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

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.

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

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...

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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."

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.