Liberal Education and the Military Officer

2014-03-18T16:05:37-04:00

"The State that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools." ~ Thucydides

The United States has a long military tradition regarding the Academies, West Point, Annapolis and Air Force Academy. There are often allegations that the Academy graduates go out of their way to protect their own.

Do you think the training that occurs at the academy vs. the education received through an ROTC program affects the quality of the Officer and the way they fit into their branch role? Is there a better branch for certain majors? Is the Academy degree really comparable to the STEM degrees received at an American University? Does an ROTC commissioned Officer with an Economics degree understand SASO better than someone from West Point?

Response by CMC Robert Young made Mar 18 at 2014 7:50 PM

2014-03-18T19:50:06-04:00

I know that there is even today a divide between "ring knockers' from the academy and those who receive their commissions through other means. From the perspective of a senior enlisted guy, I've never gotten that. It seems that particular majors and their usefulness isn't what separates officers; it's whether they graduated the academy.

I would also offer that there is a divide but it's shrinking as the enlisted workforce becomes better educated. I periodically give the old man a ration because I have two MAs and he only has one.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2014 11:56 PM

2014-04-07T23:56:28-04:00

Chief great and thought provoking questions. Personally I have served with ROTC, direct commission, OCS after long enlisted time, and OCS right after basic. I think that the person makes the type of officer not the commissioning source. Though I do believe that some majors do fit better with certain branches. It makes sense for criminal justice degree to go Military Police or Engineer go Engineer. As far as does one commissioning source know more about something that another? Truthfully all West Pointers have 2 years of engineering classes as that is what it originally was created to produce. So they should, in theory, be better and more qualified than others that do not have this training. However, that is why we all go to OBC or not BOLC to get trained. Once again I would say it comes down to what that individual decides to put into it as to what they bring to the table for the unit and the Army. The person makes the leader, not the education. As one LTC told me, "leadership is 90%". However, that leaves the 10% of knowing what the job.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Apr 8 at 2014 12:00 AM

2014-04-08T00:00:48-04:00

I'm missing the liberal connection. Can you help me out?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2014 8:25 AM

2014-06-11T08:25:15-04:00

Chief Evans,

I am a product of 2.5 years at USMA (academic separation), followed by 2 years in ROTC prior to my commissioning. (Overall I took 5.5 years to graduate.)
At USMA I received heavy concentration of military studies from tactics to history to the role of the military in US government and international relations in addition to the Engineering, Math and Science requirements (I failed Differential Equations, Statistics, Computer Science and Physics). After I decided to continue towards a commissioning in ROTC, I decided on a Political Science/International Relations degree and never took another math or science class.
In the two years I was in ROTC, the military education was not at intense as USMA, but I learned more about being an adult, taking care of myself, working a job(s), and overall independence. I feel as if my fellow ROTC graduates, regardless of degree studied, get a better start on being an individual, while those that get commissioned through USMA get a much stronger military education, but unless things have changed drastically, don't have to make many of the same life decisions ROTC graduates do until graduation.
Regarding fields of study, I feel my social sciences, poly-sci, international relations studies prepared me for critical thinking and have served me well for 21+ years as an Armor/Cavalry Officer. I am very glad for my 2.5 years at USMA however, with the heavy military science instruction.

And seeing you are in Boise, GO BRONCOs!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2014 10:11 AM

2014-06-11T10:11:03-04:00

A liberal education should educate the student on a broad (liberal) variety of subjects. As I've gone through my career, the importance of a liberal education has become clear to me. Our officers must be educated as thinkers and having a broad base upon which to base this thinking is critically important. The world constantly changes and the type of challenges our military faces change with it. Being able to think through new issues and develop solutions for unforeseen challenges is the responsibility of our officer corps. A liberal education helps them do so effectively.

My undergraduate education was from a technical school which focused on producing engineers and scientists - I enjoyed it because those were the subject areas I was most comfortable in. As I've gone through the years in uniform, I've realized that my military history and understanding of international relations was sorely lacking and have worked to increase this knowledge through self study, discussions, and military education opportunities. Just because I'm a competent engineer does not mean I'm an effective officer.

During my career I had the opportunity to teach at USMA and observe the much more liberal education that their cadets receive. Regardless of degree, they all have a wide variety of requirements (as LTC Purvis described). An engineering student at USMA takes many more humanities, political science, and philosophy courses than I did. An English literature student takes intense math, science, and engineering courses - unheard of for similar majors at a typical university. In my opinion, this starts all of them off on better educational footing.

As CPT Maurelli stated, the person determines the quality of officer much more than their commissioning source. The source just gets us started ... it's up to us to do something with it.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Jun 11 at 2014 3:06 PM

2014-06-11T15:06:44-04:00

Chief, lot of good questions that I will answer from my view/chair point by point:
1. Training at academy vs education at ROTC affect quality of officer and way they fit into branch role.
a. I disagree that the academies train and ROTC educates. Both the academies and ROTC educate and train. Education occurs via the curriculum required for a degree while training occurs generally in the summer for both on military specific areas.
b. Quality of officer. Both the academies and ROTC produce studs and duds. USMA may have a more consistent "shot group" being in one location vs 250+ ROTC locations but quality of officer is more a factor of quality of the cadet than it is quality of the program. Goes to old "nature vs nuture" argument.
c. How fit branch role? Some degrees dovetail into some branches better than others. Some branches have more specific requirements such as STEM than others.
2. Is there a better branch for certain majors? Yes. For example STEM are better suited for FA, EN, and CBRN but non STEM can be just as successful as in the EN, for example, as STEM.
3. Does ROTC with Econ degree understand SASO better than USMA? Maybe but depends. The Army Learning Strategy emphasizes life long learning along with training, education, and experience within the institutional, operational, and self domains. Understanding SASO is more of a factor of all of these combined than it has to do with commissioning source and degree alone. Goes to whole person concept.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2014 2:10 PM

2014-07-13T14:10:41-04:00

Chief:

I like the quote:

"The State that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools." ~ Thucydides

My response:

1) Is an Academy degree comparable to a degree from a civilian school?

Forbes thinks so; in 2013, for all the universities in the US, Forbes ranked West Point #7, the Naval Academy #28, and the Air Force Academy #31. These rankings are consistent with rankings Forbes does every year: West Point in the top 10, Air Force and Navy a bit lower on the list, but still at the top.

Have a look at the academic majors offered at West Point today: http://www.usma.edu/curriculum/SitePages/Home.aspx. 36 different majors in 13 different departments. Of the 13 departments, six fit the classical "liberal arts" concept of a liberal arts degree; 7 are hard sciences or engineering. Of the 36 different majors, 16 fit in the classical liberal arts category, with 20 being hard sciences and engineering.

Here's a description of the academic program at West Point and its goals: http://www.usma.edu/strategic/SiteAssets/SitePages/Home/EFAOCW.pdf.

Here's a description of the core curriculum all West Point cadets take (see pages 14-17): http://www.usma.edu/curriculum/SiteAssets/SitePages/Course%20Catalog/RedBook_GY2016_20140509.pdf. Chemistry, Computer Science/IT, Economics, English, Foreign Languages, History, International Relations, Law, Leadership, Literature, Mathematics, Military History, Philosophy, Physical Geography, Physics, Political Science.

Add to this a 3-class engineering sequence (for non-engineering majors).

West Point is accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education: http://www.msche.org/institutions_directory.asp. Middle States accredits a large number of institutions, including top notch schools like NYU and Princeton.

ABET accredits West Point's engineering and computer science programs. ABET accredits universities like American University, Brown, Duke, etc.

U.S. News and World Report ranked West Point the #3 STEM university in the country in 2013: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering-no-doctorate.

Thus, I'd assess that the academic degree at West Point is very comparable to one earned at a civilian institution, and I'd note that the West Point degree is consistently ranked in the top ten in the country.

2) Do you think the training that occurs at the academy vs. the education received through an ROTC program affects the quality of the Officer and the way they fit into their branch role?

Simply, no. As Col Smallfield noted, both ROTC and West Point produce studs and duds. West Point produces about 1,000 second lieutenants per year. Not all 1,000 are superstars. Likewise for ROTC. ROTC produces lots of lieutenants every year; some are better than others.

3) Is there a better branch for certain majors?
I'd argue an officer's academic major has very little impact or value in that officer's ability to perform his/her mission as a company grade officer. The academic program likely does have an impact on an officer's ability to perform, but we all know that officership doesn't rely solely on academic prowess. Academic background/certification/specialization more likely plays a larger role at the field grade and general officer level, especially in designated career fields and senior leadership positions.

4) Does an ROTC commissioned Officer with an Economics degree understand SASO better than someone from West Point?

Maybe--depends on the officer. At the point in an officer's career where academic qualification begins to matter most (at the field grade or general officer level), that officer will likely have experienced enough differentiation and academic training to make his/her undergraduate degree pretty much irrelevant.

A better set of questions might be centered around commissioning sources vs. academic degrees. For example, the classic question of which is better: West Point, ROTC, OSC? One could look at a lot of different metrics: promotion rates, senior leader positions, number of Chiefs of Staff of the Army, number of Presidents, number of Chiefs of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, etc, percentage of West Pointers/ROTC/OSC that get OSB'd or ESERB'd.

From a personal perspective, completing an undergraduate degree at West Point was more demanding, more academically rigorous, more challenging than completing a masters degree at Georgetown University.

Disclaimer: I graduated from West Point in 2000 with a degree in Environmental Engineering. So I might be ever-so-slightly biased. I branched Infantry. I've never, not once, used any environmental engineering knowledge in the Army. I've never used my undergraduate academic major.

An undergraduate experience, though, is different from an academic major. My undergraduate experience at West Point set a solid foundation for company and field grade assignments, and future graduate studies; and I use the two graduate degrees I've completed in my job every day.