Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!bellcore!att!cbnews!military From: baldwin@cad.usna.mil (J.D. Baldwin) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Hackworth (About Face) Message-ID: <10267@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 16 Oct 89 01:37:56 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 64 Approved: military@att.att.com From: "J.D. Baldwin" In article <10187@cbnews.ATT.COM> you write: > 1) West Point (USMA). Yes, enlisted men get a chance to be selected for > USMA. Once selected, they must attend the West Point Prepatory > Academy, mostly to bring up any 'academic' deficiencies. I understand > the drop out rate among these personnel is quite high. I've had > a couple of prior-enlisted West Point graduates as my subordinate > lieutenants - they are the ones that describe the wash out rate and > how difficult it is. Remember, West Point is still basically an > academic college - with uniforms. Cadets don't get too much of a taste > for the 'real' army until after graduation. They *all* attend MAPS? I attended NAPS myself, as do the majority of prior-enlisteds who wind up here (USNA), but by no means do they *all* go through prep school. Also, I have heard that complaint about the relative isolation of USMA cadets from the "real" army before. I think I can fairly say that USNA does not have that problem. > 2) On the other hand, prior enlisted - now in college in ROTC programs > seem to be 'above average' in their programs and graduate very high - > 'a lot' becoming 'distinguished graduates' and receiving Regular Army > Commissions after graduation. Yes, the same is true of NROTC. > 3) I spent five years as an enlisted man before going to Infantry Officer's > Candidate School (OCS). I entered as a sergeant and graduated a > second lieutenant. Now, I'll give a biased opinion. I believe an > OCS graduate/prior enlisted second lieutenant is ready to command troops > and perform his tasks 'better' than an ROTC or West Point graduate. > But, as their rank increases and their experience increases - the > differences fade quickly (senior captain - major). But as far as > second lieutenants go, none are more ready to command then OCS > graduates. (Infantry OCS class of '66) Do you include OCS non-prior enlisteds? If so, that strikes me as very strange. USN OCS graduates may fairly be described as "clueless" for about the first six months of service, or maybe a year. Enough of this time is usually taken up with fleet service schools and early fleet "under instruction watches" that it doesn't matter much. But these guys generally have a lot of catching up to do. Then again, the Army has always impressed me as being a much more specialized service than the Navy (surprisingly enough). Perhaps this accounts for the lesser difference between commissioning sources. I agree with everything else you said here. In the Navy, I would say that the differences are gone by the time a guy makes LT (roughly 4 years after commissioning). Earlier than your Army observations, but the same principle applies. Everything after this point, I agree with also. So I left it out. :-) > 'Course then again - there is always WPPA to contend with. > (West Point Protective Association) :-) I believe it. USMA seems to me to have a stranglehold on senior Army jobs. Much like the USNA had in the Navy until about 10-15 years ago. These days, it seems USNA grads are slightly *less* promotable than their counterparts from other commissioning sources, once the year groups start making O-5 and above. (Probably not enough less to be statistically significant, but clearly not *more* promotable.)