Want to trim the federal budget and improve the military at the same time? Shut down West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force Academy, and use some of the savings to expand ROTC scholarships.
After covering the U.S. military for nearly two decades, I've concluded that graduates of the service academies don't stand out compared to other officers. Yet producing them is more than twice as expensive as taking in graduates of civilian schools ($300,000 per West Point product vs. $130,000 for ROTC student). On top of the economic advantage, I've been told by some commanders that they prefer officers who come out of ROTC programs, because they tend to be better educated and less cynical about the military...
More at The Washington Post.
Comments
I am former enlisted and Warrant Officer who went to the dark side via officer candidate school and who, for three years, instructed and recruited ROTC students as an Assistant Professor of Military Science. In over 21 years of active and Reserve Army service, I have Commanded, followed, and interaced with officers of virtually every background and commissioning source.
Although, there are some differences roughly attributable to commissioning source, these are far less important than individual leadership characteristics that the Army builds into its officers via uniformity of career, education, training, and leadership experiences such as platoon leader, company commander, and staff officer.
The United States Army itself is a most effective leadership school that both overrides any differences in commissioning and ensures the best officers from all sources advance to higher levels of responsibility. Eliminitating West Point would reduce the diversity of leaders and significantly reduce the quality of the officer corps.
Though I went to VMI (on an ROTC scholarship) and taught at West Point, part of me agrees with Ricks but more of me does not. He misses two things:
1. ROTC has NEVER produced enough officers to fulfill the number of slots the Army has. No matter what incentives have been offered, it's never been enough.
2. Many (not most, but many, OK?) West Point cadets COULD NOT succeed in a truly elite college--USMA recruits too many athletes, must recruit nationwide (so many from each congressional district, etc.), and so has a pretty low bar for entrance. Yes, the AVERAGE SAT score is pretty high--but look sometime for the median--much more accurate in terms of a class as a whole. And when there's a war on, as now, the quality of the applicant pool always goes down. Military service is simply not appealing to the vast majority of young people, alas.
One final thought--what guarantees do we have the the "elite" schools will reinstitute ROTC AND accept the kids who would have gone to USMA if it still existed?
In spite of its many flaws, West Point raises a fairly average group of men and women to a solid level of competence for military service. You can count, by and large, on a USMA-educated officer, which is perhaps its most important service to the nation--it provides a predictable-quality officer in predictable numbers.
A good observation. I wonder how this would compare to the graduates of any institution of higher learning? I've met a number of folks from some of our best public and private universities - some (about 30-40%) I've found are brilliant, others (about 60-70%) simply have what Dapper Dan might refer to as "Bo-na-Fee-dAys" - however they were some of the dumbest smart people I ever met.
Ultimately I think the final proof is in the pursuit of what was learned and how it is applied outside the controlled environment of classroom, not what is written on the certificate hanging on the wall.
Of course I'm a guy finishing his masters from an on-line institution and who went to one of the satellite ILE courses (although I will vouch for Mike Matheny at the BSAP course as being as better course for wayward Army strategists than most.
Best, Rob
"We should also consider closing the services' war colleges, where colonels supposedly learn strategic thinking. These institutions strike me as second-rate. If we want to open the minds of rising officers and prepare them for top command, we should send them to civilian schools where their assumptions will be challenged, and where they will interact with diplomats and executives, not to a service institution where they can reinforce their biases while getting in afternoon golf games. Just ask David Petraeus, a Princeton PhD."
As a civilian graduate, with Highest Distinction, from the Naval War College, Newport, I think that Ricks is either half right or half wrong. The paradox of the war colleges is that the students from the specific service are weak (Navy: Newport, Maxwell: Air Force, etc). The students from the other services are crackerjack. I attended Newport and then went to Afghanistan. Not only did I learn "military", I did learn how to think strategically.
Interestingly, the CG CJTF 82 (Maj Gen Rodriguez), the CG.- CSTC-A (MG Cone), the DCom (support) CJTF-82 (BG Anderson), the CO TF Bayonet(173 ABCT) (Col Preysler) in Afghanistan in 2007-2008 (all Army) were all NWC Newport Grads. As were a large number of the Navy PRT commanders.
We need more civilians at the War Colleges and more military at civilian schools.
We can all learn from each other. Shutting down the War Colleges would be amazingly short-sited.
Will 60% of the students at a War College be mediocre, probably. But the other 40%? Stand back!
<I>"...lately I've been noticing this phenomenon of graduates of elite universities going into the military."</I> - Ricks
Due to the degree to which our military has been employed recently and the unusually high regard in which the military has been held, as of late, military credentials can give a person a lot of political clout. Lots of individuals are under the impression that it can get them elected or help them obtain other positions of influence.
It sounds like individuals who would not have considered joining the military, if conditions were as they were 10 years ago, are willing to join today. I hope that their intent is more than to <I>join</I>, but to <I>serve</I>, and that they're doing so with apolitical motivations. One of my concerns as of late, due to today's political climate, is that people see the military as a vehicle for their non-service-related ambitions, <a href="http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=6165">particularly of the political sort</a>.
Mr. Ricks started another conversation here discussing a trend with young people and national service.
I'm not sure where he is headed, and I'm not sure that even he knows, but it is interesting...
"After I spoke at Princeton the other night, I was surprised by the stream of young men who came up to told me that they are joining the Marines or Army after graduation.
On reflection, I shouldn't have been, because lately I've been noticing this phenomenon of graduates of elite universities going into the military. This isn't a tidal wave, or even a fad, but I think a steady self-selection.
Lately I have spoken with three men, by coincidence all 24 years old, who have good entry-level jobs in Washington foreign policy and journalism circles, who are planning to chuck all that and become Marine officers in the coming year. I also know Matt Pottinger, once reputed to be among the best Wall Street Journal reporters in Beijing and a fluent Mandarin speaker, who signed up and went to Marine Officer Candidates School. He is now serving in southern Afghanistan.
What is going on here? I think two things, one negative, the other historical."
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/17/from_ivy_league_to_oliv…
v/r
Mike
I'm not arguing the details of the article. Additionally, bare walls and reducing to essentials is what everyone is doing. The military academies should be no exception.
But the reason - I think - that the academies are so expensive compared to other institutions is that the other institutions are state-funded (and some are even land grant schools) versus the military schools which aren't.
Perhaps a major detail, no?
Best,
H
I agree with what you wrote, Mike -- but one aspect of that is worrisome:<blockquote>"If it gets us all to think a bit more, maybe that's a good thing."</blockquote>Yep, that is a good thing. However, IMO the article as written could also likely give some people, people who do not think (and I count too many politicians among that number), a small stick to wave around the anti-military and 'budget cuts are needed' arenas...
Provocative articles to trigger thinking are good; ideally they should be informed, well thought out and balanced. That article is not demonstrably informed nor is it balanced -- it probably is well thought out...
I had to reread the article several times, but I came away with a different opinion. Keep in mind that Ricks gets paid to write. In today's fading print media, one has to be sensationalist. I recently saw some stats that suggested most articles are not read past the first paragraph.
I think he is trying to get people to consider alternative paths for officers...An unconventional approach, but one that deserves merit and should not be diminished as egotistical rants.
"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."
He's conflicted so he wrote an article talking about it. So what? If it gets us all to think a bit more, maybe that's a good thing. Then again, I'm an academy graduate :) Damn circular arguments.
v/r
Mike
Can someone page COL Gentile and Marc T?
Five years ago, I would have saw some merit in shutting down West Point - but not for the same reasons. Now, I see it as a worthwhile - maybe even important - institution for reasons that I suspect Marc T could better explain (assuming that he agrees). I'd also be curious to hear COL Gentile's reaction, given that he is a UC-Berkley grad, advanced degree holder, and now finds himself teaching at an institution that apparently only offers a "community-college education."
West Point doesn't produce Officers. It's designed to produce future <i>senior Officers</i>. There is a difference. Most graduates don't hit their stride until they're Field Grades and that's the point at which a subtle difference between Academy graduates and those commissioned from other sources begins to show.
Not necessarily better -- just a difference that generally is evidenced as an ability to not panic when a senior officer appears or expresses displeasure. You can laugh but give that some thought. It has many ramifications...
Ramifications that only someone who truly understands rather than superficially knows the armed forces will understand.
All sources of commission have strengths and weaknesses -- including ROTC -- all produce Officers that range from outstanding to incompetent. Fortunately, the system does a pretty good job of culling as they move upward. It ain't broken -- don't fix it. That from an enlisted guy who became an Army civilian employee and served under a great many Officers of all sources and qualities over 45 years.
Ricks only knows what he hears and elects to heed. His comment about Petraeus and the PhD is facile but is both an effort at deflection and irrelevant; the Army sends numerous Officers from all sources to various Universities to get Doctorates and Ricks knows that.
I wonder if Ricks' commanders cited were all ROTC grads? In any event, this is typical of his stuff -- slightly ignorant, slightly informed fairly well written speculation fed by an over active ego.
Almost every sentence of this mercifully short article struck me as ignorant or illogical. But this one just doesn't compute...
<I>"I've been told by some commanders that they prefer officers who come out of ROTC programs, because they tend to be better educated and less cynical about the military..."</I>
If I want to support some bright idea that I have, I too can dream up a statement that begins with "I've been told by some..."
Here's an idea, if we're worried about the apparent $300K price tag for a West Point grad versus $130K for an ROTC grad: spend less money at West Point on non-essentials. When I was in military school, we had bare rooms in a cement block barracks, a lousy chow hall, and no amenities. Our uniforms were far less fancy and we had fewer of them. We paid tuition. We had fewer social events. Just off the top of my head.
I flatly disagree. This is another issue where efficiency is gained through effectiveness, not the other way around.
I'm not an Academy grad. I'm a "prior enlisted" who then went through ROTC to get my commission. While I have many good things to say about ROTC, and its virtues - which include exposure of "those going on to serve in uniform" with those pursuing other ends - I have also had the chance to know and evaluate many an Academy grad as subordinate, peer and superior. I believe they bring bring something unique to the table that keeps the body healthier than if we went a mix of only two other commissioning sources (ROTC and OCS).
There are many other things that go one at the Academies than just the production of 2nd LTs. There are many areas where these institutions lead the development and testing of ideas that find their way into leader and education development at all levels.
The value of this service is not quantifiable, it is well beyond it. There is nowhere else with the focus and institutional memory that I am aware of to accomplish this. In other words the purpose of these institutions goes well beyond stamping out new officers. To suggest the elimination of something without fully understanding the consequences, or the role it serves leaves you with a hole that you don't see, and one which you may never be able to fill again once its gone.
I would argue the same for the senior service colleges. While its good to leaven our future leader's education with those of institutions outside of our community by sending us to advanced civil schooling to study disciplines outside the military arts and sciences, there is also great value in bringing together military leaders at various times in their progression to exchange ideas under the roof of military art and science.
I do agree we need to constantly consider the pedagogy that creates and prepares us to to lead and perform missions in uncontrolled environments (meaning war vs. controlled/semi-controlled environs of training), however I see the service academies and colleges as a part of the solution, not as an impediment.
This will fist require us to look at what we want out of leaders at all ranks. What is the "standard" based on what we see now in combat, and what we expect in the future? We then need to compare this standard against what we are doing in leader development and education (the two are paired for a reason). If there are experiences and requirements we are lacking, then we should expand the opportunities to include them where we cannot supplant one for another without undue risk in another competency. This may require a bigger force to accommodate the "float" account, but you get what you pay for. If nothing else at least you will know the "whats" and the "whys" of your decision.
As alluded to in the paragraph above this is as much an issue of leader development and the education that takes place "in" an assignment as it is the education that takes place in an educational institution between assignments.
I think for example that the opportunity to work outside of the operational path (S3 to XO to CDR) perhaps by advising foreign partner security forces, serving on a PRT, working in the broader USG, or even as a cartographer for post WWI sites in Europe (who was that guy?) that proved incredibly valuable in planning the WWII invasion must be considered as a means to keep our ability to adapt sharper. Ultimately I believe these experiences make for better commanders at all levels.
One of the positive outcomes of the last 8 years is the tension in the dialogue between levels of leaders. The ability for a Yingling (and leaders of all ranks and many stripes) to contest established wisdom in a constructive manner has been won through war. It is a result of the need to adapt and the visible recognition that subordinates often have a clearer perspective and one more in touch with the events on the ground then leaders who are burdened with other thoughts, or suffer from self constraints. We should look to ways to preserve this, or at least hold onto it longer. It has proven strong tonic to enable our institutions to adapt. When we eventually return (and we will) to the more controlled environment of training, this dialogue will suffer as the conditions which are spawned from the uncontrolled environments of war cannot be fully replicated in training.
The ability to bring some of these unique experiences back and inject it into the knowledge of the greater body is somewhat contingent on having a means to do so. Academies and service colleges provide one steady opportunity to do this, and have the enduring capacity that is not present in universities which largely reflect the priorities, concerns and beliefs of a broader population that does not serve in the military.
Best, Rob