Posted on Aug 13, 2015
Military Officers don't need a degree? What say you?
147K
628
303
51
49
2
Military Officers Don’t Need College Degrees
Military recruiters and top brass like to repeat the refrain that the average member of the armed forces is better educated than the average American. It’s true. According to the Defense Department, nearly 94% of enlisted personnel have a high-school diploma, while only 60% of Americans do. About 83% of officers have a bachelor’s degree, in comparison with 30% of the general population.
These statistics, though, involve a bit of self-selection: Most officers have a bachelor’s degree because becoming an officer generally requires one, though this prerequisite appears increasingly anachronistic.
For one thing, the requirement of a college degree is simply a box for officer candidates to check. It doesn’t matter to the armed forces where you went to school, what you studied, or how well you did—short of a minimal GPA level of about 2.5 out of 4.0.
Scholarships provided by the Reserve Officer Training Corps and military academies such as West Point and Annapolis may have more stringent criteria, but in general anyone with a four-year degree who can pass the basic background checks and physical requirements of the military may apply for Officer Candidate School.
Instead of mandating that officers have college degrees, the military should expand alternative avenues to officership. A few exceptions to the degree mandate already exist: Warrant officers or limited-duty officers—typically highly trained specialists in technical fields like avionics or equipment maintenance—have worked their way to officership. Their service is akin to apprenticeship, where useful knowledge is gained through practical experience, not textbook theory. Why not offer the same deal to other recruits?
Historically, a college degree signaled superior intelligence, critical reasoning and writing skills, and dedication. A degree holder could be expected to form logical, coherent arguments and effectively communicate ideas. But a college degree in 2015 no longer signals—let alone guarantees—much of anything.
According to a 2014 Lumina-Gallup poll, “just 11% of business leaders strongly agree that higher education institutions in this country are graduating students with the skills and competencies that their business needs, and 17% strongly disagree.” In a Chronicle for Higher Education survey published in March 2013, employers said that applicants with degrees lacked decision-making and problem-solving abilities, written and oral communication skills, adaptability, and even the capacity to manage multiple priorities.
Even more than in civilian environments, those are skills needed for war. If a college degree no longer confers them, then why should the armed forces require it at all? Beyond the usual arguments about the prohibitive cost for many high-school graduates unable to take on debt, a college degree isn’t needed to be successful. Peter Thiel, an accomplished tech businessman, offers a fellowship of $100,000 for aspiring entrepreneurs who want to skip college and build businesses instead. Companies started as a result now employ 200 people and have generated $200 million in economic activity, according to the fellowship.
Some may argue that obtaining a bachelor’s degree shows responsibility or maturity. Yet how much responsibility does a typical single, childless 22-year-old college senior have? Has he demonstrated greater responsibility than a 22-year-old corporal at the end of his first tour of duty? Has he even demonstrated greater responsibility than a 19-year-old private first class after six months of service?
The only mark of distinction that a college degree still indicates, perhaps, is dedication. It usually requires four or more years to achieve, and following through to the end suggests long-term commitment to a goal. Yet clearly, college and putting off the working world is not for everyone. In 2013, the six-year graduation rate in the U.S. was only 59%, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
Commitment is certainly important to success in the military, but the armed forces already have a way to measure and test it: a four-year enlistment. If aspiring officers must demonstrate commitment and responsibility, completing a four-year enlistment should suffice. If they must prove raw intellectual aptitude, high scores on the military’s own General Classification Test should be enough. If they must have general knowledge and the ability to think and write coherently, an exam akin to the State Department’s Foreign Service Officer Test would work.
A combination of these could easily form a new path to an officer’s commission—and providing an alternative to the bachelor’s degree would produce an even more qualified officer corps.
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/military-officers-dont-need-college-degrees [login to see] -lMyQjAxMTI1NzE3MzMxNTM3Wj
Military recruiters and top brass like to repeat the refrain that the average member of the armed forces is better educated than the average American. It’s true. According to the Defense Department, nearly 94% of enlisted personnel have a high-school diploma, while only 60% of Americans do. About 83% of officers have a bachelor’s degree, in comparison with 30% of the general population.
These statistics, though, involve a bit of self-selection: Most officers have a bachelor’s degree because becoming an officer generally requires one, though this prerequisite appears increasingly anachronistic.
For one thing, the requirement of a college degree is simply a box for officer candidates to check. It doesn’t matter to the armed forces where you went to school, what you studied, or how well you did—short of a minimal GPA level of about 2.5 out of 4.0.
Scholarships provided by the Reserve Officer Training Corps and military academies such as West Point and Annapolis may have more stringent criteria, but in general anyone with a four-year degree who can pass the basic background checks and physical requirements of the military may apply for Officer Candidate School.
Instead of mandating that officers have college degrees, the military should expand alternative avenues to officership. A few exceptions to the degree mandate already exist: Warrant officers or limited-duty officers—typically highly trained specialists in technical fields like avionics or equipment maintenance—have worked their way to officership. Their service is akin to apprenticeship, where useful knowledge is gained through practical experience, not textbook theory. Why not offer the same deal to other recruits?
Historically, a college degree signaled superior intelligence, critical reasoning and writing skills, and dedication. A degree holder could be expected to form logical, coherent arguments and effectively communicate ideas. But a college degree in 2015 no longer signals—let alone guarantees—much of anything.
According to a 2014 Lumina-Gallup poll, “just 11% of business leaders strongly agree that higher education institutions in this country are graduating students with the skills and competencies that their business needs, and 17% strongly disagree.” In a Chronicle for Higher Education survey published in March 2013, employers said that applicants with degrees lacked decision-making and problem-solving abilities, written and oral communication skills, adaptability, and even the capacity to manage multiple priorities.
Even more than in civilian environments, those are skills needed for war. If a college degree no longer confers them, then why should the armed forces require it at all? Beyond the usual arguments about the prohibitive cost for many high-school graduates unable to take on debt, a college degree isn’t needed to be successful. Peter Thiel, an accomplished tech businessman, offers a fellowship of $100,000 for aspiring entrepreneurs who want to skip college and build businesses instead. Companies started as a result now employ 200 people and have generated $200 million in economic activity, according to the fellowship.
Some may argue that obtaining a bachelor’s degree shows responsibility or maturity. Yet how much responsibility does a typical single, childless 22-year-old college senior have? Has he demonstrated greater responsibility than a 22-year-old corporal at the end of his first tour of duty? Has he even demonstrated greater responsibility than a 19-year-old private first class after six months of service?
The only mark of distinction that a college degree still indicates, perhaps, is dedication. It usually requires four or more years to achieve, and following through to the end suggests long-term commitment to a goal. Yet clearly, college and putting off the working world is not for everyone. In 2013, the six-year graduation rate in the U.S. was only 59%, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
Commitment is certainly important to success in the military, but the armed forces already have a way to measure and test it: a four-year enlistment. If aspiring officers must demonstrate commitment and responsibility, completing a four-year enlistment should suffice. If they must prove raw intellectual aptitude, high scores on the military’s own General Classification Test should be enough. If they must have general knowledge and the ability to think and write coherently, an exam akin to the State Department’s Foreign Service Officer Test would work.
A combination of these could easily form a new path to an officer’s commission—and providing an alternative to the bachelor’s degree would produce an even more qualified officer corps.
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/military-officers-dont-need-college-degrees [login to see] -lMyQjAxMTI1NzE3MzMxNTM3Wj
Officers
Education
Rank
Bachelors Degree
Commission
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 126
7
7
0
Interesting..., but I don't agree. A Marine 1st LT... who is pursuing is MBA at Harvard... is an SME on what is takes to produce an Officer, and he does not think education matters. I don't buy the authors argument, I believe there is some disgruntledness in there. I believe you do need a college degree, and a Masters, and then more education military and civilian; you need to be a lifelong learner. I kinda get tired of the masses bashing officers (and the military in general, especially those who have never served but are SMEs), "anyone can do it"... etc... I started as a private (E-1), with no special advantages (aside from white privilege, I have been told) and worked for everything I got. CPT (Join to see) CPT Shahriar Chowdhury are correct. Anyone can be an officer, if they want to be, and the meet the prerequisites, requirements and standards. Leaders in many walks of life have the similar paths, and education does matter.
That said... it is not just education... there is a lot more to it. Making an officer requires... (assuming you have the requisite mental and physical attributes) (1) Desire (Heart), (2) Education, (3) Training, and (4) Experience.
I do believe all Officers would benefit from going to regular BCT and serving in the ranks. But, it is also not necessary. USMA, ROTC, OCS all succeed and fail at symmetrical ratios.
That said... it is not just education... there is a lot more to it. Making an officer requires... (assuming you have the requisite mental and physical attributes) (1) Desire (Heart), (2) Education, (3) Training, and (4) Experience.
I do believe all Officers would benefit from going to regular BCT and serving in the ranks. But, it is also not necessary. USMA, ROTC, OCS all succeed and fail at symmetrical ratios.
(7)
(0)
Maj (Join to see)
TSgt Joshua Copeland - Just curious why a commission would have stopped you from getting married.
(0)
(0)
Maj (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) - I agree. The requirements are clear. If you want a commission meet those requirements instead of making excuses because you are smarter on your job than your brand new Lt! I agree with you 100%!
(0)
(0)
Maj (Join to see)
TSgt Joshua Copeland - Ahhhh, the academy route! Gotcha, thought you meant OTS! My bad good sir!
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
I think if you want to really discuss this, you need to understand the historical contexts of both the degree and the concept of what an officer is (or was).
Degrees used to be offered in only a few things - basically natural philosophy (science), letters (law), and medicine. You didn't have the 10,000 variations on a theme you have today, you got a degree, and that meant you had attended a university and completed a broad course of study in your discipline. It also served as a delineator between common and gentry, as the gentry were generally the ones who were able to attend universities. It's only been in the last century that we've turned the university into an advanced technical school, offering bachelor's degrees in any- and everything you can imagine. If you can dream it, some enterprising school will sell you a degree in it. Many of the things degrees are offered in today should probably be taught in vocational and trade schools, but we've become stuck in this notion that if you don't have a degree in *something* you can't succeed at life. But that's a rant for another day.
So what about this notion of a "commission"? I probably don't need to tell officers this, but the whole point of being a commissioned officer was that you had both the authority of command as well as the rights to represent the sovereign. Commissioned officers had the ability to act not just as commanders on the battlefield (which warrant and non-commissioned officers can also do), but to make decisions of national importance absent direct guidance. Hence the whole "special trust and confidence" included in the commissioning documents. So what about folks who weren't of the gentry? That's where your warrant officers came in - still technically officers, but instead of a commission, they held their rank by warrant from their branch of service, based on demonstrated expertise. Still able to command, still able to lead, but not able to act on behalf of a sovereign. The difference here is that when these ideas were created, enlisted soldiers were seen as immature and illiterate, while officers were seen as gentlemen who were necessary to govern the savage common folks doing the fighting. The idea that common folk could govern themselves was impossible, so commissioned officers with the authority of the king (or whoever was in the seat of power) were seen as an absolute necessity. The funny thing is that in many of the European nations we inherited this system from, their officers may not have held a degree, per se. As long as you were part of the squirearchy, you could purchase a commission, and that made sense, because you were a gentleman by rights. Some officers were actually apprenticed to the officer corps at a young age, especially in the naval services, and earned commissions as they came of age; again, born into the right station, have the right blood, you're an officer.
To bring this full circle, both of these concepts are somewhat irrelevant today. Mass communication has made the need for the commission almost unnecessary, since battlefield commanders have almost instant communication with policy makers, and judging from some of the officers I've seen, many probably lack the fortitude or ability to act without explicit direction. College degrees have been democratized and industrialized to the point that people now think it's their God-given right to have a degree, instead of the degree being a tool of social stratification. Thus, you end up with enlisted people holding advanced degrees, looking at officers who hold "commissions" and wondering what the difference is between that guy and me. Americans have never looked to a "gentleman" class for leadership, so the notion that officers are somehow inherently socially superior just rubs us the wrong way. So it's not about the college degree, in the end, it's about outmoded notions of class and station that we inherited from our European forefathers, and that we never really addressed.
Degrees used to be offered in only a few things - basically natural philosophy (science), letters (law), and medicine. You didn't have the 10,000 variations on a theme you have today, you got a degree, and that meant you had attended a university and completed a broad course of study in your discipline. It also served as a delineator between common and gentry, as the gentry were generally the ones who were able to attend universities. It's only been in the last century that we've turned the university into an advanced technical school, offering bachelor's degrees in any- and everything you can imagine. If you can dream it, some enterprising school will sell you a degree in it. Many of the things degrees are offered in today should probably be taught in vocational and trade schools, but we've become stuck in this notion that if you don't have a degree in *something* you can't succeed at life. But that's a rant for another day.
So what about this notion of a "commission"? I probably don't need to tell officers this, but the whole point of being a commissioned officer was that you had both the authority of command as well as the rights to represent the sovereign. Commissioned officers had the ability to act not just as commanders on the battlefield (which warrant and non-commissioned officers can also do), but to make decisions of national importance absent direct guidance. Hence the whole "special trust and confidence" included in the commissioning documents. So what about folks who weren't of the gentry? That's where your warrant officers came in - still technically officers, but instead of a commission, they held their rank by warrant from their branch of service, based on demonstrated expertise. Still able to command, still able to lead, but not able to act on behalf of a sovereign. The difference here is that when these ideas were created, enlisted soldiers were seen as immature and illiterate, while officers were seen as gentlemen who were necessary to govern the savage common folks doing the fighting. The idea that common folk could govern themselves was impossible, so commissioned officers with the authority of the king (or whoever was in the seat of power) were seen as an absolute necessity. The funny thing is that in many of the European nations we inherited this system from, their officers may not have held a degree, per se. As long as you were part of the squirearchy, you could purchase a commission, and that made sense, because you were a gentleman by rights. Some officers were actually apprenticed to the officer corps at a young age, especially in the naval services, and earned commissions as they came of age; again, born into the right station, have the right blood, you're an officer.
To bring this full circle, both of these concepts are somewhat irrelevant today. Mass communication has made the need for the commission almost unnecessary, since battlefield commanders have almost instant communication with policy makers, and judging from some of the officers I've seen, many probably lack the fortitude or ability to act without explicit direction. College degrees have been democratized and industrialized to the point that people now think it's their God-given right to have a degree, instead of the degree being a tool of social stratification. Thus, you end up with enlisted people holding advanced degrees, looking at officers who hold "commissions" and wondering what the difference is between that guy and me. Americans have never looked to a "gentleman" class for leadership, so the notion that officers are somehow inherently socially superior just rubs us the wrong way. So it's not about the college degree, in the end, it's about outmoded notions of class and station that we inherited from our European forefathers, and that we never really addressed.
(6)
(0)
6
6
0
Interesting article.
It's less stating that we don't need college, it's more implying we have alternatives to college, which we are already using. It cites LDOs and WOs as examples, and highlights that modern college may not be providing the skills the modern warfighter actually needs.
This isn't to say our Officer Corps doesn't need EDUCATION. Just that it might not need COLLEGE. Remember those two concepts are different. Theoretically, we could provide "fellowships" which resulted in a Commission/Warrant, or other alternate paths.
If we are just using a degree as a baseline requirement, without ensuring it is actually doing what it originally intended, why is it there? We want our Officer Corps to have a solid general base of knowledge, with the capability to learn. These are things college offers, but does not ensure, especially in the modern "internet era."
So, ignoring the headline, and delving more into the concept, it isn't really suggesting we "change" but more that we could potentially "evolve" with the times. That's something we are really good at.
It's less stating that we don't need college, it's more implying we have alternatives to college, which we are already using. It cites LDOs and WOs as examples, and highlights that modern college may not be providing the skills the modern warfighter actually needs.
This isn't to say our Officer Corps doesn't need EDUCATION. Just that it might not need COLLEGE. Remember those two concepts are different. Theoretically, we could provide "fellowships" which resulted in a Commission/Warrant, or other alternate paths.
If we are just using a degree as a baseline requirement, without ensuring it is actually doing what it originally intended, why is it there? We want our Officer Corps to have a solid general base of knowledge, with the capability to learn. These are things college offers, but does not ensure, especially in the modern "internet era."
So, ignoring the headline, and delving more into the concept, it isn't really suggesting we "change" but more that we could potentially "evolve" with the times. That's something we are really good at.
(6)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, I just did a lengthy reply to CPT (Join to see) along these lines. My understanding of the article is this. Is a college degree still a good "yard stick" to measure aptitude. Previously it was, studies say now it might not hold true now. What should be the yard stick "now"?
(1)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
CPT Shahriar Chowdhury, absolutely, but it is likely the longest pole in the proverbial tent as well.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
Interesting topic SFC Drake-I'm truly split on this one. On the one hand, I think the officer corps in general, would benefit from being drawn out of highly experienced former senior enlisted leadership...not unlike the concept used to train Centurions in the Roman military. However, I also see where above field grade, an officer is more closely linked to the more esoteric aspects of military leadership, and should be able to represent the entire service as a senior officer. Having come through the more "traditional" pipe-line, straight out of high school, into a service academy, I know I'd have been a much more effective O-1 to O-4 had I five to seven years of experience as an enlisted man first. When we stood shoulder to shoulder and marched in step towards artillery, perhaps a young, idealistic, inexperienced officer was more useful. In today's battle-space, we need leaders who are dynamic, can quickly and efficiently incorporate the information coming to them, and manage more complex counter-insurgency strategy. However we produce our officer corps in the future, we have to ensure that they can fulfill their role over the span of a career commensurate with the special trust and confidence given.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
" About 83% of officers have a bachelor’s degree,"
Which branch(es) is that 17% hiding in? I know it isn't Big Blue.
Speaking to the question. Is is actually needed? No. There is nothing inherent about officership that having a degree in (insert major here) that makes you more qualified outside of being able to do some long term goal setting and time management skills which can be demonstrated via other means.
Given the current state of the military is there a pressing need to change "the system"? Not at all. It has worked for decades, there are multiple paths to becoming an officer both externally and internally. If you want to be an Officer, the degree is not an obstacle unless you make it one yourself.
Which branch(es) is that 17% hiding in? I know it isn't Big Blue.
Speaking to the question. Is is actually needed? No. There is nothing inherent about officership that having a degree in (insert major here) that makes you more qualified outside of being able to do some long term goal setting and time management skills which can be demonstrated via other means.
Given the current state of the military is there a pressing need to change "the system"? Not at all. It has worked for decades, there are multiple paths to becoming an officer both externally and internally. If you want to be an Officer, the degree is not an obstacle unless you make it one yourself.
(5)
(0)
SGT William Howell
Previously when we were short officers in the Guard you could go to OCS and get your commission with 60 college hours, but could not advance above O-3 until you had a degree. I am not sure if this is true today.
(0)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, We don't have LDOs either, we kind of do the all or nothing game.
Change unfortunately often cost money, money is something that we are in extremely short supply. So unless we can figure out a long term cost savings or a significant increase in the quality of the end product to warrant spending the money, that's no beuno. The time for that idea was 2004.
Change unfortunately often cost money, money is something that we are in extremely short supply. So unless we can figure out a long term cost savings or a significant increase in the quality of the end product to warrant spending the money, that's no beuno. The time for that idea was 2004.
(0)
(0)
LT (Join to see)
SSG Zachary Vrba - LDO here. I was an E6 that made the jump. The LDO program is based off leadership first, experience second and to an extent if you have a degree third. There is no requirement for a degree though.
(1)
(0)
CDR (Join to see)
When I went to MTT/BTT training at FT Riley KS on my way to a year in Iraq in 07/08, the Army NCO's and Officers were amazed that I was a commissioned Officer without a degree and even more amazed that I promoted to CDR (O5) while there in training. I do believe that the Officer corps should be mostly comprised of those with degrees for the experience (albeit cloistered), maturity and credibility (in many cases) that it affords, however, I would like to see other branches implement a similar opportunity for top performing NCO's to obtain a commission. As a Limited Duty Officer, I never liked the "Limited" part of it, however, I was expected from day one to be the SME in ordnance, combats systems, explosives safety and weapons. I know that most appreciate the Mustang up from the ranks Officer and their skills, proven leadership and ability can only make that Officer corps and branch better.
(3)
(0)
4
4
0
I have to question first, the author spent only 4 years as a Marine Officer, attaining the rank of 1LT so his experience as an officer is the equivalent of a 4 year troop trying to say he is an expert in all things military. Secondly, he fails to realize Warrants and LDO are not commissioned by the POTUS and do not hold the same authority as a Comm O does. His comparison is invalid and frankly asinine. Now if he would have payed attention to terminology and specifics he would see that NCOs, WO, and Comm Os are all officers just different Varieties And at different levels.
(4)
(0)
MSgt Rob Weston
I stand corrected about the commission. But I still think the Author is a few tools short of a set
(0)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
Army Warrant Officer and Commissioned Officer Careers
There are two kinds of officers in the US Army: Army Commissioned officers and Army Warrant officers. Learn about these Army officer requirements and how to apply.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Traditionally, officers have required degrees because that was a sign of intelligence, perseverance etc. If one could complete a college degree, that was seen as a sign of readiness to become an officer.
Of course these days we have a large number of LDOs and Warrant Officers, who may or may not have degrees, but are seen as technical leaders in their fields.
There is also the history of the "battlefield commission". When the LT gets fragged, the SGT becomes the LT... I don't know if that still happens these days though.
The difference in knowledge and skills of officers and enlisted men these days is much narrower than it used to be, and in fact, many Senior Enlisted boards look for college degrees these days. So the bottom line is it's best to get one if you can, irrespective of your military career goals. It will only help you in the military, and it will also help you when you retire or get out...
Of course these days we have a large number of LDOs and Warrant Officers, who may or may not have degrees, but are seen as technical leaders in their fields.
There is also the history of the "battlefield commission". When the LT gets fragged, the SGT becomes the LT... I don't know if that still happens these days though.
The difference in knowledge and skills of officers and enlisted men these days is much narrower than it used to be, and in fact, many Senior Enlisted boards look for college degrees these days. So the bottom line is it's best to get one if you can, irrespective of your military career goals. It will only help you in the military, and it will also help you when you retire or get out...
LT (Join to see)
This is true. I have known and E5 that was a Civil Engineer and an E6 that had his PHD. They just decided the officer route was not for them.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Ronnie Reams
When I was a young enlisted troop some of the best company officers I served with were the ones that did the 4 years TIS, a buck SGT or higher and proven under fire leadership skills that were given a 2LT commission. I don't know how they did stateside, but we'd much rather have them than a 2LT out of OCS or ROTC or USMA that did a couple months running a range in the States and came over. Don't know if this program exists today or not.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I don't know either...
CPO (Join to see)
I would also argue that having a degree was less a test of intelligence but demonstrated a base level of reading, writing, math, and reasoning skills above what a regular public education would provide.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
While the degree doesn't make the officer, they're better for it. Entering service (while still young) at a later age gives them just a little more time for maturity.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
This is a good question. I know there are many officers that should not be an officer. These people can't lead anyone, no people or managing skills. The only reason they are an officer is because they have a degree. On the other hand I knew quite a few people who were enlisted that have excellent managing and people skills. Those under them would go follow them to hell and back without question yet because they didn't get a degree they are lead by the idiots i mentioned before. With that said NO military officers do not need a degree.
(4)
(0)
SCPO David Lockwood
One more thing, in the Navy we can get a commission through the Limited Duty Officer (LDO) program. You are commissioned as an Ensign (0-1E). They are able to attain the rank of Capt (0-6) and have been allowed to become Commanding Officers of Shore Commands and Department Heads at Sea Commands. This proves that there are awesome people out there who do not have a degree but are achieving levels that years ago were unheard of.
(1)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
Having been there (O-1E through O-3E and O-4), I can relate somewhat to SCPO Lockwood's remarks. However, many of us who became commissioned officers (up through the ranks) did see a need for college degrees and pursued them. Granted, not every officer absolutely must have a degree, however a college degree does help. Degrees do not help educated idiots, but hopefully the system will screen them out.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I got this from another person on RP last month... Officers aren't put in their position because they know a lot, they are put there because they know how to learn... The military must recognize that someone knows how to learn more effectively if they have advanced schooling. It's not that an officer is smarter because they have a degree, but it shows that that person is willing and able to learn. There are thousands of enlisted that are just as capable or more capable of learning and doing the job of an officer (I was one of them). The only fair and effective way the military can select people for the duty is the current way. Anything else would not be as comprehensive in the way of commitment and intellectual capacity. It's the military, so it's standardized. Bottom line.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google