For: Tom Ricks, longtime military correspondent for the Washington Post:
This is no knock on the academies' graduates. They are crackerjack smart and dedicated to national service. They remind me of the best of the Ivy League, but too often they're getting community-college educations. Although West Point's history and social science departments provided much intellectual firepower in rethinking the U.S. approach to Iraq, most of West Point's faculty lacks doctorates. Why not send young people to more rigorous institutions on full scholarships, and then, upon graduation, give them a military education at a short-term military school? Not only do ROTC graduates make fine officers -- three of the last six chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reached the military that way -- they also would be educated alongside future doctors, judges, teachers, executives, mayors and members of Congress. That would be good for both the military and the society it protects.
Against:
Ed Ruggero:author of a definitive book on the training of leaders at West Point and retired Army officer:
Tom Ricks makes some good points in his piece "Why We Should Get Rid of West Point." It is certainly more expensive to turn out a West Point graduate than to commission an officer through ROTC, which has been the source for many fine leaders. But his swipe at West Point's education misses the mark because he equates the number of doctorates on the faculty to a quality education; I would argue that there is not a straight correlation.
Walter F. Ulmer, Jr (LTG, USA, Ret'd and a former Commandant of Cadets at West Point)
Tom Ricks continues to do good work. But his gears seem to be meshed regarding the academies. As an academic institution, West Point has produced more Rhodes Scholars than any university except Harvard, Yale, and Princeton; more Hertz Fellowships ("for rare young scientists and engineers,") than any but MIT, Stanford, and Princeton; and even gained a high spot in the 2009 US News & World Report ratings of liberal arts colleges. Opportunities for leader development abound at West Point: a unique leadership laboratory and reservoir of standards for military professionalism. A true national treasure, given the price of things these days it may be the best return on the money that taxpayers can get!
Bob Schoultz (CAPT, USN, ret'd)
That said, I continue to believe that the service academies and war colleges CAN offer the nation a uniquely positive service, and that questions such as Tom's must regularly be asked to hold the institutions accountable to the society they serve, rather than the service cultures they often see themselves ordained to protect. Even the best institutions must regularly be jolted out of the self-congratulatory complacency that can take hold when excellent organizations come to believe their own propaganda and mythology.
What say the assembled hordes? Full disclosure - I'm an ROTC DMG (Distinguished Miltary Graduate).
Sign me up for "the question should be asked, and the schools (including the war colleges) should get periodic shocks, too.
West Point's academics are undeniably rigorous. Anyone who says differently is talking out of their fourth point of contact.
I treasure my time there. I found out that I wasn't an engineer, quickly!
It all worked out well, but, sure, looking back.....Annapolis would have been better.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bill_gates_unplugged.html
OCS is great, but maybe we ought to hold onto the service academies, as well.
Don't worry DDS kicks everybody's a*s. I made it through all my math classes at the Academy on sheer, rote memorization and finally graduated with a degree in PoliSci.
My experience post-Academy proved the point to me that all three commissioning sources bring something different and valuable to the table. It would be a shame and a waste to do away with any of them.
I never even considered a military academy, but I did enroll in ROTC in college. I have to agree with your last statement- all venues have their advantages and disadvantages, but getting rid of any of them would be a damn shame. Not to say that they can't be improved upon, as Josh suggests, but getting rid of any of them would be detrimental to the service.
Nothing like a little wake up call to get your crap in order and prove the accuser wrong.
What we don't want to do is to allow any route to commissioning to be considered 'second class'. Each has strengths and weaknesses and requires a slightly different skill set, but turns out good to excellent officers. Goal should be highest quality regardless of path.
But I envied West Point’s top notch education (community college? Please!), their traditions, the discipline they endured, their focused effort for 4 solid years.
But my experience is anecdotal evidence, of course. And so is everyone else's (largely). We like to generalize. For every "This one West Point guy was a jack-a**" there are two "That ROTC / OCS grad was about brain dead". Or, the best officer I ever saw was “X”.
So, why are some going after yet another bedrock institution of our country? I don’t buy the arguments. The service academies are a core part of our military, of our nation. Keep them.
If there was any cool proposal to float, it would be the requirement that all prospective officers enlist for 2 years. THEN, head off to college / service academy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/5136185
As for OCS graduates, most of them were A LOT more mature than either the West Point or ROTC graduates, which should come as no surprise. I think the differences pretty much disappear by the time you reach field-grade rank, anyway.