Are the Military Academies producing the same quality of leader today as in years past? In what way are they changing?

MAJ David Vermillion — Thu, 19 May 2016 17:41:44 -0400

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 19 at 2016 5:54 PM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 May 2016 17:54:56 -0400

Yes, the ring knocker I served with are as good as any in the past. I was proud to serve with them.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made May 19 at 2016 6:00 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Thu, 19 May 2016 18:00:18 -0400

That falls in the Category "I remember way back when during the Great War" "They're Wimps now days, No real DIs to beat some Discipline into them". I'm sure they are doing just fine while the Older Generation grows beer bellies Monday Morning Quarterbacks them.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made May 19 at 2016 10:37 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Thu, 19 May 2016 22:37:07 -0400

Funny how we'd have to spend time deprogramming ring knockers to get them effective in the real world. Once that was done, they could do quite well. As effective today? Likely so, but they have to do it differently given all the other technobabble stuff that comes with the job and the extra they have to do dealing with millennials. So the real question is, are the folk just as safe and likely to return in one piece? Hard to compare data because the warfare circumstances were different in past wars, medicine has improved, etc. The only constant over the years is VA failure rate.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2016 12:38 AM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 May 2016 00:38:50 -0400

As evidenced by a recent photo of sixteen current academy students, I'd say at least one has a serious discipline issue, REGARDLESS of what some politically correct inside investigation concluded to the contrary.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2016 12:53 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 May 2016 00:53:49 -0400

One of the biggest points I recall from my time at the Academy was the belief that all commissioning sources are designed to produce the same "quality" of leader. If any of them were worse than the others, how could the military keep them operating in good faith? The difference between the Academies and the other sources is the time involved and as a result the values and morals that can be given time to be impressed upon cadets/midshipmen. Present PR catastrophe aside, I would say the academies are still filling the critical role they have all along. I would say that they need to evolve to educate cadets/midshipmen about how small the world has become now as a result of social media and how ethical leadership means living one's life under a microscope everyday where not only your Soldiers and future Soldiers are watching, but the whole world is seeing thru the lens of their smartphones...

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2016 3:11 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 May 2016 03:11:53 -0400

How would one even go about measuring "quality of leader" in the first place? Proxies for "quality of leader" might include ratings on evaluations, promotion rates, longevity in the military, post-military achievement......but I'm not certain these things can be accurately measured (especially the evaluation piece, because of privacy issues and, at least as far as I'm aware, OER Block checks aren't tracked in a searchable data base). Promotion rates by commissioning source seems like a data set that would be easy to pull from DMDC, as would longevity in the military. For these proxies, though, the assumption that promotion, OER block checks, and longevity actually represent "quality of leadership" would have to be made, and that might be a stretch (OER block checks being more about timing and rater/senior rater profiles than performance/potential, promotion being based on OERs, and longevity perhaps being negatively associated with leadership---is, hanging around for decades might not be a good way to determine "quality"). Post-military achievement is also problematic, as this would be a necessarily subjective measurement.

While I think you are asking a good question, I don't think there are good ways to actually measure this, beyond what I imagine are anecdotal stories about changing "quality."

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2016 10:59 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 May 2016 10:59:12 -0400

WLC/BLC is more concerned about numbers than leadership development. At least that's how it felt when they sent us to FIG, PA

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2016 12:10 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 May 2016 12:10:41 -0400

A couple of years ago, at an undisclosed tavern in a little seacoast town in NC, I ran into this kid who turned out being a brand, shiny, new "butter bar" straight out of Annapolis and Quantico. We traded "sea stories", and I got to admit...I thought he had his stuff "wired" as good as anyone I graduated with. I do think the "changes" are across longer periods of time...For example, I doubt there's a future "Patton" or "Nimitz" out there, because our society no longer "wants" that sort of commander.

Response by LT Isaac Gordon made May 20 at 2016 2:39 PM

LT Isaac Gordon — Fri, 20 May 2016 14:39:55 -0400

The Academies, other commissioning sources, and the military in general are treading dangerous water right now with what many may call the "millennial" cultural shift. The entitlement attitude so frequently exhibited is the antithesis of military good order and discipline. Trying to adapt to these cultural shifts will destroy the very fabric of our military values. If you haven't seen this first-hand, just read half of the posts on RallyPoint complaining about promotions and opportunities for education and advancement being unfair. Is that really why we signed up? Go read some Sharpe's books (Bernard Cornwell)- "It's time to earn your pay boys!" That said, of ALL training sources, O & E alike, the Academies are probably doing the best job of removing trainees from some of these cultural influences that would be so damaging to our military. I'd be much more concerned about all the OCS grads I see from civilian colleges who get their commission and don't have a freaking clue about... well... anything. As for comparing to years past, and I must admit that I'm guilty of this too, every generation since Noah has thought that the next generation was a bunch of whiney, snot-nosed, kids who wouldn't be able to make it in the real world, so there's really nothing new or surprising there.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2016 8:49 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 May 2016 20:49:54 -0400

I can only speak to West Point. Know a few who graduated.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2016 8:15 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 May 2016 08:15:19 -0400

This is a loaded question. We should be asking "Are the service academies producing the leaders the United States needs?"

Response by CPT Erik Fedde made May 24 at 2016 8:37 AM

CPT Erik Fedde — Tue, 24 May 2016 08:37:09 -0400

Yes. Chances are good that instructors have served under combat conditions which have changed since the start of the War on Terrorism. The instructors wouldn't be teaching at the Academies without being selected for the duty- same being true for ROTC.

Response by LTC James Bozeman made May 24 at 2016 12:32 PM

LTC James Bozeman — Tue, 24 May 2016 12:32:16 -0400

This is a difficult question to answer as it involves perception and a changing demographic. It also brings some pride to bear - we have all heard and I dare say participated in the "it was so tough when ..." However I do know that when I sat in the USMA staff audience in 2001, the SUPE talked about trying to reverse a trend of 50% of the graduating Cadets leaving the service after 5 years. I understand from West Point friends who are faculty now - that has grown to 80% who leave after the first 5 years. Does that mean a better or worse leader - no correlation - what is does show is a poor return on investment (ROI) for the military. If only 20% of each graduating class are staying beyond 5 years the nation is getting 30% less return on our investment in education than 10 years ago. I think the Army might want to invest in a study to show IF these statements are facts, what the ROI is on ROTC vs the Academies and see if changes need to be made. The study might also yield results on why USMA graduates leave after 5 years? Is it truly a changing demographic - Millenials vs. Generation X, Y, or Z or is there something else? Personally, I enjoy the interaction with many of the Cadets I get to see around campus - they seem sharp, physically fit, well spoken and intellectually curious. But that is probably about 1% of the USMA cadet population - hardly a statistically significant population...

Response by LT Michael Scott made May 25 at 2016 8:31 AM

LT Michael Scott — Wed, 25 May 2016 08:31:05 -0400

In many ways more strategic but not old school from little things learned before we had world and civil wars. Quite alot was learned from our british counterparts and the Romans when we were in league. Some of the most basic forms yet important rules were lost in history, one of respect for your leaders or die.

Response by CPT Charles (Chuck) Minshew made May 25 at 2016 8:38 AM

CPT Charles (Chuck) Minshew — Wed, 25 May 2016 08:38:46 -0400

There are many fine Military Academy graduates who will serve not only in the Army, but also in the country in years to come. However, the new methods & changes at West Point suggest that discipline may have dropped off. The primary differences seem to be in the political influence that runs rampant throughout both the Army & West Point, which results in entering some without a strong character & will to serve. The most important thing in a leader is character.

Response by LT John Stevens made May 25 at 2016 3:35 PM

LT John Stevens — Wed, 25 May 2016 15:35:24 -0400

It has been my experience that every graduating class from the Naval Academy believed that it underwent harsher and more demanding training than any class thereafter.

There most probably is some truth to that, as the requirements placed on officers in the Navy have changed over time, especially with more need for technological savvy and less on brute force and physical strength.

Additionally, with the integration of women into the academies, changes were made, and probably had to be made, to adjust to a mixed gender environment along with the physiological and psychological differences between men and women. Neither men or women are better than the other -- but yes, they are different.

Furthermore, the nature of warfare continually changes. When I graduated we were still in a "Cold War" with the Soviet Union who was aggressively challenging the US Navy at sea. The fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of insurgency warfare changed the needs of the navy and its officer corps. Iraq increased coastal warfare and reignited the need for coastal patrol craft and operators. With the war in Afghanistan, having no access to the sea, the role of the Navy would have been greatly diminished without the Navy shifting resources and emphasis to special operations and aviation.

I have no particular opinion on the quality of leaders graduating today compared to those in my time because I am not there to observe them, work under them, or have them work for me. Certainly there are challenges that did not previously exist. Certainly integration of women into every role in the navy has brought with it challenges to overcome, almost all of which were predicted well in advance. After all, when you place young men and women, at the height of their physical health and sexual drive together, far from home, not everyone will resist temptation and opportunity. There will be misunderstandings. And yes, unfortunately, there also will be sexual assaults and rapes.

In order to achieve gender integration, I believe that many leaders chose to "feminize" the men through training and indoctrination. Now there is a Politically Correct movement to even change historical job titles, rates, and language to be "Gender Neutral." This may be a good thing for the average woman in the navy, but a bad thing for men and a deleterious effect upon the ability of some units to achieve their mission. Taking any action to achieve political correctness is a gross waste of time and resources.

In summary I will say two things.

First, the quality of officers graduating from the service academies is almost certainly as good as it ever has been. Different most certainly, but as good to meet today's need of the Navy.

Second, and what truly scares me, it what the current administration has attempted and achieved in the senior officer corps of all the services. Too many of these officers have given their allegiance to the President and the Administration over and above their allegiance to the US Constitution. It has been all too clear to the officer corps that any dissension, any public disagreement with the President and his policies will terminate a career thus senior officers have become risk averse politicians instead of the leaders and warfighters we will need in whatever our next major challenge may be.

Response by MAJ David Parr made May 25 at 2016 4:43 PM

MAJ David Parr — Wed, 25 May 2016 16:43:21 -0400

No, I don't believe so. The Army has changed in many ways over the past few years, and many changes have been made, and many were detrimental to the image, as well as performance, of the Army. Standards have been thrown out the window. Its not the same, and it is not good for the Army, and for our country. Just my personal opinion...

Response by Lt Col John Eliopolo Cpc, Eli Mp made May 25 at 2016 5:40 PM

Lt Col John Eliopolo Cpc, Eli Mp — Wed, 25 May 2016 17:40:57 -0400

Never thought of the AF Academy producing the best AF leaders. In my experience with AF leaders, the best seemed to emerge from OTS and ROTC. "Zoomies" while certainly well educated and qualified, seemed to be lacking in people skills, particularly empathy. Again in my experience, the officers from OTS or ROTC were more likely the ones to exhibit these qualities.

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made May 25 at 2016 7:49 PM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 May 2016 19:49:02 -0400

Having been to one, gotten the class ring, etc, etc, I will simply say that an Academy grad gets out what they put in, so there is plenty of variety. Some of my classmates were outstanding as mids and almost certainly still are as officers. Some were duds, and a lot were fairly average. In comparison to ROTC or OCS, the academies probably have a much tighter spread, but I wouldn't prejudge graduates either way.

Response by Maj Maria Avellaneda made May 29 at 2016 1:59 PM

Maj Maria Avellaneda — Sun, 29 May 2016 13:59:38 -0400

Having taught at the Army and Navy academy. They are taught that sports are their number one priority, languages the last , as far as personal affairs they go everything for them. It dis upon the instructors. To make make up work or additional work. They come to class exhausted they fall asleep even when they are attending. They controle very inmute of the ir minds so they do not have to priori tize. They creative moré followers Thank de leaders.. The academias try to do todo much and
therefore they can not do all of then tell. Students come unprepared and without work being done but they are excused because they were playing somewhere or practicing. No real responsibility. In my college years, I would not there give the excuses the Academies give for nit bringing homework done.

The Navy academies have more civilians than military. Civilians that know little about military and are not provided all the DoD required training causing problems,
I could continue bad will be here day.