<p>^^^^^ Roger that</p>
<p>OK, let me just start by saying this post will jump around a bit.... anyway</p>
<p>The recent consensus seems to be saying that the academics at the Service Academies are weaker than the HYPs of the world. Most arguments seem to focus on personal experiences like, "oh well my friend at X service academy is not that smart," or that the average SAT scores are lower. </p>
<p>I see a few problems with the argument that academics are not good because Mids/Cadets that people know are not as smart as the individual poster, who attends an Ivy. First, using this method is providing one example of a much much larger group. To put this it into perspective, it would be similiar to using a ridiculously small sample size in a survey, then claiming that survey to be accurate. Furthermore, for every example someone has, there can be another example that would indicate the opposite opinion. My brother and I are a prime example. We both had similiar SAT scores and class ranks (I had 1420 and ranked 5 of 200, he had a 1380 and ranked 4th of 200.) He went to Penn, ranked 4th in USNews, and graduated Cum Laude with a 3.5. Through three years at the Naval Academy I currently have a 3.0. mvljog also brings up an example. Second, stating that someone's high school buddy at a service academy was not as smart as they were is one's own perspective. Thats what that person believes. All of us, myself included, often have a slightly biased view when thinking about or own strengths and weaknesses, be it positive or negative.</p>
<p>Another argument bases itself on SAT scores. It is absolutely true that the average SAT score at the service academies is usually around 1310 or 1320, well below that some of the top schools in the country. However, this does not take into account the fact that 1/3 of every class does not come straight out of high school. This 1/3 comes from the enlisted ranks of the Navy as well as students from postgraduate prep schools. Basically, this 1/3 is made up of people who may not have had the test scores, but those the military believed could succeed at the academies. Anyone attempting to go to the academies straight out of high school better have much higher than a 1310 or 1320 to go along with all the ECAs and varsity scports.</p>
<p>One of the best ways to attempt to compare different schools is to use a reputed unbiased ranking system like USNews. Unfortunately, service academies are not ranked with the rest of the colleges in the country. However, their engineering programs are ranked against all other colleges without doctorate programs. While that excludes the Ivies, it does show that service academies have top notch engineering programs as they dominate several of the categories. </p>
<p>I do believe that the academics at the academies can stand up to the rest of the country. While it is tough to prove this conclusively as there are no unbiased rankings that rank them together, it is also ludicrus to state that service academy academics are weaker by stating personal examples or looking solely at SAT scores. </p>
<p>-A few other random observations
-This whole argument fails to address the fact that the academic rigors within many top schools depend greatly on major</p>
<pre><code> -Thethoughtprocess: "I'm not saying they aren't top schools, but they aren't better than HYPSM ACADEMICALLY, at least in terms of admissions requirements - which is what the thread is about." This thread was all about how academically stressful the academies are, not based solely on admissions requirements. While people may cite admissions requirments as an academic indicator, thats all they are; an indicator. You also state that people at West Point use top 10 privates as safeties. Once again, you are misusing what other people said. You appear to be referring to the post that stated an individual Cadet chose West Point over Harvard. Nowhere was the word safety used. Frankly, anyone who applies to an Ivy as a safety is stupid. btw, this is not an attack against you, "just a usage of facts."
</code></pre>
<p>itlstallion422: I think you are misconstruing what some people on here are saying...no one said the academics at service academies are weaker. The argument is whether they are more "academically stressful." I think a good argument can be made to this point as 1). Academies, in general, have weaker students academically (i.e. that 1/3 coming from enlisted ranks are probably academically weaker, plus another good amount of decent students, plus a handful of academically exceptional students) 2). The lack of a competitive academic environment 3). The difficulty of the classes (I can guarantee you that a thermo. class is probably more difficult, as probably more advanced material is covered, at MIT or CalTech than at any of the academies)</p>
<p>Bern:
You bring up several interesting points in your argument. You stated that because of having 1/3 of students that are either enlisted or go through post graduate prep schools that they are weaker academically as exhibited by their lower SAT scores. Normally, this would indicate that weaker academics, however, prior to attending the service academies, that 1/3 of the class first must prove themselves at top post graduate prep schools, i.e. the Phillips Exeter Academy, or the particular service academy prep schools which are just as tough. This process weeds out those that are academically deficient.</p>
<p>I would also disagree with the lack of a competitive academic enviornment. You stated earlier that at Wharton there is an intense competition for jobs after graduation. The same is absolutely true at the military academies. For service selection, the process by which mids and cadets select their job within the military after graduation, there are only limited numbers of graduates who can enter each group. For example, every year their only a handful of mids, approximately 15, who are able to service select Navy SEALs. That is in sharp contrast to the dozens, many times in excess of 50 or 60 that aspire to be SEALs. The same is true for those who want to be doctors, divers, seek immediate graduate education, and to a lesser extent, those who want to be aviators and Marines. To get these specific career choices, grades are the most important factor. If anything, service selection is exponentially more important than getting that first lucrative job, because service selection is not just a first job, but instead what your entire military career will revolve around.</p>
<p>Finally you also stated that, "I can guarantee you that a thermo. class is probably more difficult, as probably more advanced material is covered, at MIT or CalTech than at any of the academies." Ok, you can probably guarantee... I'll start by saying that I can not find any credible internet source to back my claim, but it has long been circulated around the Naval Academy that our first year chemistry class is the second toughest manadatory class in the country, behind only some class at MIT. That aside, like I stated earlier, the engineering classes at the military academies are ranked highly in USNews. Furthermore, the service academies have long held a tradition of having world renown engineering programs. The best example of this would be the tradition of civil engineering at West Point. During the whole of the 19th Century, basically every major civil engineer in the country was a West Point grad. More recently, an example of this would be the astronautical engineering programs at the Naval Academy, the institution that has produced the most Astronauts than any other school in the country. For a final example, the Naval Academy has produced 7 Rhodes Scholars in the past two years out of 64 nation wide. </p>
<p>While none of these prove conclusively that the service academies are THE most academically stressful curriculums, it definitely indicates that service academies belong on the same academic plane as the HYPs.</p>
<p>i think everyone should go back and read mvljog440's post. he/she has gone to both a service academy and an ivy league school and is telling us from experience that the service academy was more stressful academically (harder to get the grades)</p>
<p>everyone else is just speculating</p>
<p>As a tech school student myself (Harvey Mudd College), this is what I will add on to what bern700 said:</p>
<p>I think what makes schools like MIT or Caltech or Harvey Mudd more academically rigorous or stressful is not necessary that the individual courses are absurdly greater in difficulty. They may be slightly more difficult, but I think you can probably find analogous courses in math or physics or chemistry or whatever at a lot of good places.</p>
<p>Rather, what makes these schools so much tougher is how much is <em>required</em> We are talking about 3 semesters / 5 quarters, the equivalent of your first 1.5 years, being almost entirely planned out for you. What is more, the number of classes you are required to take is often more than most schools allow (from my own personal experience, at Mudd a regular/average load is 5 lecture classes, 4 of which are math and science, and 2 labs, each semester). And with so many requirements, people can be spread thin and stressed out, and furthermore they are almost certainly bound to find a subject that they aren't good at, which only adds to the pressure.</p>
<p>This is just like the military academies having so many training requirements and what not, in addition to classes. All the additional physical elements can spread one thin and stress one out. The great academic rigor schools are just like that, except its just a ton of hardcore classes instead of physical requirements.</p>
<p>This is truly a great debate. Everyone has such good points. Gets the wheels turning & thinking. I truly liked itlstallion422's post #59 though. Not sure there's gonna be a solid answer to this one. I thought USMMA was the only one to run on tri-mesters? Learn something new every day! Those poor kids get beat up with having to have around 54 credits in one year. The other schools now have my sympathy as well. Thats a toughie. </p>
<p>mvljog440 lived this stuff. I bow before you oh great one. That took some guts. Big congrats to you.</p>
<p>tiyusufaly:
What you failed to realize is that service academy students are spread thin by academics, then also forced to somehow fit in the athletics and PE classes. The semester course load at the academies hovers around 18-20 credits, with many of the engineers averaging 21. Even as a humanities major you stock up on technical courses. Despite majoring in history, I have been required to take 3 semesters of calc, 2 semesters of chemistry, 2 semesters of physics, 2 semesters of electrical engineering, 1 semester of naval engineering, 1 semester of thermodynamics, 1 semester of systems engineering, and 1 semester of stats. You mention years being entirely planned out. I did not take my first majors class until the second semester of sophomore year. Even then, I only took it because I was two classes ahead. Most mids don't even hit majors classes until their third year. Even now, entering my last year, I am still taking two mandatory classes this coming semester. As far as taking "hardcore classes," I challenge you to find a school in which every graduate recieves a bachelors of science degree. Their could be others, but I have not yet heard of them.</p>
<p>-One other quick comment, you make an offhanded comment about while your schools academics may not be absurdly harder they are still a little bit harder. Before I couldn't compare directly our engineering programs to MITs, however, the engineering programs at the academies rank right up with Harvey Mudd as according to USNews rankings. So I'd be careful with making statements like that when they fly in the face of one of the only reputable nationwide collegiate ranking systems</p>
<p>Can you post this engineering ranking?</p>
<p>You also have to remember that people at the top schools have scaled grades. This means that you are at the school with some of the brightest minds of the country and you are all competing for the top of the curve. This can be very stressful, and sometimes there just aren't things like sports and such to take ones mind off of it (especially at places where there is nothing to do around the colleges and no citys to explore during leisure time). True service academies make students lead extremely stressful lives, but I think it has been put down in concrete in this thread that the top colleges have higher sat scores and ranks and such (Although some of the students are interchangeable, but not the majority...and there are also some students attending both different places that are at the tippity top of intelligence in both settings). The academics are pretty much impossible to compare to colleges and will lead to a never ending argument because we are once again comparing apples with oranges. Colleges and academies are usually put on seperate rankings so it is quite impossible to compare all of the different aspects that people are arguing.</p>
<p>
Caltech. You can get a B.S. in literature if you want - if you can get through quantum mechanics and diff eq as a lit major, I think you've earned it.</p>
<p>I'm also pretty sure that Harvey Mudd only gives B.S. degrees, but I'm not positive.</p>
<p>It's very hard to find any concrete information about the academics at the service academies, but I find the following advanced placement standards from West Point interesting (<a href="http://www.dean.usma.edu/AP/%5B/url%5D):">http://www.dean.usma.edu/AP/):</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
The AP test scores will be used by academic departments as one piece of information to determine advanced placement or validation for new cadets. USMA also provides its own testing for new cadets to determine if they will be scheduled for the particular course, the advanced course or if they can validate the course. Five different departments provide USMA placement testing/validation opportunities to new cadets during the month of July. For example, an AP score of 5 in European, US, or World History is necessary to proceed with the validation of History. An AP Calculus AB score of 4 or 5 or an AP Calculus BC score of 3, 4, or 5 is important in validating Calculus. An AP Chemistry score of 4 or 5 can be important in validating chemistry. English requires an AP score of 5 and a high SAT-V score for consideration to validate English composition.
[/quote]
Such standards (which are roughly a gauge for course level and difficulty) are noticably lower than those for top civillian schools. For example, while getting a 3 on BC calculus may give math placement at West Point, a student with such a score would likely not even get into difficult academic schools such as MIT, Caltech, or Mudd and they would likely not be able to pass in the introductory math classes.</p>
<p>Also, these standards make
seem a bit ridiculous. If a student with a 4 on AP chemistry can get placement from this required chemistry class (which implies that the course only goes to the breadth and depth of AP chemistry), I assure you that it is not one of the most difficult in the nation.</p>
<p>USNEWS
undergraduate engineering list- note this only ranks schools that do NOT give doctorates
1.Rose Hulman
2.Harvey Mudd
3.Cooper Union
4. Calpoly ( SLO)
US Military Academy
US Naval Academy
7. US Air Force Academy</p>
<p>for dif fields ( for schools that don't offer doctorates)</p>
<p>For aerospace/aeronautical/astronomical engineering
Airforce Academy is 2
Naval Academy is 3rd
(Embry Riddle is 1st)</p>
<p>Civil Engineering
Military Academy is 2 ( Rose Hulman is 1st)</p>
<p>Only lists 5 places for Chemical & Computer Engineering</p>
<p>Electrical/Electronic/Communications Engineering
Naval Academy is 5th
(Rose Hulman is 1st)</p>
<p>Industrial/Manufacturing Engineering
Miltary Academy is 5th
( Kettering is 1st)</p>
<p>Mechanical Engineering
Military Academy is 5th
(Rose Hulman is 1st)</p>
<p>I would say that the military academies certainly have a strong showing- I know they are very difficult to be admitted to- although I also imagine that bright and talented young people also go the university and ROTC route as well.</p>
<p>Even my daughters uber liberal college -Reed, has ROTC.</p>
<p>At her graduation this year- Reed awarded two honorary degrees to long time trustees of the college.
One acheived Lieutenant Colonel and Adjutant General of the 82nd Airborne Division and earning a Bronze Star during WWII
( He graduated from Oregon State and later earned a Harvard MBA)</p>
<p>The other graduated with an mechanical engineering degree from University of California ( and also earned a Harvard MBA ) and was also a Lieutenant Colonel in WWII, in the Army Air Force</p>
<p>Well using rankings of schools that do not offering doctorates takes out a ton of great schools. Those are good showings tho. (why not post ones that do offer doctorates along with ones that don't?)</p>
<p>Yes cghen, you are absolutely correct, HMC only offers B.S. degrees (but a degree from Mudd or Caltech is no bul**hit, ;)).</p>
<p>I must say itlstalion42, I'm impressed by all those courses. I will concede that it is a tad more than I expected. But what are the core requirements for <em>everybody</em> at the service academies? Does everyone take those math and science courses? That list of courses you listed is roughly equivalent in magnitude to the core math and science requirements for everybody at MIT, and slightly less than that of Caltech or Mudd (someone, please correct me if I am wrong).</p>
<p>Hey don't shoot me Im only the piano player.</p>
<p>USNEWS list engineering programs for schools whose highest degree is a doctorate separately.
1.MIT with a 4.9 peer assessment ranking ( Rose Hulmans rank is 4.5)
2 Stanford & Berkeley with 4.7 (Harvey Mudd is 4.3)
3 Caltech & UIUC at 4.5 (Cooper Union is 4.0)
4 Georgia Tech and UM Ann Arbor 4.4 (Cal Poly & academies listed above 3.9)
5 Carnegie Mellon-Cornell & Purdue have 4.3</p>
<p>Pssh....that list is heavily biased towards schools with gradate programs.</p>
<p>read post #92
I am using US NEWS rankings- they split the lists- but I included the comparison of the peer assesment scores so you can make your own list
I am sure there are other rankings besides USNEWS</p>
<p>Ah k. Sorry about that then.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The rest are just party schools
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As a USNA alumni, all I'll say is...</p>
<p>PREACH IT, brother! ;)</p>
<p>Zaph, </p>
<p>Welcome back. </p>
<p>But, as Mo Udall said at the Democratic Convention in 92 -- "Everything that needs to be said has been said. But it hasn't been said by everybody."</p>