<p>For Leadership Training, I'm going to have to say Annapolis takes the cake, while you get it shoved down your throat there, you only take 8 credits worth of Navy classes and 1 credit of Ethics at KP.
You can choose to take more if you want with the Ethics and Leadership Concentration though at KP.</p>
<p>On that note, I'd like to present an analogy that I admit may **** some people (USNA69) off.</p>
<p>In my Profession in Arms in the 18th Century course I am taking for the ELC course, we are discussing the change around that time of militaries changing from mercenary armies to professional militaries, ranging from Gustavus Adolphus to Napolean. Army officers were often considered to be very "professional" (think of officers in Monty Pythons the Meaning of Life). To be selected as an Army officer, one must be a level of aristocrat, and possibly know how to ride a horse a swing a sword. After that, he could focus on tactics and the like. This descended from the Middle Ages idea of chivalry and the like.</p>
<p>Naval Officers on the other hand were required to know much more knowledge about what they did, bracing sails, the orders given, stability, changes in the wind, weather etc. before they became officers. Many officers of the fleet were just merchant officers who had guns in their ships, and while this evolved into a Navy, the fact that Naval Officers were descended from middle class merchants they were looked down upon for the later parts of the 17th Century and the 18th Century. There was also a lack of tactical skill among Naval Officers because of the large amount of knowledge required beforehand, and this was somewhat stifled due to the threat of court-martial if a battle was lost and not fought with line tactics, but does not ignore that fact that Naval Officers were considered less "professional" than Army Officers.</p>
<p>Now to my point... it is widely considered that while the British had superior seamanship skills, and were better sailors, the French officers were more professional and knew more tactically. This was often battled out evenly throughout the 18th Century until about Trafalgar and the Time of Lord Nelson, (and to a lesser extent Quiberon Bay), where British Naval Officers became more "professional".</p>
<p>The short of it is that USNA grads are more like the French of this time and USMMA grads are more like the British.
Take that as you want.</p>
<p>In more modern terms, I consider that KP grads would be better suited as Chiefs and Annapolis grads officers.</p>
<p>In terms of commitment, it seems to me that USNA 69 has a slight beef with the fact that KP grads choose to go into the merchant fleet rather than active, or that people who wanted to go active are lured by the private sector. On the first point, many, if not more than 50%, of KPers choose this school to sail in the merchant marine, and had no want (or even knowledge about the option) to go active. Some of these grads do end up choosing active and contribute to the fleet when they would not have otherwise if they had gone to say, SUNY Maritime. As for the mids who want to go active, they still can, and often do, but while at KP they learn more about how to serve in other ways, be it in the Army as LFWBdad put it, or in the merchant fleet. You also have those who go out on Sea Year on either MSC ships or choose to go on a Navy cruise and see some (pardon the language) idiocy of Naval ships. Many merchant sailors laugh at the excess of everything and lack of logistics on Navy ships. Not to mention some of the messages they send over the VHF (some of those are ridiculous).
I would also like to point out that when KPers and USNA mids are on the same ship for a Navy cruise, the KP mids are often ranked ahead of the USNA mids. </p>
<p>On USNA69s point of KP recruiters at SA things, he should take into account the fact that the recruiter may not have gone to KP for the Navy, and could have been one of those who went in for MM, and thus would talk about his experiances as such. Not everyone is so Hoo-Rah to make money.
I would also like to point out the 5 and fly rate of a lot of SA grads nowadays. Also, that in his interview for West Point, Eisenhower said he only wanted to go there because it was free.</p>
<p>In my own case, I had the option to attend both USNA and KP and choose KP because, while I wanted to serve my country, I was not sure about what I wanted and knew my opinions on what I wanted could change, and thus choose KP over USNA. After having a wonderful sea year experience, traveling to over a dozen countries and getting as much sea time as an O-3, I have still decided I want to go active duty Navy. Between the fact that I could get more port time and I may see more interesting places (I am probably one of the few people who dislike containerization) and the fact that I want to serve my country lead toward this.</p>
<p>I take my opinion from a FADM Nimitz who, before WWII was offered a 6 figure job working in the private sector, but chose to serve his country instead. Money may help with a lot of stuff, but it's not everything.</p>