<p>tiyusufaly :
The courses I listed before are the courses that everyone is required to take. The only exception being that humanities take stats while technical majors take diff eqs. Atleast that is the Naval Academies requirement. The other service academies, while not identical, are extremely similiar.</p>
<p>cghen:
You bring an interesting piece of information with your citation of West Point validation procedures. It surprised me at first. That is, before I gave it a second reading. Nowhere in the text does it state that obtaining such grades guarantees a validation. The quote stated that "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. " Nowhere does it state that such scores guarantee a validation. Instead, it explicitly states that an AP score of 4 or 5 in chem can be "important" for validation, and that an English AP 5, combined with a high SAT V score will give you "consideration" for validation. </p>
<p>This was taken from West Point's validation policies and I will admit that it is incredibly vague. I think that is due to the fact that class validation is handled within each academic department within the academies. I cannot speak for all of the academies, but I know that is how it is handled at the Naval Academy. For example, prior to my first semester I attempted to have several classes validated because I had taken prior classes at an accredited university. Some of the classes, specifically history, gov't, and psych were validated by viewing a transcript and course syllabus. However, calculus, despite achieving an A, was not validated. Instead validation of the course was solely a function of how one performed on a specific validation exam.</p>
<p>At the Naval Academy in particular, Chemistry, Calculus, and Physics can be only be validated through a validation test. an AP 5 or credit from any civilian university will not be transfered. With most other classes an AP 5 or credit from a civilian university is needed. (my AP 4 in English Lit didn't get me out of it)</p>
<p>Wharton-Penn is really hard....well so I heard...as is any school on the Stern curve.</p>
<p>OK...here's the difference between civilian schools and service academies: civilian schools are simply BUSINESSES OFFERING A SERVICE, in this case, an education. It might seem like a stretch, but that's true. They have to cater to us. They have to market to us. They have to get us to apply to keep their enrollment numbers afloat. On the other hand, service academies HIRE their students right after graduation. So obviously the education at a service academy is going to be more rigorous and they're more inclined to make sure people don't fail. They don't cater to people, they don't market to people. I'm sure Wharton's education would be MUCH MUCH harder if Wharton hired their finance majors right out of college to manage their endowment.</p>
<p>I hear Kettering is quite rigorous.</p>
<p>ITLstallion, good points, nothing like a good debate.</p>
<p>I'm just saying the students at service academies are statistically academically weaker than those at the top private schools - however, I realize that quality and stress aren't neccesarily correlated at all, and that just because the students all have high SAT scores doesn't mean the environment is stressed...so it is possible, and likely, that West Point is more stressful than any of the Ivy-plus schools academically without having superior academic students.</p>
<p>Also, I mentioned the 7-8 friends I have at West Point, and realize I shouldn't use that small a sample to extrapolate, but the actual stats on the West Point website confirm the examples I have given of the students I know.</p>
<p>Hopefully that made sense when I typed it like it did in my head....</p>
<p>Great discussion though</p>
<p>I think wat tainted me since the start of the argument was the fact that pretty much everyone I know that is going to the military <a href="I%20go%20to%20a%20school%20with%20an%20ag%20wing...so%20most%20of%20these%20people%20are%20rednecks%20and%20such">enlisting...not academies</a> are <em>no offense to them</em> dumb and keep talking about how they are going to go kill them some towel heads and how America is the best place ever and how guns are the best thing ever to resolve problems. At a bonfire I remember we were talking about the world cup and when sum1 asked another person (who is going into the military) who they wanted to win, the guy said "France...because their flag is the same colors at the united states. GO USA woooo" lmao</p>
<p>
[quote]
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."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Forgive me, but what's the difference?</p>
<p>
[quote]
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)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You would be, at least in part, very mistaken.</p>
<p>While I will concede that comparing USXA with, say, MIT on academics alone is somewhat iffy for the academies, the fact remains that the academies aren't in the business of JUST academic excellence. They address much, MUCH more than just how well one does in school. As such, while I may certainly lean toward an MIT graduate if I am looking for a strictly technical engineer, I would definitely prefer an Academy graduate for any position requiring technical leadership.</p>
<p>Also, I guarantee you that anyone who "rode the Rocket" in Thermo at USNA and PASSED (let alone got a decent grade) could smoke any MIT thermo course they can spit out. TRUST ME.</p>
<p>Thank God I never had to ride the Rocket! :eek:</p>
<p>Thethoughtprocess:
Yeah, this was a great discussion.</p>
<p>Zaphod:
Thermo wasn't mandatory when you were a mid? </p>
<p>Many times it seems like most of the country knows little or nothing about the military academies. I know before my junior year, all I knew about the academies was army-navy football and the fact that alll those civil war guys went to West Point. As a sophomore in high school, a friend said he wanted to go to West Point, and my first thought was why someone who was smart would go into the military. It made no sense to me..... Many times when someone asks where I go to school, the next question is.... which Naval Academy? And this is coming from people who live only a few hours from the school. but anyway, I'm just rambling now, so im gonna stop. But yeah, good discussion</p>
<p>People can be pretty provincial, I never knew anything about where my daughter attended until we had a neighbor who was an alum, and it is only a few hours away.</p>
<p>WHen I was younger a friends husband was a graduate from Kings Point ( he was African American- this was the 80s), I had never even heard of it- albeit we were long way away in Bellevue Wa.</p>
<p>"Forgive me, but what's the difference?"</p>
<p>Academically weaker means that the quality of the education is worse which is not the case with the academies that, as you know, provide top-notch academics. Academically stressful means that the school is just harder to succeed at academically whether it be because of the difficulty of the courses, the academic competition, etc. </p>
<p>By academically stressful all we are trying to gauge is how difficult it is for X student to succeed academically at Y university as compared with Z university (purely academics).</p>
<p>The point that I was trying to make was that if you took an exceptional student (academically speaking) they would have a much easier time succeeding academically at any of the academies as compared with say a school like MIT or CalTech (obviously factoring in purely academic factors)...doesn't necessarily mean that they could handle the academy lifestyle though (most people can't).</p>
<p>Zaphod: I totally agree with the hiring comment you made. </p>
<p>For a purely technical position I would probably lean towards the MIT grad but for a position that required leadership/people management/etc I would take an academy grad.</p>
<p>even in fields like investment banking you see that the technical guys with poor social skills never make it past the technical analyst rank while technically weaker guys with social skills and leadership make it to the top of the ladder. </p>
<p>The academies do a good job of providing good academics (not the best) but they also provide so many great things like discipline, leadership, values, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Zaphod:
Thermo wasn't mandatory when you were a mid?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Indeed it WAS mandatory, and still is. </p>
<p>The thing is, I was a group II major (General Engineering) when the time came for me to take Thermo, so I didn't have to have Professor "Rocket" Reid (whose favorite opening line on the first day of class was, "Save your books and notes; you'll need them next semester after I fail all of you. My job isn't to teach you, it's to fail you if you don't learn."). I ended up with an extremely good LCDR who led me to within a gnat's rear end of an A. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Academically weaker means that the quality of the education is worse which is not the case with the academies that, as you know, provide top-notch academics. Academically stressful means that the school is just harder to succeed at academically whether it be because of the difficulty of the courses, the academic competition, etc.
[/quote]
Roger that. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
The point that I was trying to make was that if you took an exceptional student (academically speaking) they would have a much easier time succeeding academically at any of the academies as compared with say a school like MIT or CalTech (obviously factoring in purely academic factors)...doesn't necessarily mean that they could handle the academy lifestyle though (most people can't).
[/quote]
But wouldn't you agree that your statement above contradicts itself?</p>
<p>I believe that an academically exceptional student will, if all other variables are held equal and constant, have an EASIER time at any civilian university than at any Service Academy. It is a known fact that while the academic hours an Academy student carries does not look all that different than the average student at a (quality) college, when you factor in all the NON-academic requirements placed upon them, that "course load" goes way, WAY up. </p>
<p>You can take a kid as bright as Einstein and drop him into USXA and he won't pass his first summer because, while he can solve third-level integrals in his head, he just can't handle the pressure of being required to rattle off his knowledge while being faced with two or three very loud and upset cadre in his face. Put him at MIT (not picking on MIT, BTW. It's just the best example of a classsical "pure" engineering school there is, and with good reason) and he will flourish because he is in his element.</p>
<p>As such, I always place an Academy student as the equal to any student at any school you wish to pick. They may not excel over the other in academics, but when you add up the whole person, the odds are they'll come out on top. (There are always exceptions, of course.)</p>
<p>Have I perhaps missed your point? Wouldn't be the first time. My Forum-Fu isn't perfect. :)</p>
<p>Decided to give this its own post.</p>
<p>Before anyone gets the idea that I'm somehow "down" on the Ivy League schools or those best known for certain disciplines, I am most definitely not. Allow me to provide an example: My daughter (now 6) went to USNA for the first time the other day, and now claims she wants to go there to become an astronaut (I am one PROUD papa! :D). </p>
<p>Let's assume the years go by and she decides she wants to be a doctor. My recommendation to her would NOT be to attend USNA, but to get into Johns Hopkins. If she wanted to design space vehicles, I might recommend MIT, even though USAFA and USNA give MIT a run for its money in that area. If she wants to become an uber cyber-geek, then Carnegie Mellon is probably her best choice. Lawyer? Harvard Law. Dance? Juliard (although my stomach would roll).</p>
<p>So it comes down to what you want to get out of it. I went to USNA because I wanted to be a Naval Officer and THAT is THE place to go to do it. I don't regret it one bit when push comes to shove. While our CEO is younger than I am, he has a Harvard MBA. OTOH, I have an employee my age and with a PhD, whereas I "only" have a BS from USNA, an MS in Industrial Engineering, and an MBA. It all comes down to where you want to go and what you want to do when you get there.</p>
<p>Of course, I still echo LFWBDad's original point: If you can walk off campus at any time and get yourself a beer, you're at a party school. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
LFWB dad has got it mostly correct, except for the order. West Point is number one.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>PTTTTTTTHHHHHHH!!!!!!! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>We can agree to disagree on politics, my friend, but on this one not only are you just plain WRONG, but it's a point of HONOR that you are wrong! I could not let such a ludicrous and vile slander by a lowly woop go unanswered! :eek:</p>
<p>BEAT ARMY (AGAIN)!</p>
<p>Now....all the rest of you non-SA types paying attention? Stand by!</p>
<p>This is what a REAL rivalry looks like! :D ;)</p>
<p>Ok Zapoid; let’s begin with history:</p>
<p>West Point is the oldest continuously garrisoned fortress in the United States.</p>
<p>West Point protected the upper reaches of the Hudson River from the British Fleet. Had it not been for West Point the British Navy would have divided the colonies in two and would have likely won the Revolutionary War. Had this been the case we would have to drink warm beer.</p>
<p>George Washington’s troops were garrisoned at West Point and Benedict Arnold became a traitor and forever infamous when he tried to sell the plans for West Point to the British.</p>
<p>The last letter George Washing wrote, just one week before he died, was to Thomas Jefferson repeating his strong belief that the newly formed United States must have a military academy and that it should be at West Point. Thomas Jefferson finally agreed and signed the USMA into law in 1802.</p>
<p>West Point engineers built the nations railroads and then completed the Panama Canal after the French failed miserably (loosing 20,000 men in the process).</p>
<p>Alumni include Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, George S. Patton, Omar Bradley, Douglas MacArthur, and Dwight Eisenhower. More recent graduates include Frank Borman (commander of the first circumlunar flight; president of Eastern Airlines), Edwin E. "Buzz" Aldrin (participated in the first manned lunar landing), Edward White II (first American to walk in space), Michael Collins (command module pilot, first manned lunar landing).</p>
<p>Annapolis alumni: President Carter.</p>
<p>Zap, I stand prepared to accept your unconditional surrender with regard to the historic bragging rights of the United States Military Academy at West Point over Annapolis. You man retain your saber.</p>
<p>ps - Figgy, I think you'll find the average service academy mid or cadet quite a few cuts above your aquaintences at the bonfire, and nobody at any SA would want the French to win the world cup.</p>
<p>Zaphod: I complete agree with your post #114...I came to wharton because its an i-banking factory :)</p>
<p>lol no of course the academy people are better, and that is why I am saying that I am tainted.</p>
<p>I won't even get into how you people are saying that people at the academies are almost always better than people are civilian schools (in leadership and stuff)...oy (don't start making points about this...because I do know that they are leaders and such, but so are lots of other people at tippity top schools [not talking about secluded engineering people lol] :) )</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ok Zapoid; let’s begin with history:
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Whatever. Of course West Point is going to have an advantage in military history. We can compare naval history, and see who has the edge there. To begin, the crucial Pacific theater of operations during WWII, won by the Navy and Marine Corps.</p>
<p>
[quote]
West Point is the oldest continuously garrisoned fortress in the United States.
[/quote]
And it still looks like it. :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
West Point protected the upper reaches of the Hudson River from the British Fleet. Had it not been for West Point the British Navy would have divided the colonies in two and would have likely won the Revolutionary War. Had this been the case we would have to drink warm beer.
[/quote]
So....... You're admitting Naval Power could have crushed the Revolution, eh? ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
George Washington’s troops were garrisoned at West Point and Benedict Arnold became a traitor and forever infamous when he tried to sell the plans for West Point to the British.
[/quote]
Don't look at me. He was Army. :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
Alumni include Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, George S. Patton, Omar Bradley, Douglas MacArthur, and Dwight Eisenhower. More recent graduates include Frank Borman (commander of the first circumlunar flight; president of Eastern Airlines), Edwin E. "Buzz" Aldrin (participated in the first manned lunar landing), Edward White II (first American to walk in space), Michael Collins (command module pilot, first manned lunar landing).
[/quote]
Chester Nimitz, Raymond Spruance, Bull Halsey (without those three, we'd all be sipping rice wine out of small dishes), Albert Michaelson (calculated the speed of light, becoming the first American to win the Nobel Prize in Physics), Alan Shepard (first American into space, beating even the Air Farce, and commander of Apollo 14 to boot), Robert A. Heinlein (Sci-Fi writer extrordinaire for you illiterate woops), Admiral Byrd (polar explorer), James Irwin (LEM pilot on Apollo 15, first to use a lunar rover), Roger Staubach, David Robinson, Matt Blunt (Governer of Missouri), et al...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Annapolis alumni: President Carter.
[/quote]
And you clowns produced Wesley Clark. At least our loser leftist idiot politician actually got elected. :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
Zap, I stand prepared to accept your unconditional surrender with regard to the historic bragging rights of the United States Military Academy at West Point over Annapolis. You man retain your saber.
[/quote]
SWORD, landlubber! We in the Navy have SWORDS. Only clowns who call both tanks and helicopters "cavalry" still use sabers. ;)</p>
<p>Retain my sword? HA! Molon labe, woop! Come take them! I'll surrender bragging rights only when you cretins from Hell on the Hudson come to the realization that we are your betters. Good grief! We even beat your sorry butts into Afghanistan! :D</p>
<p>Navy wins.</p>
<p>Again. :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
and nobody at any SA would want the French to win the world cup.
[/quote]
Nope. We'd be too busy waiting for them to surrender after the first foul against them. :D</p>