-trained and best-led military in the world, we must expect our Soldiers and their officers to live by a set of values and virtues that we do not expect our citizenry at large to live up to. Cadets take an oath that they will not lie, cheat, or steal — nor tolerate those who do. Cadets at West Point have an honor code that the cadets enforce. Please share with me where a rigorously enforced honor system exists beyond our service academies and those few colleges and universities (such as UVA) that attempt to replicate them. For some 206 years, West Point has been the Nation’s beacon — a lighthouse and pinnacle — of the virtues of selfless Duty, uncompromising Honor, and dedicated service to Country. It produces officers with a five-year active duty and 3-year reserve component service obligation who may or may not leave the Army when they have completed their service obligation. However, even if they do leave the service, many of our graduates continue to serve the Nation in other capacities. They are the torch bearers of our Nation’s values, and as such wherever they go, they are expected to live by a set of values and virtues genuinely politically free people prize.
Your second premise that West Point graduates are getting community college educations is mystifying, and calls into question your entire article. Most classes at West Point have between 15 and 18 cadets. It is not unusual in many civilian universities and colleges to attend some undergraduate classes with between 300 and 500 students in the class. West Point cadets are expected to show up on time, in uniform, and are expected to brief their class on a daily basis on the day’s lesson, which they were expected to study and prepare for the night before. In most civilian colleges and universities, nobody cares whether a student is present for class or not. What turns out to be of great importance at civilian schools, however, is that students pay their tuition fees. It is true many West Point instructors hold only master’s degrees. On the other hand, it is also true that all of the military instructors come to classrooms at West Point having served with Soldiers and having a rich professional and personal set of experiences that provides invaluable context for academic studies. Yes, military officers who teach, coach, train and provide a broad educational perspective for cadets have actually left the premises of the academic world. Moreover, West Point’s classes are intellectually tough and rigorous. The structure of West Point’s core curriculum and the classes they have chosen for it are the envy of the Ivy League world. West Point mandates that cadets receive a liberal education in the arts and sciences. At a civilian college or university, this is simply not the case. Civilian universities permit students to track early on in a student’s academic life on one academic specialty if they so choose. A college education is designed to provide a liberal education on many fronts, something West Point does extremely well. During the school day, West Point cadets take their meals together…all 4,000 of them. Not the case in a regular college or university. At the end of the school day at West Point, cadets either have mandatory intramurals or go to their varsity practice if they belong to an athletic team. At the end of the day at a regular college or university, judging by the expanding waist line of many of our college students, most students do what they want. Something you did get right about West Point is that it is a community.
Abandoning West Point for an ROTC-only type military education is not only myopic, it would do our citizens and Nation an immense disservice. USMA continues to be the pride of the Nation and the envy of the world for one reason: It steadily produces leaders for our Army and our Nation who live by a higher set of values and virtues that guides their service to the Nation. If you happen to value his perspective on this topic, you might ask General Dave Petraeus his thoughts. Ask him whether he thinks the calculus that ought to be applied to our Service Academies is a simple cost-benefit calculus that compares the cost of educating and training a West Point officer and an ROTC officer. With respect to “. . . get rid of West Point,” I think thoughtful American leaders ought to consider what strategic-level signal America would be sending to the rest of the world who — at least until recently — continues to regard America as a beacon of hope for their most deeply held aspirations.

[Continuation of my original post...] When once asked about the apparent erosion of the relationship between the American military and America’s citizens, George F. Will said, “There should be a gap between civilian and military cultures, especially in a democracy. That widening gap should be narrowed somewhat, but not by permeating the military with the civilian culture’s values . . .. Civilian society, if it thinks the gap between it and its military is too wide, might try moving toward the military.” Will’s point, of course, is that there are very good reasons for having and maintaining a cultural gap between Soldiers and citizens in democratic societies. A perennial problem for American policy makers and national civilian leaders has been the challenge of reconciling the distinctive culture and mission of the armed forces with America’s democratic ideals and practices. The tension between these distinctive cultures should not be viewed as undesirable; rather, it should be regarded as an aspect of the nature of the relationship, one to be thoughtfully preserved and kept appropriately balanced. There are ways such perspective and balance can be maintained. Among them is this vital business of sending our warrior-leaders in the military to civilian graduate schools. My father, a graduate of the West Point Class of 1972 studied philosophy at the University of Virginia for two years and then taught philosophy and English composition at West Point for three years. In my view, the Army and the other Services should increase the number of officers who attend graduate school — the costs and the current operational demands notwithstanding. Moreover, a tour of duty teaching at one of the Service Academies or teaching in an ROTC assignment should be institutionally regarded (and recognized) as an invaluable and highly desirable way to invest in the Nation’s future.
An option worthy of consideration is to permit selected Service Academy cadets to attend a year of college away from their academy. The essence of this concept is to permit selected cadets to attend a civilian university in their third year of studies at the Service Academy they attend. In their last year, they would return to complete their studies in their academic major and undergo final preparations for graduating and receiving their commission as an officer. With respect to Senior Service College and War College attendance, George Will’s insight also has application. The first six months of the Senior Service College experience might be conducted at the Senior Service College institution, and the second six months could be conducted at a civilian university. On the face of it, there is no reason senior military officers should not have the opportunity to learn “how to think” about developing solutions to very complex and difficult problems alongside other professionals who may face equally complex and intractable problem sets.
If George Will’s insight is on the mark, then America’s challenge is to take thoughtful steps that retain all that is essential about a Service Academy experience — and the years of service that follow, whether in uniform or not — while maintaining an artfully balanced and nurtured gap between citizens and the Soldiers who pledge their lives to protect and defend our way of life.

Building leaders is something that is taught, it is something that can be strategically learned. Hard work, studying, comraderie, honesty, integrity, make character. But, if you really want to get rid of something, why not suggest that we never go to war. That would eliminate the need of the quality leaders that West Point helps create. Better still, why don't you suggest that all the people in prison be given military training instead of being supported by the taxpayers and government. Your comment was in as poor judgment as Obama refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance while running for President of the US.

(Originally I thought this too lengthy to post, but after reading it, Tom Ricks suggested I post it anway)
Mr. Ricks:
Well you went out spoiling for a fight and you got it. I’ve read most of the responses to your article; I got a good laugh at the question about whether you intended to kick over a hornet’s nest.

I am a West Point graduate, Class of 1982 and a soon-to-hit-mandatory-retirement Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel. In the past 27 years, I’ve been an active duty combat arms officer for 10 years; an Army Reserve Officer for 17 – including three recalls to active duty for Bosnia, Kosovo and a Major Command headquarters staff job, respectively; and a deployable Dept of the Army Civilian employee. My experience includes tours in the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I have completed the Army’s Command and General Staff College, have a master’s degree in history, and am currently working on an MBA. The purpose of this mini-bio is to emphasize my wide range of perspectives through the years. I’ve seen more than my share of academy grads in the past two decades, believe I have a good feel for the needs of the Army, and know USMA very well. And I’ve been critical of my alma mater more than one occasion.

I trust by now that you regret the “community college” comparison. It has attracted a disproportionate share of attention, most emotion-filled rants. I also believe a periodic review of the value of our publicly-funded institutions is in order. However, I am confident our service academies can withstand the scrutiny of these questions and analyses.

Your yardsticks for comparison of service academies and ROTC/OCS are flawed. If this was a purely financial analysis, we would close all the academies tomorrow. However, the issue for which you are roundly criticized in much of the responses is the failure to recognize the intangible contributions of the academies to the success of our military forces. How does one quantify the efficiency of a fighting force or its institutional ethical foundation? How about the dedication to a low-paying, high-hazard profession which is hell on relationships and families? What is the dollar value of the dramatic (and measurable) rise in our society’s respect and trust of the US military as an American institution?

Here are a few examples, with a focus on West Point, the academy I know best:
1) Many of the officers commissioned through ROTC and OCS who responded to your article highlighted their admiration of the lifelong fraternal bonds developed at the Service Academies. This cannot be quantified, but it makes the Army a more effective and cohesive fighting force.
2) Colin Powell, whom you rightfully hold up as an example of an exceptional ROTC product, spoke about his first visit to West Point:
"My professor of Military Science and Tactics at the City College of New York, and a man who was my mentor, was Colonel Harold C. Brookhart, Class of 1934, West Point. A few weeks before graduation and commissioning, Colonel Brookhart sent me up to West Point. He wanted me to visit, if only for a few days, the wellspring of my chosen profession -- the place where the professional standards are set, the place that defines the military culture, the place that nurtures the values and virtues of Army service and passes them on from generation to generation. Colonel Brookhart wanted to make sure that as his mentee, as his kind of pride and joy at CCNY, I would at least be touched by the spirit of West Point as I went out into the world to begin my Army career."
The value General Powell places on the existence of West Point needs no further embellishment from me. His words clearly convey his sentiment.
3) You oversimplify the mission of the service academies. Producing cadets and midshipmen is an important mission, but not their only raison d’etre. West Point serves as a physical manifestation of the Army’s values and ethics. This sounds lofty and ethereal, but to an officer looking back on 27 years of service – 31 if one includes the four years at USMA – it is important to have a firm physical and theoretical foundation for those virtues which set our military apart from a society which has devalued honor, integrity, loyalty, and service to the nation.

Why did I write this letter to you? Because I respect your opinion and I listen when you are interviewed. I read your books The Gamble and Fiasco. I believe journalists serve an important function in a free society and have sworn to defend the Constitution and our First Amendment. However, on this issue, I believe your dollars and cents-centric analysis is flawed.

I challenge you to contact USMA and see if you are welcome to address the Corps of Cadets. You may be surprised to find that opposing views are tolerated and encouraged at West Point. (Read the first few pages of Absolutely American by David Lipsky - his opinion did a 180)

Jay Jennings
LTC, USAR
USMA ‘82

http://www.dean.usma.edu/departments/math/courses/ma103/ProspectiveStudents/CandidateWeb.htm

You can look at the fundamental concepts exams in math. This is the level required before starting. They cover some algebra, geometry and trig.

These are the physics courses:

NE300 NUCLEAR REACTOR ANALYSIS 3.0 3 33 MAJ KLING
NE350 NUCLEAR REACTOR DESIGN 3.0 2 21 LTC VIAR
NE355 ADV NUCLEAR REACTOR DESIGN 3.5 1 10 LTC SONES
NE400 NUCLEAR ENGINEERING SEMINAR 1.0 2 8 COL MUSK
NE489 ADV IND STDY NUCLEAR ENGNRG 3.0 1 1 COL MUSK
NE489A ADV IND STUDY NUCLEAR ENGNRG 3.0 1 1 COL MUSK
NE496 ADV NUCLEAR SYSTEM DESIGN PROJ 3.0 1 9 COL VISOSKY
PH201 PHYSICS I 3.5 5 66 MAJ BLAIR
PH202 PHYSICS II 3.5 60 966 MAJ CAMPBELL
PH252 ADVANCED PHYSICS II 3.5 7 106 CPT TRIMBLE
PH366 APPLIED QUANTUM PHYSICS 3.5 2 17 MR BLANC
PH374 MEDICAL RADIATION PHYSICS 3.0 1 14 MAJ PHILLIPS
PH381 INTRMED CLASSICAL MECHANICS 3.0 2 15 LTC CROSS
PH456 SCIENCE AND POLICY 3.0 1 10 BG BLACK
PH472 SPACE AND ASTROPHYSICS 3.0 2 19 DR FEKETE
PH481 STATISTICAL PHYSICS 3.0 1 10 DR HARRELL
PH484 QUANTUM MECHANICS 3.0 1 8 COL WINKEL
PH489 ADV INDIV STUDY IN PHYSICS 3.0 1 3 LTC COLE
PH489A ADV INDIV STUDY IN PHYSICS 3.0 1 2 LTC COLE

The qm course

"This course begins with a basic introduction to the fundamental postulates of quantum theory. These postulates are then used to develop Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Schrodinger's equation. Solutions to Schrodinger's equation are sought, first to relatively simple systems such as square wells and harmonic oscillators, and then to the hydrogen atom. The properties of the hydrogen atom are studied in detail. The course also covers approximation methods used for physical systems with small perturbing forces acting on them."

http://www.dean.usma.edu/departments/math/courses/core/default.htm

"Core Mathematics at USMA consists of four primary courses, and two developmental courses. The courses are:

*

MA100 our developmental pre-calculus course. About 50 of our entering freshmen (fourth class cadets) take this course.
*

MA101 our developmental "just-in-time" Introduction to Calculus for students needing review of pre-calculus topics.
*

MA103 Mathematical Modeling and Introduction to Calculus, the first of our core courses for all cadets. This is the first of four courses in the USMA mathematics core curriculum. The focus of the course is to use effective problem solving and modeling techniques to find solutions to complex and often ill-defined problems. The course lays the foundation for calculus and differential equations through difference equations.
*

MA104 Calculus I. This course builds upon the foundation laid in MA103, as the cadet learns about differential calculus in single and multi-variable problems.
*

MA153 Mathematical Modeling and Advanced Calculus I is the first of our core courses for those students who have validated single-variable calculus through AP exams and previous calculus courses. This course combines the topics of MA103 and advanced coverage of topics in single variable calculus and differential equations.
*

MA205 Calculus II. This course builds upon the foundation laid in MA104, as the cadet learns about integral calculus in single and multi-variable problems.
*

MA255 Enhanced Multivariable Calculus. This is the second of our core courses for students who have validated single-variable calculus. This course covers infinite series, vectors and vector valued functions, and multivariate functions. A focus on Differential Equations continues the exploration of the calculus begun in MA153.
*

MA206 Probability and Statistics. In this capstone course, the cadet learns the fundamentals of probability and simple hypothesis testing. The cadet completes a taxonomy of models {stochastic/deterministic, linear/non-linear, continuous/discrete} and completes two capstone projects. "