<p>I was fascinated by this old-timer's take on the Annapolis ( and by extension the rest of the service academies). He thinks they're no longer really neccessary to train officers, and that when would be officers do enroll, they're subjected to mindless, useless, demoralizing minutiae, and sharply lower academic standards that have resulted, in part, from a bunch of not-too-bright jocks and affirmative action recruits. All in all, its a pretty bitter diatribe by a current professor. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. </p>
<p>I haven’t seen the situation at USNA from the inside, but his statements do not accurately reflect the situation at USAFA.</p>
<p>There is a long-running concern that some athletes are not the best candidates, but things like dedication and commitment are hard to measure for admissions. A three-sport athlete in HS is giving a lot of study hours to compete. It would make sense if they have a slightly lower GPA than a single-sport athlete.</p>
<p>As for the “get rid of the academies” bit, he is not considering the bigger picture. The academies bring a different perspective and different experience than ROTC or OTS do. All three commissioning sources bring strengths to the officer corps. We need a balanced force, and this helps.</p>
<p>I don’t know what this professor’s standards for academic work may be. I have spoken to those who have taught at USAFA and other universities, and they stated that USAFA cadets compare favorably to students at the other locations they have taught. The service academies also have a sizeable number of prestigious scholarhip winners, and consistently have several nationally rated programs. (Ironically, USAFA has been ranked for having an excellent undergad business program, even though we do not have a business major!)</p>