The scene ion the pic is one I am familiar with. To the left is where the marina was I sailed out of while I was in QM 'A' school. Spent a lot of time on a Rhodes 19 out on the bay.
When I took the sailing course we were told of a person that had a Rhodes 19 out and went under a part of the bridge too low for the mast. He had to paddle the boat back to the marina and pay for repairs.
Dad took me sailing for the first time when he was XO of a CVA in Alameda....
( Around the same time of the first pic here. You can see the sailing facility piers just aft of the CVE...either the Core or the Card, unsung 'background' ships which are both FbF eligible)
As we sailed along the portside of his CVA, which had just returned from one of the longest deployments since WWII, I asked why she looked so rough on the side compared to her appearance pierside. He chuckled and said, "Paint the side the Admiral sees!"
Later, spent my high school years hanging out at the sailing facility at NAS Pensacola. Had one of the very first Hobie Cats in town. It wasn't near as expansive as now...
Shame the Navy doesn't care much about boats and 'The Sea' these days....
Just look at the shambolic mess that is the USS Monsoor, showing the flag in Japan right now. Quite frankly, showing her unkempt a--. The pic says it all:
Look at the rotten carbon fiber/balsa cored "tophat" panels. Real 'stealthy' fellas and gals!
Given how pristine the Japanese maintain their ships, bet they are outright insulted.
Meanwhile, an updated check of the USNA English Department website shows no evidence that fostering an interest of Ships or the Sea is given even a passing thought (well, one 200 course has been added...guess that punches the ticket):
There are a couple of illuminating letters in this months Proceedings which address some of this. My bet is that the DEI types are, as you suggest, burrowing in to ride this Administration out, and will surface again when they have a chance.
The correct answer to the perfesser who asked about Canada allowed to be sovereign was "Take it up with His Majesty's Government, since they're the ones ultimately in charge of Canada".
There has also been progress at the USCGA and the USMMA which are part of the maritime arena even if they are attached to different cabinet departments.
Each school was headed by a DEI-on-steroids superintendent. Both are gone. I’m not sure how much of the staff went with them or what the acting superintendents are like but I feel confidant that things are improving in New London and Kings Point.
This gave me a headache. It brought back memories of the focus on white male rage while our military personnel were being slaughtered in Afghanistan (as we showboated a false peace and pulled out in the exact wrong order that old school war colleges would have instructed against.) And to the guy who needs smelling salts about talking about Greenland, he needs to be hog-tied and thrown into Narragansett Bay. With the change in shipping lanes as Phib outlined a few days ago, and changes to NATO's priorities, and China's endless quest to grab toeholds wherever it can, Greenland is an important topic strategically. The focus of these weenies on DEI and their freedom of thought and ability to continue their Critical Theory nonsense should lead to immediate changes in faculty. I see similar entrenchment and burrowing where I work.
Why civilians are still employed inside the academies is "troubling". They have no business in the lethal business in which the students are employed, and need to be let go ASAP.
Forty years ago it was likley that the men had been drafted early in their youth and at least served in an enlisted capacity prior to getting their high and mighty credentials. Today, not so much.
I know a few folks who have gone the PMP (Professional Military Professor) route - I believe a PhD is part of the deal. A family friend & former Scoutmaster of mine went was in the pipeline but sadly did not complete his doctorate in Physics.
"...but the smart ones are burrowing into the ground like cicadas hoping to wait things out..."
This is EXACTLY the case. I fear that what we are seeing now with the efforts to reign in all this leftist lunatic rot will only be a respite. So much of academia, so overwhelmingly much, is hard-left; and that is the pool from which USNA and NWC draw their faculties. Further, the anti-Founding, DEI, Marxist indoctrination of our youth by these "educators" propgates this cancer.
Not to be pessimistic, but I'm certainly not optimistic that the entrenched leftism in academia will ever be changed. And there are many - some here, no doubt - that likely hope it doesn't change.
Indeed... Consider the source of academic talent... Most colleges & unis have a leftist tilt... Grad programs are heavily leftist, certainly humanities & social studies (and many STEM depts roll strongly port as well)... Few are the top-flight Masters & PhD grads who have not learned to dance to the tune... And then come the screening programs for faculty hiring, whether at South Succotash State, or fleeting upwards to the Big Names, if not our so-called "military" education establishments. Leftist bias is the proverbial feature, not the bug.
20 years ago the DEI stuff was starting to creep in (mandatory Cornell West book clubs) but we mostly blew it off - as I recall it wasn’t coming from the “civilian” professors (many of who are former military) but the actual uniformed administration.
Why? (Full disclosure: I am a product of US Air Force OTC, following an undergraduate degree in astronautical engineering; my son is a graduate of the US Air Force Academy (aerospace engineering), class of 2000).
Why have service academies at all? When the US Military Academy and US Naval Academy were created, there were few universities in the US that offered the critical subjects needed - civil engineering (to build forts and bridges, and destroy them) and artillery for the USMA, and naval/marine engineering and naval artillery for the USNA. They were of some valued purpose.
Today, there are many such schools offering those topics, and other militarily necessary subjects, available in the US. In the meantime, the military academies (all of them, now) offer training in topics that have little to no applicability to the mission of the US Military: Supporting and defending the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In short, killing people and breaking their stuff.
The education provided in general topics are no better or worse than any other university. In fact, neither are terribly competent due to contamination from DEI and other terrible theories. That the academies imbue something besides institutional sludge is not evident or provable.
The so called war colleges are just as dysfunctional. Scholarships for special education opportunities at other schools are equally lacking in applicability to the mission of the US Military. And the Army/Air Force versions of the war colleges offer correspondence/online training that is 'just as good' (except during promotion boards).
The baccalaureate education offered by the academies is diffuse, very expensive, and creates a culture of near nobility: Ring-knockers maintain this culture, with no evidence of any benefit to the US people.
And some other nations, older than the US manage to create qualified and competent junior officers without the equivalent of 4-year colleges. The British use objective testing to take young people and decide if they are suitable for Sandhurst, Cranwell, Dartmouth. The French have St. Cyr. And unlike the US military academies, they seem to be able to take Army and Naval officers and after a years course actually USE them in a military role. The US Academies? Army officers have to go to basic branch courses, Air Force officers need the same (or undergraduate pilot training), the Navy - for some reason they think that they can get their deck qualifications in their spare time while driving into other ships. In short, the US academies graduate unqualified for any military role 'leaders'.
The ROTC accession pathway is almost as bad. Playing military for four years, while costing far less, still graduate unqualified individuals. OTS courses have the advantage of taking people who are at worst equal to the graduates of the academies, at best are already subject matter experts in some fields, and in a quarter or so learn to dress and salute, and go to their job specific training.
OTS type programs also have the advantage of being the easiest to scale in size, larger and smaller as the needs of the service require. Academies are absolutely the worst. ROTC programs still have considerable hysteresis in their ability to adjust. Clearly these are the most efficient and cost effective training methods.
The need, the day of the service academies has come, and gone. Time to move on.
Late seventies graduate of USAFA myself. Over the last nearly 50 years I have watched the institution slide into irrelevance. The worst part: this "rot" has existed within USAF for 30 years or more. The graduates and their attitudes are now the foundational structure of the U.S. Air Force. IMO, it's not "fixable" without an unstainable level of effort. Wish I felt differently.
Won't disagree, although at my 20th reunion the board briefings were already lighting the caution panel up. Which was a bit prior to the "Bring Me Men" removal. So, the slide was underway, from the top down...I actually helped train the first females, FWIW
Great comment, Doc... I had to think for a while about whether/how to reply... My father was Army OCS in WWII; he and about 80% of all officers of that era, and he walked-in with a civilian pilot's license back in the day when those were few & far between. I was Navy AOCS/Pensacola; walked in "free of charge" to the sea service for my undergrad/grad education (serious STEM, by the way). My son is Army OCS; again, a walk-in joiner-upper who brought a "free" STEM education to Army.
Back in Pliocene Time when I was in flight training, I first heard the expression, "Poly-sci and fly" from some of the USNA & ROTC people. I wondered why Navy would pay its scarce buck$ for people to study poly-sci (and related "soft" majors; you get the point). Isn't that why we have civilian colleges? Silly moi; obviously, I had much to learn about how our country's taxpayer-funded mil-ed edifice actually works.
As I understand the history, West Point was founded in 1802 to train Army officers as engineers. Yes, of course the Army needed officers, but per Pres. Jefferson at that time, the country really needed engineers. And for a long spell, West Point engineers were all over the landscape, doing their thing... Although many other schools set up shop along the way and began producing engineers -- mining, civil & mechanical at first; then chemical & electrical & so forth, up to present.
"The Naval School" began in 1845 when Big Navy (well, then-SecNav George Bancroft) determined that on-the-job training wasn't good enough to produce what America's Navy needed. Name changed in 1850 to USNA. And the rest... is history. Rigorous academics coupled with practical training in ship-related saltwater-stuff. Until the academic drift kicked in and USNA decided that it wanted to be a military Ivy, except with way more athlete-students and shorter haircuts, but similar pedagogical values to the civilian-side.
Coast Guard, Merchant Marine and USAFA all have their own origin-mythology as well... Basically, produce technically qualified junior cadre officers for mission-specific tasks. No "liberal arts" programs, just fly the airplanes & sail the ships. And then grow up to run the combat & system commands.
And... Here... We... Are... Meaning that right now, what USA does in terms of "mil ed" speaks for itself... It's why we're on Cdr Sal's site today and many days. And to be sure, we have a near-endless list of people who did well in service academies & ROTC... "Ring-Knocker" kidding aside, the schools have delivered over the past two centuries... But we're also talking about Big Problems today at the institutional level... What do we do? Well... here, we write notes about it. Somebody else must do the policymaking.
By comparison, look at another program, the Soviet-Russian legacy of military education... Ponder, compare & Contrast...
Russia has numerous military academies, Army, Navy, Aerospace and more; both pre-college and university-equivalent. Russian elementary & secondary ed has a mission to screen for suitable mil service candidates... And growing up in Russia is one long academic-cultural lesson in Russian military history, esp WWII/Great Patriotic War. Right away, it's immensely different to mass-education across USA.
Russian service academies are five-year programs, 6 days per wk. Highly competitive admissions, with rigorous entry exams, seriously challenging. Each academy is service oriented -- Army, Navy Aero, etc; all steeped in deep Russian-Soviet-Russian2.0 military tradition... And all are heavy-duty STEM -- math, physics, engineering, chemistry, military science (a distinct academic discipline in Russia; very mathematical), all manner of engineering. Plus geography, history (aka Russian military history), a "literature" course (aka more Russian military history) and foreign language. Plus... rigorous military-focused physical training. Eg, your typical Russian naval academy grad could easily handle an assignment as a junior officer of naval infantry (aka Marines).
At the end... A Russian mliitary academy degree is academically equivalent to a rigorous US undergrad & masters in a STEM field. Plus the grad has undergone something like USMC BASIC school, and Army airborne/air assault training.
Russian military academies enroll women; ratio is about 85-15 men-women. They have zero gender issues. Women are not slotted towards direct combat arms, but you'll find them in medical, comms, crypto, intel, certain elements of transportation & logistics.
On a personal level, some yrs back I visited a Russian aerospace academy near Moscow, and a naval academy in St Petersburg. Impressive students in terms of intelligence, appearance, military bearing, language (excellent English), plans for a career, hopes & dreams, etc. Yes, suspend your biases and just deal with the young people standing right there in front of you. By now, those young guys are probably flying Su-35s or driving Borrei submarines.
My wrapup is that USA must reboot its military ed systems. No, not go all-in Russian, but what we're currently doing clearly does not fulfill the military needs of the country. And in many ways it ill-serves the young people who sign up. Of course, the next big test will be in wartime, when perhaps it will all work out just splendidly. Or not, and survivors will discuss what went wrong as they bob around on the ocean in life rafts.
WRT the dichotomy of the US vs Soviet/Russian education systems, the Russian system seems to produce rigid thinkers who will pencil-whip reports to higher to meet standards, steal from the supply room, etc.
The US, OTOH..... Not so much rampant thievery, perhaps: They wait until they're senior officers (Fat Leonard?).
And none of the US academies seem to prepare people for initial entry jobs in anything.
The good professor state, "Do I have to self censure myself?" OK, as if those with a true warrior ethos or expertise have not been self censuring for years. For instance, what he say about the guys like me that are familiar with Islam to know that the "religion of peace" is no such thing and has never been. The experts in this area were purged during the GW Bush administration. Where was the serious talk about the true realities of the complications with mixed gender crews been for the last 30 years?
The only thing SECDEF has led is to show how to compromise operational security and classified information without accountability, and how to fire female annd minority FOGOs without cause. A wholly unqualified drunkard and womanizer. What a poor role model for our officers in training.
As a NWC Alumnus (Non-resident, 1991) and parent of a recent USNA graduate I have been appalled at what I have seen and read about current conditions at both of our Navy's top academic institutions. At the time I was at NWC the college was not accredited to grant degrees. As a student I was not privy to all of what was going on, but even the students could see, and frequently professors would share, the conflict within the faculty over whether NWC should grant degrees. I remember specifically one professor saying that he saw accreditation by a civilian entity as a direct threat to the independence and integrity of the NWC as a military war college. When asked why he felt that we, he responded that in order to obtain, and maintain, accreditation NWC would have to essentially transfer control of its curriculum to non-military academics and add to the curriculum enough non-military related classes to meet the degree "standards" of the accreditation agency. ln addition, the faculty would become slaves to the "publish or perish" model of civilian academia and no longer simply be teachers.
It would appear that what he feared has, in fact, come to pass. I suspect that this is also a major part of the problem at USNA, since it has become, essentially, a civilian university that trains naval officers as a secondary function.
Perhaps the solution to the problem at NWC is to drop the degree granting function, eliminate non-core departments/faculty and thereby return the college to its roots. Similarly, the solution at USNA is to trim the number of majors offered and re-orient those that remain to the "needs of the Navy" and not the needs of a civilian accreditation agency
Yes to both points here... Accreditation and degrees at NWC, and rebooting the core academic mission of USNA. These institutions MUST understand -- administration, faculty, staff, even students (oh, and alumni, esp the sports boosters) -- that their current status is under fundamental reconsideration. They all have a military job to do... and if they cannot accomplish that job, then their positions and efforts are unnecessary in present form. Of course, keep the buildings and grounds... repurpose to another and better use.
Can any of these people provide substantive proof that their courses or presence on the faculty have substantially improved the services in areas of leadership, combat skills, strategic thinking, and acquisition? Seems like those should be core outcomes for their student body.
I still see a unique and valuable role for the military academies and war colleges, provided that the focus of all education provided at these institutions is military excellence, not social engineering.
"Do I have to self censure myself? Which is by the way, the most dangerous aspect of censorship. It's not just telling us, okay, this you can't talk about. It's then me as an academic saying, am I gonna lose my job if I talk about Greenland?"
Welcome to the party, Doc. And how did you feel up to, say yesterday, about all those prospective college professors who "self-censured" their non-leftist and unapproved opinions for fear it might affect their chances of finding a university teaching job, or all the students who "self-censured" their politically unpopular opinions in class for fear it might affect their grades? Or do academic freedom and freedom of speech only apply to one side of the debate?
The scene ion the pic is one I am familiar with. To the left is where the marina was I sailed out of while I was in QM 'A' school. Spent a lot of time on a Rhodes 19 out on the bay.
Got to sail on a couple of them...before the bridge was there...when I was a kid.
When I took the sailing course we were told of a person that had a Rhodes 19 out and went under a part of the bridge too low for the mast. He had to paddle the boat back to the marina and pay for repairs.
Dad took me sailing for the first time when he was XO of a CVA in Alameda....
( Around the same time of the first pic here. You can see the sailing facility piers just aft of the CVE...either the Core or the Card, unsung 'background' ships which are both FbF eligible)
https://towns-and-nature.blogspot.com/2023/05/alameda-naval-air-station-could-also.html
Note the black P-3's on the NARF ramp. There's a story there. IYKYK.
Found the black P-3 story! One is said to have shot down a Mig!!!
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-of-the-black-orions-the-p-3-aircraft-operated-by-cia-for-black-flights-over-china-and-north-vietnam-one-is-believed-to-have-shot-down-a-mig-with-a-sidewinder-missile/
As we sailed along the portside of his CVA, which had just returned from one of the longest deployments since WWII, I asked why she looked so rough on the side compared to her appearance pierside. He chuckled and said, "Paint the side the Admiral sees!"
Later, spent my high school years hanging out at the sailing facility at NAS Pensacola. Had one of the very first Hobie Cats in town. It wasn't near as expansive as now...
http://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/163855
Shame the Navy doesn't care much about boats and 'The Sea' these days....
Just look at the shambolic mess that is the USS Monsoor, showing the flag in Japan right now. Quite frankly, showing her unkempt a--. The pic says it all:
https://x.com/FranzMaser/status/1952283279547142210/photo/1
Look at the rotten carbon fiber/balsa cored "tophat" panels. Real 'stealthy' fellas and gals!
Given how pristine the Japanese maintain their ships, bet they are outright insulted.
Meanwhile, an updated check of the USNA English Department website shows no evidence that fostering an interest of Ships or the Sea is given even a passing thought (well, one 200 course has been added...guess that punches the ticket):
https://www.usna.edu/EnglishDept/academics/index.php
There are a couple of illuminating letters in this months Proceedings which address some of this. My bet is that the DEI types are, as you suggest, burrowing in to ride this Administration out, and will surface again when they have a chance.
"...the smart ones are burrowing into the ground like cicadas"
Too bad Chlordane was banned in 1988.
Show them no quarter, for they surely intended to show none to US.
This!
🎯
its political warfare. the point of gaining political power is implementing policy. do it.
The correct answer to the perfesser who asked about Canada allowed to be sovereign was "Take it up with His Majesty's Government, since they're the ones ultimately in charge of Canada".
There has also been progress at the USCGA and the USMMA which are part of the maritime arena even if they are attached to different cabinet departments.
Each school was headed by a DEI-on-steroids superintendent. Both are gone. I’m not sure how much of the staff went with them or what the acting superintendents are like but I feel confidant that things are improving in New London and Kings Point.
Oh my, someone uttered the F-word! Imagine! That person should probably teach in a kindergarten, not in a college.
This gave me a headache. It brought back memories of the focus on white male rage while our military personnel were being slaughtered in Afghanistan (as we showboated a false peace and pulled out in the exact wrong order that old school war colleges would have instructed against.) And to the guy who needs smelling salts about talking about Greenland, he needs to be hog-tied and thrown into Narragansett Bay. With the change in shipping lanes as Phib outlined a few days ago, and changes to NATO's priorities, and China's endless quest to grab toeholds wherever it can, Greenland is an important topic strategically. The focus of these weenies on DEI and their freedom of thought and ability to continue their Critical Theory nonsense should lead to immediate changes in faculty. I see similar entrenchment and burrowing where I work.
WRT Greenland, both Maine and Alaska are, I think, closer to it than Denmark, so we should, have a decent claim to shouldering the responsibility
Why civilians are still employed inside the academies is "troubling". They have no business in the lethal business in which the students are employed, and need to be let go ASAP.
40 years ago there was some benefit, but 40 years ago they weren't all bat$h1t crazy leftists either.
I wonder what my old EE prof that escaped from Hungary in 1958 would think?
Forty years ago it was likley that the men had been drafted early in their youth and at least served in an enlisted capacity prior to getting their high and mighty credentials. Today, not so much.
also a great point, and even if they themselves did not, their fathers, uncles, and many of their friends had served.
I know a few folks who have gone the PMP (Professional Military Professor) route - I believe a PhD is part of the deal. A family friend & former Scoutmaster of mine went was in the pipeline but sadly did not complete his doctorate in Physics.
"...but the smart ones are burrowing into the ground like cicadas hoping to wait things out..."
This is EXACTLY the case. I fear that what we are seeing now with the efforts to reign in all this leftist lunatic rot will only be a respite. So much of academia, so overwhelmingly much, is hard-left; and that is the pool from which USNA and NWC draw their faculties. Further, the anti-Founding, DEI, Marxist indoctrination of our youth by these "educators" propgates this cancer.
Not to be pessimistic, but I'm certainly not optimistic that the entrenched leftism in academia will ever be changed. And there are many - some here, no doubt - that likely hope it doesn't change.
Indeed... Consider the source of academic talent... Most colleges & unis have a leftist tilt... Grad programs are heavily leftist, certainly humanities & social studies (and many STEM depts roll strongly port as well)... Few are the top-flight Masters & PhD grads who have not learned to dance to the tune... And then come the screening programs for faculty hiring, whether at South Succotash State, or fleeting upwards to the Big Names, if not our so-called "military" education establishments. Leftist bias is the proverbial feature, not the bug.
“Leftist bias is the proverbial feature, not the bug.”….EXACTLY!
20 years ago the DEI stuff was starting to creep in (mandatory Cornell West book clubs) but we mostly blew it off - as I recall it wasn’t coming from the “civilian” professors (many of who are former military) but the actual uniformed administration.
Why? (Full disclosure: I am a product of US Air Force OTC, following an undergraduate degree in astronautical engineering; my son is a graduate of the US Air Force Academy (aerospace engineering), class of 2000).
Why have service academies at all? When the US Military Academy and US Naval Academy were created, there were few universities in the US that offered the critical subjects needed - civil engineering (to build forts and bridges, and destroy them) and artillery for the USMA, and naval/marine engineering and naval artillery for the USNA. They were of some valued purpose.
Today, there are many such schools offering those topics, and other militarily necessary subjects, available in the US. In the meantime, the military academies (all of them, now) offer training in topics that have little to no applicability to the mission of the US Military: Supporting and defending the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In short, killing people and breaking their stuff.
The education provided in general topics are no better or worse than any other university. In fact, neither are terribly competent due to contamination from DEI and other terrible theories. That the academies imbue something besides institutional sludge is not evident or provable.
The so called war colleges are just as dysfunctional. Scholarships for special education opportunities at other schools are equally lacking in applicability to the mission of the US Military. And the Army/Air Force versions of the war colleges offer correspondence/online training that is 'just as good' (except during promotion boards).
The baccalaureate education offered by the academies is diffuse, very expensive, and creates a culture of near nobility: Ring-knockers maintain this culture, with no evidence of any benefit to the US people.
And some other nations, older than the US manage to create qualified and competent junior officers without the equivalent of 4-year colleges. The British use objective testing to take young people and decide if they are suitable for Sandhurst, Cranwell, Dartmouth. The French have St. Cyr. And unlike the US military academies, they seem to be able to take Army and Naval officers and after a years course actually USE them in a military role. The US Academies? Army officers have to go to basic branch courses, Air Force officers need the same (or undergraduate pilot training), the Navy - for some reason they think that they can get their deck qualifications in their spare time while driving into other ships. In short, the US academies graduate unqualified for any military role 'leaders'.
The ROTC accession pathway is almost as bad. Playing military for four years, while costing far less, still graduate unqualified individuals. OTS courses have the advantage of taking people who are at worst equal to the graduates of the academies, at best are already subject matter experts in some fields, and in a quarter or so learn to dress and salute, and go to their job specific training.
OTS type programs also have the advantage of being the easiest to scale in size, larger and smaller as the needs of the service require. Academies are absolutely the worst. ROTC programs still have considerable hysteresis in their ability to adjust. Clearly these are the most efficient and cost effective training methods.
The need, the day of the service academies has come, and gone. Time to move on.
Late seventies graduate of USAFA myself. Over the last nearly 50 years I have watched the institution slide into irrelevance. The worst part: this "rot" has existed within USAF for 30 years or more. The graduates and their attitudes are now the foundational structure of the U.S. Air Force. IMO, it's not "fixable" without an unstainable level of effort. Wish I felt differently.
I agree, and based on conversations I've had, I think my son would as well.
It went to unrecoverable hell, I think, when they removed "Bring Me Men"
Won't disagree, although at my 20th reunion the board briefings were already lighting the caution panel up. Which was a bit prior to the "Bring Me Men" removal. So, the slide was underway, from the top down...I actually helped train the first females, FWIW
We had an instructor at USNA who was LCWB at USAFA. It was a long time ago; I wish I could recall his name to ask.
Great comment, Doc... I had to think for a while about whether/how to reply... My father was Army OCS in WWII; he and about 80% of all officers of that era, and he walked-in with a civilian pilot's license back in the day when those were few & far between. I was Navy AOCS/Pensacola; walked in "free of charge" to the sea service for my undergrad/grad education (serious STEM, by the way). My son is Army OCS; again, a walk-in joiner-upper who brought a "free" STEM education to Army.
Back in Pliocene Time when I was in flight training, I first heard the expression, "Poly-sci and fly" from some of the USNA & ROTC people. I wondered why Navy would pay its scarce buck$ for people to study poly-sci (and related "soft" majors; you get the point). Isn't that why we have civilian colleges? Silly moi; obviously, I had much to learn about how our country's taxpayer-funded mil-ed edifice actually works.
As I understand the history, West Point was founded in 1802 to train Army officers as engineers. Yes, of course the Army needed officers, but per Pres. Jefferson at that time, the country really needed engineers. And for a long spell, West Point engineers were all over the landscape, doing their thing... Although many other schools set up shop along the way and began producing engineers -- mining, civil & mechanical at first; then chemical & electrical & so forth, up to present.
"The Naval School" began in 1845 when Big Navy (well, then-SecNav George Bancroft) determined that on-the-job training wasn't good enough to produce what America's Navy needed. Name changed in 1850 to USNA. And the rest... is history. Rigorous academics coupled with practical training in ship-related saltwater-stuff. Until the academic drift kicked in and USNA decided that it wanted to be a military Ivy, except with way more athlete-students and shorter haircuts, but similar pedagogical values to the civilian-side.
Coast Guard, Merchant Marine and USAFA all have their own origin-mythology as well... Basically, produce technically qualified junior cadre officers for mission-specific tasks. No "liberal arts" programs, just fly the airplanes & sail the ships. And then grow up to run the combat & system commands.
And... Here... We... Are... Meaning that right now, what USA does in terms of "mil ed" speaks for itself... It's why we're on Cdr Sal's site today and many days. And to be sure, we have a near-endless list of people who did well in service academies & ROTC... "Ring-Knocker" kidding aside, the schools have delivered over the past two centuries... But we're also talking about Big Problems today at the institutional level... What do we do? Well... here, we write notes about it. Somebody else must do the policymaking.
By comparison, look at another program, the Soviet-Russian legacy of military education... Ponder, compare & Contrast...
Russia has numerous military academies, Army, Navy, Aerospace and more; both pre-college and university-equivalent. Russian elementary & secondary ed has a mission to screen for suitable mil service candidates... And growing up in Russia is one long academic-cultural lesson in Russian military history, esp WWII/Great Patriotic War. Right away, it's immensely different to mass-education across USA.
Russian service academies are five-year programs, 6 days per wk. Highly competitive admissions, with rigorous entry exams, seriously challenging. Each academy is service oriented -- Army, Navy Aero, etc; all steeped in deep Russian-Soviet-Russian2.0 military tradition... And all are heavy-duty STEM -- math, physics, engineering, chemistry, military science (a distinct academic discipline in Russia; very mathematical), all manner of engineering. Plus geography, history (aka Russian military history), a "literature" course (aka more Russian military history) and foreign language. Plus... rigorous military-focused physical training. Eg, your typical Russian naval academy grad could easily handle an assignment as a junior officer of naval infantry (aka Marines).
At the end... A Russian mliitary academy degree is academically equivalent to a rigorous US undergrad & masters in a STEM field. Plus the grad has undergone something like USMC BASIC school, and Army airborne/air assault training.
Russian military academies enroll women; ratio is about 85-15 men-women. They have zero gender issues. Women are not slotted towards direct combat arms, but you'll find them in medical, comms, crypto, intel, certain elements of transportation & logistics.
On a personal level, some yrs back I visited a Russian aerospace academy near Moscow, and a naval academy in St Petersburg. Impressive students in terms of intelligence, appearance, military bearing, language (excellent English), plans for a career, hopes & dreams, etc. Yes, suspend your biases and just deal with the young people standing right there in front of you. By now, those young guys are probably flying Su-35s or driving Borrei submarines.
My wrapup is that USA must reboot its military ed systems. No, not go all-in Russian, but what we're currently doing clearly does not fulfill the military needs of the country. And in many ways it ill-serves the young people who sign up. Of course, the next big test will be in wartime, when perhaps it will all work out just splendidly. Or not, and survivors will discuss what went wrong as they bob around on the ocean in life rafts.
Great comments! Thank you.
WRT the dichotomy of the US vs Soviet/Russian education systems, the Russian system seems to produce rigid thinkers who will pencil-whip reports to higher to meet standards, steal from the supply room, etc.
The US, OTOH..... Not so much rampant thievery, perhaps: They wait until they're senior officers (Fat Leonard?).
And none of the US academies seem to prepare people for initial entry jobs in anything.
The good professor state, "Do I have to self censure myself?" OK, as if those with a true warrior ethos or expertise have not been self censuring for years. For instance, what he say about the guys like me that are familiar with Islam to know that the "religion of peace" is no such thing and has never been. The experts in this area were purged during the GW Bush administration. Where was the serious talk about the true realities of the complications with mixed gender crews been for the last 30 years?
The only thing SECDEF has led is to show how to compromise operational security and classified information without accountability, and how to fire female annd minority FOGOs without cause. A wholly unqualified drunkard and womanizer. What a poor role model for our officers in training.
As a NWC Alumnus (Non-resident, 1991) and parent of a recent USNA graduate I have been appalled at what I have seen and read about current conditions at both of our Navy's top academic institutions. At the time I was at NWC the college was not accredited to grant degrees. As a student I was not privy to all of what was going on, but even the students could see, and frequently professors would share, the conflict within the faculty over whether NWC should grant degrees. I remember specifically one professor saying that he saw accreditation by a civilian entity as a direct threat to the independence and integrity of the NWC as a military war college. When asked why he felt that we, he responded that in order to obtain, and maintain, accreditation NWC would have to essentially transfer control of its curriculum to non-military academics and add to the curriculum enough non-military related classes to meet the degree "standards" of the accreditation agency. ln addition, the faculty would become slaves to the "publish or perish" model of civilian academia and no longer simply be teachers.
It would appear that what he feared has, in fact, come to pass. I suspect that this is also a major part of the problem at USNA, since it has become, essentially, a civilian university that trains naval officers as a secondary function.
Perhaps the solution to the problem at NWC is to drop the degree granting function, eliminate non-core departments/faculty and thereby return the college to its roots. Similarly, the solution at USNA is to trim the number of majors offered and re-orient those that remain to the "needs of the Navy" and not the needs of a civilian accreditation agency
Yes to both points here... Accreditation and degrees at NWC, and rebooting the core academic mission of USNA. These institutions MUST understand -- administration, faculty, staff, even students (oh, and alumni, esp the sports boosters) -- that their current status is under fundamental reconsideration. They all have a military job to do... and if they cannot accomplish that job, then their positions and efforts are unnecessary in present form. Of course, keep the buildings and grounds... repurpose to another and better use.
Just eliminate accreditation. If you don’t like USNA because it’s not accredited then you are welcome to pay tuition at State U.
Can any of these people provide substantive proof that their courses or presence on the faculty have substantially improved the services in areas of leadership, combat skills, strategic thinking, and acquisition? Seems like those should be core outcomes for their student body.
That seems unlikely based on their discourse.
I still see a unique and valuable role for the military academies and war colleges, provided that the focus of all education provided at these institutions is military excellence, not social engineering.
agreed, but that provision has been violated in unsavory ways
"Do I have to self censure myself? Which is by the way, the most dangerous aspect of censorship. It's not just telling us, okay, this you can't talk about. It's then me as an academic saying, am I gonna lose my job if I talk about Greenland?"
Welcome to the party, Doc. And how did you feel up to, say yesterday, about all those prospective college professors who "self-censured" their non-leftist and unapproved opinions for fear it might affect their chances of finding a university teaching job, or all the students who "self-censured" their politically unpopular opinions in class for fear it might affect their grades? Or do academic freedom and freedom of speech only apply to one side of the debate?