It is important to consider in this discussion that although a commissioning source may correlate with a performance outcome there is no reason to conclude that the commissioning source causes that outcome. Maybe students who go to the academies would be horrible officers otherwise and yet the brilliant instruction there causes them to be average; if they would have gone ROTC they would have been complete failures once commissioned (this is obviously an unlikely scenario, but it still fits the data). Maybe academy grads' performance ratings suffer as a result of prejudices against them for being academy grads (again, probably not the real reason). If, as others have suggested, academy grads have a sense of entitlement, then maybe this preexisting sense causes them to self-select the academy in the first place. I don't know.
Further, regardless of the real causes of both commissioning source and future performance, the fact that an individual (like the Tufts student) chooses one option or another doesn't necessarily mean that his performance will be affected by that choice, as the majority of the lifetime of factors before and after commissioning that make someone a good leader aren't affected by that choice.

* William Westmoreland

* Vo Nguyen Giap

* Hal Moore

* Richard Secord

* Al Gray

* Tommy Frank

* Ricardo Sanchez

* Oliver North

* Admiral Jeremy Boorda

Re Bill Keller's comment:

By most anyone's standards, Giap won. That makes him worthy of study, at least.

If, in the comment Bill cited, General Giap meant that purely military operations may be ineffectual in the face of well crafted political operations, he may be guilty only of rephrasing Clausewitz. The Prussian said that war is the continuation of political intercourse with an admixture of other [violent] means. An officer (or diplomat) who understands and can manage this combination of means is certainly of great value to his or her nation.

Mr. Ricks,

You're missing the larger picture.

The value of attending an Academy is not strictly limited to the contracted five years of post-graduation service.

The fundamental idea of the Academy is intense saturation, for 4+ years, of core ideas, such as the concepts of duty, honor and country. These traits are not immediately self evident and often, as was the case for myself, take quite some time to reach the surface of one's psyche.

You've complained about the isolation, but the isolation is an important part of the process. It excludes undue negative outside influence which could disrupt the saturation process.

If you want evidence of this, conduct your own at-home experiment. For one weekend, watch nothing but movies such as Gladiator, Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan, and others with strong and honorable leaders as the main characters. Do this all day and night. See how you feel Monday morning.

Do that for four years.

Better yet, spend a weekend at the Academy.

David Roberts
USMA 1998

Mr. Ricks,

Asking West Pointers to "prove" that they are better products than ROTC graduates or OCS graduates is silly. We are not, and if we were to try to prove we were, we would simply become the pompous, overpriced blowhards you paint us out to be.

What we are is one piece of the officer corps that brings different, not better, components to the fore. The total immersion philosophy is exactly that, and it serves its purpose for those who treat it with a critical eye. As you said so eloquently yourself with regard to the War College- just ask Petraeus. Or how about Shinseki, or Abizaid, or Schwarzkopf? These, of course, are just a few names of many who have given much to our military- not a cut above ROTC and OCS products, but in conjunction with them.

If you want to cut defense spending, why not cut the West Point budget, not the academy itself. Do you think shutting down over 200 years of military tradition and excellence will really shore up our national defense? That seems like a pretty nice ivory tower statement to make, but I don't think it makes so much sense in practice.

Mr Ricks,

Full Disclosure: I am a USMA graduate, Class of 2006. Armor/Intelligence officer. No deployments to combat yet.

1. USMA's quality of education

Please tell me and your other readers that you are basing your notion that USMA has only a community college level of education on something more than your impression that most of our instructors have not got PhDs. You would be surprised at how many of our instructors do have PhDs, including a good mix of both civilians and military types.

I dare say that many of the instructors only having a Masters degree in their field have some advantage as teachers of Bachelor's level education. The first term Army officers are fresh out of graduate school within the past three years. They are motivated to teach and develop cadets, and entirely committed to their students. I spent many an evening until six o'clock or later during my first two years at USMA in instructors' offices.

Further, our class sizes were excellent. Usually the classes of less than 15. And extraordinary exception was required for any more than 18 to be in a class.

If you are under any impression that the academic standards are low, I can attest to you that they are not. I recommend asking current cadets if they believe the standards are low. If you find a USMA cadet that believes academics at West Point are easy, you should have a look at his or her 33+ ACT score, and you will realize why it is so easy to that cadet.

2. Are USMA graduates better officers?

USMA graduates generally make excellent officers. ROTC graduates generally make excellent officers. Your asking this question elicits reliability problems for the answers, because you will probably find few USMA graduate commanders tell you that their subordinate USMA graduates do not make good officers, and the commanders who tell you that USMA graduates don't generally make better officers were surely commissioned from ROTC or OCS. They will be inclined to say that USMA graduates do not make better officers.

These days, if you ask a USMA graduate that question, he will say that it does not matter. Partly, that is because it true. Most ROTC and OCS graduates I know make excellent officers. Another reason USMA grads say that, however, is because we are trying to fight this notion that USMA grads are generally arrogant.

Mr Ricks, have you ever had to "answer for" the fact that you went to Yale? Have people ever unfairly pigeon-holed you into a stereotype about Ivy League elitists? Have you ever wondered whether a little part of that attitude may have to do with either envy or a resentment of the perceived power-brokerage by your "class" within your field. USMA graduate officers don't need sympathy for the prejudices against them. But you should consider whether that scenario is playing out before you take too seriously the opinions of those who say that we are generally not "better officers."

More importantly, Mr. Ricks, we are not too worried about whether USMA, ROTC, or OCS graduates are best. We are busy trying to be excellent Army officers.

3. You quoted Gen. Petraeus...

You recently quoted Gen. David Petraeus, who wrote, "Of course, West Point has changed enormously over the years and it is a true national treasure, but despite the varied curriculum and experiences it provides, it is not an institution that puts creativity, individuality and discovery before all else."

That was in an article he wrote about the value of officers' attending civilian graduate school, not about whether USMA is an excellent academic institution. He stated that it does not put those qualities "before all else," not that USMA does not foster them at all or at least some. His point was that the civilian graduate school is also an excellent source of education for officers.

By the way, the USMA faculty is trained at these top graduate universities. And from my experience at least, the qualities of creativity, individuality, and discovery
"trickle" down into USMA classrooms more than most would give credit for.

I bet that Gen. Petraeus would disagree with your recommendation and many of your assessments. To use that quote outside of its intended context, and to suggest that it supports your argument to close USMA is a bit unfair, and perhaps disingenuous.

4. Cynical?

Are USMA graduates cynical? Cadets do tend to be somewhat cynical. But this a result of being a thinking, bright Corps of Cadets. Would you prefer a brigade of brainwashed, group-thinking cadets and officers? After all, USMA has been accused of that too. Which is it? Cynical or uncreative? They rarely go hand-in-hand.

And from what I have seen, they grow out of the cynicism. I have noticed that my classmates-- most whom have deployed to combat theaters-- have turned into committed servants of our country. I have especially noticed in the ones who have deployed that they have bonded well with their soldiers and the Army. In the coming years, I expect to see a higher number of USMA officers than in the past stay in the Army beyond their 5-year service obligations. Some of them will be burned out by deployments. And can you blame them? But many of them will be battle-hardened, Their matured character and greater abilities as Army officers will be what shine, not their supposed past cynicism.

I could go on, but don't want to bore you or readers. But Mr. Ricks, I would not want to be in an American Army without leaders educated at West Point, senior or junior officers. And that's not arrogance, but honesty.

Please do not take my scorn of your argument for closing the service academies as an opposition to any debate on the various topics raised. I just seriously disagree. You seem to have taken quotes from people and stretched them way beyond their intention. I think you have not thoroughly thought through what the purposes or missions of the Academies are. You should reconsider whether this is a smart idea.

By the way, I think this is the first argument of yours I have read which I have thought has totally missed the mark.

All the best,

Ian D. Smith