<p>I've been corresponding with a former Marine. He attended Dartmouth for undergrad, and is now attending Harvard for an MBA and Masters in International Security. I asked him for his opinion on an academy education (his sister went to the Academy):</p>
<p>"All things being equal, I think a liberal-arts education followed by
military service is the way to go. My sister and many Marine buddies
found Annapolis stifling. Four years there, plus another five or six
in the military can result in a unidimensional person. I'd do ROTC or
OCS at a civilian school, and then raise my right hand."</p>
<p>Any thoughts?</p>
<p>Do what is right for you.</p>
<ol>
<li> What is the one dimension that results?</li>
<li> Stifling, eh? How so? Because you aren't free to smoke a joint when the mood strikes you? That "stifling" feeling might just be discipline . . .
If he means that USNA is academically stifling, then there may be something to his point.<br></li>
<li> As I've argued a thousand times, USNA mids are simply better prepared for life in the fleet than ROTC graduates because of the training they've received and the length indoctrination into military life that they have already been through when they hit the fleet. The gap closes over time, but for the first few years, a USNA grad has a definite edge.<br></li>
<li> If a guy wants to be an officer, I just don't see what can be gained by doing ROTC rather than an Academy. Your friend's reasons were vague and unenlightening, so I would try to pin down exactly what he means.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>DeepThroat
BS, MS, JD ('07)</p>
<p>Simply...</p>
<p>You must take into account, the perspective of the person giving you the opinion. If they are USNA/Academy grad...they are likely to tell you the academy route is best. If they are ROTC/OIC, they are going to tell you go that way.</p>
<p>Another thought...When a non-academy grad officer is asked about the academy and "would you do it again" type stuff from a ROTC/OIC officer... they are probably only going to site what they missed or didn't like about it. There just not going to try to explain what was so good about it to someone who just can't understand the experience.</p>
<p>I sincerely believe that non-academy officers think that ROTC is the better route because they just can't understand what the academy route is really like and they probably only hear the bad stuff because the academy grads just don't brag about it in a way that translates positively to a non-academy grad.</p>
<p>Try talking to people in business and academia who have been exposed to many ROTC and Academy grads...maybe they can give a more balanced perspective.</p>
<p>Best wishes in you decision how to best serve your country!</p>
<p>Definitely Stifling, but the Marine Corps was worse, even amongst the (relatively speaking) more free thinking aviators. It's been a few years but I have a difficult time believing that the humanities get much respect. If I had it to do over again, I'd definitely consider a civilian school, especially if I had plans to go to the Corps. I found that a USNA background was not nearly as helpful in the Marines as it was for my Navy buddies. The biggest issue is it's 10 years by the time you graduate and serve just the basic commitment. Add on more time if you go to flight school, six years after designation and who knows how long it is after nuclear power school.</p>
<p>Those commitments all add up to the same on the ROTC/OIC side. So the difference is only in the "college years" right?</p>
<p>Sorry for the incorrect OIC references in my posts above. They should be OCS instead</p>