This whole thing is, frankly, moronic.
Whether the academies produce better officers than other commissioning sources, especially commensurate with cost, is worth asking.
But . . .
Whether the academies produce better officers than other commissioning sources, especially commensurate with cost, is worth asking.
But . . .
It's simply absurd to argue that we started losing wars with Korea because of West Point, which has existed since 1803. Especially since USMA grads are a much smaller percentage of Army leadership in the modern era than they were before.
If USMA and other academies are inflating their selectiveness by counting everyone who asks for information, that's scandalous--unless that's common practice for other institutions.
But ....
But ....
it's absurd to say they have an "actual" acceptance rate of 57% if you count only those who were “fully qualified and nominated.” What other schools, aside from the academies, require a nomination for a Congressman, Senator, or the Vice President?
For that matter, why did this guy fight so hard to keep his job at West Point if he hated it so much? Why would you want to spend your career doing that?
And, look, it's weird that captains with a masters degree are given preferential status over seasoned scholars with a PhD. But the place has "Military Academy" right there in the name. And its mission statement is to "educate, train, and inspire" future officers.
