Mr. Ricks,

Mr. Kaplan's rebuttal is spot on. As a cadet, I had several instructors that served in Desert Storm, Somalia, and the Balkans. Through their mentorship, I was able to determine my branch/post assignments. Moreover, we had guests like the Ranger platoon from Black Hawk Down travel to visit us.

I'll pitch another great aspect of the Academy- Army Rugby. This weekend, they will compete in the Division I national championship. This team is a club sport, and the members play for the sake and love of competition and brotherhood. I learned my greatest life lessons on those fields of friendly strife.

Westpoint is what it is. I would suggest that you contact the cadets and LTs in several years after they have two or three tours and a company command under their belt to see if their opinions change. Once they get into the line, if they listen, they will be mentored by great officers and NCOs. Then, all the training they had at USMA will help them start to do well.

v/r

Mike Few

I don't view this as such a big advantage for the academies; in ROTC we had cadre that had just returned from Iraq and experienced the same mentorship in MS classes and FEX's. I would also argue that in our regular university classes we had professors who possessed a great deal of practical experience in a wider range of areas and expertise. I believe this exposure to a multiplicity of disciplines contributes significantly to a successful liberal arts education.

There will always be exceptions of course, but in general there is an important difference between those who have been through grad school and those who haven't. The essence of grad school involves being forced to a) master the voluminous literature on a series of topics; b) assimilate it intellectually, weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the theses, and develop your own, original position regarding some question or issue; and c) defend that position before a room full of people who have done the same and have bundles of data at their command, are easily your equal or superior in analytical thinking, and who relish the verbal combat of a real academic debate.

Spending several years doing that doesn't just fill your head with facts and arguments: It changes your entire approach to reality. You automatically have a sense when you confront an issue of how complex it likely is, how much data needs sifting to appreciate that complexity, and the numerous interpretive angles that data will likely siupport. You also have a sense of how time-bound and culturally-conditioned any interpretations including your own are going to be.

Like I said, it is possible to get some of this without grad school (though it's very rare for folk on their own to research a topic as thoroughly or defend a position before an equally well-informed and far-from-shy audience, as one must do in grad school on a day-to-day basis), and some people go through grad school without getting as much from it as they should. But, in general, it's a necessary preparation for teaching others.

This reminds me of the Capt Blackadder quote, "I, on the other hand, am a fully rounded human being with a degree from the university of life, a diploma from the school of hard knocks, and three gold stars from the kindergarten of getting the $h!t kicked out of me."

I don't know enough about the service schools to have an opinion. There is something to be said, however, about the intangible qualities of experience. But what do I know. I didn't cost the taxpayer much -- just two summers at Quantico as a PLCer.

Decades ago, at a New England prep school and then an Ivy college, I had teachers who had served in combat. In WWII, in Korea, in Vietnam.

Yes, to read Red Badge of Courage in a class taught by man with a Purple Heart gives a flavor students wouldn't get from your garden-variety Ph.D.

But that's less an argument about the worth of a service academy education than a point about how civilian life, especially among its elites, no longer has direct experience with military service.

To echo Bob Kaplan's comments, consider the resumes of the USMA Social Science Department's rotating military faculty. http://www.dean.usma.edu/departments/sosh/3_Faculty/faculty.htm

Correct me if I'm wrong but these are the folks who might be considered the equivalent of your regular big university TAs, who teach the intro-level poli-sci and international relation courses. Combat veterans with post-grad degrees from Harvard KSG, SAIS and the Fletcher School... not a bad combo indeed and not your average TA. Also consider that many of the rotating military faculty members are slated for selective functional area career tracks like FAOs and Strategists.

Mr. Ricks, as you wrote in your WashPost piece, the USMA SOSH department was the intellectual breeding hub of the military architects of the surge, i.e., Petraeus, McMaster, Nagl, etc., as well as future Army intellects. Wouldn't this be reason enough to keep West Point around?

It was the derogatory term for the English, History and Government Department at Navy in the years of steam. It was located next to Mahan Hall before reconstruction. I was a bull major. Jim Webb taught there for a time also.

Wish the environment had encouraged more introspective time. The always pumping action of the Yard did not permit such mining of the jewels that the Academy had to offer. It was and remains an underdeveloped asset.

Mr Ricks,

Kaplan is spot on. I think the reason nobody has said it in the Academies' defense until now is that seemed so obvious to those of us who attended. And we have been caught up in refuting your arguments.

I cannot say enough about the high quality of the instructors at USMA. The sharing of their experiences in combat theaters is invaluable in the education of cadets.

For cadets to hear a combat arms officer with a company command in theater under his belt talk about current conflicts in the context of Herodutus or Thucydides is impressive. And I think it makes a difference.

Sorry no numbers, Mr. Ricks. But Kaplan is right on with his appraisal.

Ian Smith

I think there have been several excellent points made in the defense of the academies, and to be clear, I don't think they are sub-par institutions; I turned down my appointment to West Point at the last possible minute and have friends who have graduated from and are attending the academies. I think the question boils down to, why do the services want their officers to have college degrees? If the purpose of higher education is to be exposed to a wide variety of ideas and to be forced to defend your own, then attending the academies, which are on average more homogeneous than the average 4 year institution, aren't going to be as effective in reaching this goal. These are four years no one is going to be able to replace in their lives'. When one has numerous other obligations during this period, such as in the academies, then trade-offs will be made at the expense of devoting time to studies. The way I saw it when I made my decision was that I would be spending plenty of time in the military, but only had a limited amount of time to cultivate and expand my intellect. As for the technical degree aspect, ie math, engineering, etc., certainly these are important proficiencies, much more so in the Navy and Air Force than Army and Marine Corps. That said, we are moving away from preparing for engaging in large conventional wars; and I would hope the commanding officer of a Navy ship patrolling off the coast of say, Somalia, is just as skillful in recognizing the strategic implications of their decisions in engaging and interacting with any non-military individuals as they are in the more technical aspects of their command (something I know very little of).
Irregardless of the above, Mr. Rick's argument remains that the taxpayer investment in officers sourced from the academies is much higher than the other paths to commission, and there is no significant empirical evidence that suggests this added investment yields any increased benefits.

Kaplan is right - the point and value of military academies is to keep a particular and fundamentally unique ethos alive, viable, functioning, relevant. To have academic experiences outside of that realm are no doubt enriching, but outside agencies cannot keep the ethos alive and in fact are increasingly antagonistic towards it. My son is currently looking to become a doctoral candidate in the field of military history and the number of schools that betray a hostility to even the 'notion' of war is astounding. Much talk these days about Obama turning America into France - possibly unfounded rhetoric, but I went to school in Paris and you just do not hear in the cafes surrounding the Sorbonne anyone willing to discuss military matters in a positive way, if at all. I doubt if Harvard is much different. America wants to stay strong, it needs its West Points - it's not about the quality of the education, it's about the essence of an ethos.

Let me also add that I was more challenged at West Point than I was on any day in grad school. The academy has its faults, to be sure, but community college it is not.

First off I am USNA97 grad.

Yes several of the negative comments about academy grads (a couple of bad apples hurts) are absolutely true for some. Lack the ability to handle "the freedom to party" everynight and still do a job..... slightly clichish.... lack of social/life skills (hey mother B provided everything)... failure to listen to reasoned advice from enlisted.... I could go on and on and build a massive list of negatives from simply the stuff I have watch my classmates do or did myself.

BUT

I would stack the education (I was a group III history) against and the skill background against any other group

While a History major, I learned enough about engineering and weapon systems to converse with the Engineerer grads from other schools without a large drop off. That foundation served me extremely well in flight school and follow on training.

As a History major, I hate to say but my post grad work is well easier than I expected while others are struggling

But the on the military side of things..... The academy gives such a wide bit of military training instruction that you have enough of a foundation to do almost anything at almost the drop of a hat. 2 months in Quantico for me.... I know what the hell a 5 paragraph order is and how to execute it and I used those lessons later during IA training for my vacation to OIF. I have stood conning officer as a mid and got enough of the basics that I did it with relative ease years later. I know what the weapon systems are on my battlegroup ships (thanks plebe rates) so I know the mistake of asking the FFG to do area AAW. I dont have to be remind what military rules are because I have lived them.

My point is this... yes there are some issues from some Academy types but the developmental foundation can not be surpassed. When an academy type fails to maintain standards... they stand out more than others and I dont have a problem with that we should be held to a higher standard.

Maybe the best of both aspects is a Sandhurst type institution.... 2 years of normal college in a ROTC style program followed by 3 years of modified Academy like instruction.