<p>"Go Army, Beat Navy!"</p>
<p>This kind of attitude is unacceptable.</p>
<hr>
<p>Service academies are meant only for authoritarian regimes.</p>
<p>Ummm...No...</p>
<p>"...it's annoying to see them walking around in their uniforms." Yes, I'm sure it is such a hassle to see others wearing a uniform. I fail to see a point here, other than your fashion preferences.</p>
<p>"Possessing relatively little charisma or poise." Appearently, you have not met many. Most (not all, but many more than average) cadets and midshipmen have a lot of confidence, charisma, or whatever you care to call it.</p>
<p>"Um, they're not even that fit. To unnecessarily suffer and brag about it is a joke." Bragging is wrong. But again, look at some averages and tell me that they are not more physically fit than most Americans.</p>
<p>"I'm not impressed that cadets need a highly rigid system in order to have discipline." Perhaps you should try it, it might impress a few things upon you. </p>
<p>"Plus, the service academies should try harder at balancing the male/female ratio." While the percentages are not great, giving weight to gender is not a good way to develop and maintain the best military.</p>
<p>"'Go Army, Beat Navy!'
This kind of attitude is unacceptable."
Appearently, sports rivalries don't appeal to you. The military develops competitive attitudes because they can come in handy fpr competitions involving one's life (i.e. war).</p>
<p>"Service academies are meant only for authoritarian regimes." I disagree. Why do you think so?</p>
<p>While you have as much right to your opinion as anyone else, I would appreciate it if you could give a reason or example before condemning several thousand people who serve you.</p>
<p>Johns Hopkins and Cornell (apparently has the highest suicide rate for students!) </p>
<p>Whichhh is wrong. Cornell actually has an extremely low suicide rate (a good amount below national average). MIT is highest</p>
<p>Urban legends ... there is no official tracking of colleges with the highest suicide rate. These stories of Cornell and MIT have been circulating for decades.</p>
<p>As for the schools with the most stressful academics, I'd agree that the service academies have the most stressful life, but it's not all from academics. The overall lifestyle is extremely stressful.</p>
<p>Stress just from academics? MIT, UChicago, Reed, CalTech, and Swarthmore come to mind.</p>
<p>LOL are you joking!? There are statistics! lol is all I can say...</p>
<p>To raimus:</p>
<p>So you agree that they are less cultured and more heavily indoctrinated than ivy or ivy-caliber students?</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Possessing relatively little charisma or poise." Appearently, you have not met many. Most (not all, but many more than average) cadets and midshipmen have a lot of confidence, charisma, or whatever you care to call it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Poise and charisma=! confidence. The only confidence I sensed was in the form of haughtiness, the thinking that they should be noticed in public because they are part of a service academy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Um, they're not even that fit. To unnecessarily suffer and brag about it is a joke." Bragging is wrong. But again, look at some averages and tell me that they are not more physically fit than most Americans.
[/quote]
I'm not comparing them to the average American; obviously, they're expected to physically perform at a high level. Fitness, as the USMA defines it, is the ability to pass certain physical tests like in basketball throw, pull-ups, shuttle runs, modified sit-ups, push-ups, and mile-long run. To me, passing the tests does not necessarily mean that their bodies are in great shape. I guess I was annoyed that people keep assuming that people in the academies have ideal bodies or whatever</p>
<p>Also, you linked the two sentences together when they are not related. With the latter, I was expressing my disapproval of harsh routines. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"I'm not impressed that cadets need a highly rigid system in order to have discipline."</p>
<p>Perhaps you should try it, it might impress a few things upon you.
[/quote]
No thanks, my creativity will not be stifled. Also, Im capable of self-discipline.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Plus, the service academies should try harder at balancing the male/female ratio." </p>
<p>While the percentages are not great, giving weight to gender is not a good way to develop and maintain the best military.
[/quote]
Obviously, whether a person is masculine or feminine should not matter. I agree that gender should not be considered at all in choosing who will serve in the military.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"'Go Army, Beat Navy!'
This kind of attitude is unacceptable."
Appearently, sports rivalries don't appeal to you. The military develops competitive attitudes because they can come in handy fpr competitions involving one's life (i.e. war).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, the army and the navy should be more cooperative than competitive with each other. Also, sports=! real world </p>
<p>
[quote]
"Service academies are meant only for authoritarian regimes."
I disagree. Why do you think so?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Only train the people who will actually go to war.</p>
<p>Really? There are statistics? Can you cite the source? And I mean statistics that rank, as you mention, the suicide rates for all colleges in the US, from highest to lowest.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quote:
"Service academies are meant only for authoritarian regimes."
I disagree. Why do you think so? </p>
<p>Only train the people who will actually go to war.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. -- John Stuart Mill</p>
<p>It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war. -- John F. Kennedy</p>
<p>lol yes there are, I'm not gonna go searching for you tho. I've seen the stats for certain schools posted all the time on this site. They rate them out of thousands who attend the college. How is that not plausible? I mean are you that...I won't go there. But cmon, how is it hard to keep a statistic of? One kid out of 1,000 kids committed suicide this year. Wow that was hard...I must be a complete genius to write that down!</p>
<p>Sorry Figgy. Just because it's been stated here doesn't make it true. Again, it's an urban legend that's been around for decades and Cornell and MIT are always mentioned. In earlier more elaborate versions, it was stated that MIT students jumped off the Mass. Ave bridge and that Cornell had a high suicide rate because of the canyon in the middle of campus. Now it's apparently just assigned to stress. </p>
<p>Think about it. If there were stats it would require every single college and university in the country to report the death and cause of death of every student on campus and off (including students who die during breaks at home or on spring break in Cancun) to some central accounting facility. Only with this can there be accurate data that lists the suicide rate for Cornell or MIT. There is no such central clearing house. The only data shows the approximate number of total college age persons in the United States who committ suicide each year. A small percentage of colleges do keep records of suicides, but most do not. </p>
<p>You may be interested in this article:</p>
<p>put out by MIT in 2000. If you read it you will see that it points out the following things:
1. The rate of suicide at MIT was consistent with the rate of suicide nationally among people of the same age.
2. A 1987 study found that only 14 percent of schools keep suicide records. Is it likely that between 1987 and now 100 percent of schools not only keep suicide records but report them to a central clearing house that compiles rankings of the most suicide-prone campuses? Probably not.<br>
3. This article also addresses the Cornell kept suicide records specifically to dispel the myth of its high suicide rate and found that its sucide rate was lower than MIT's rate and lower than the national average for people in this age group.</p>
<p>This is not to diminish the serious problem of depression and suicide among college students, but let's be accurate here before just spreading myths and misunderstanding of statistics.</p>
<p>Swarthmore, UChicago, MIT, CalTech, Wharton, etc.</p>
<p>Well the one I see all the time is Cornell's cuz people bring it up a lot, so maybe that was just me generalizing.</p>
<p>I think it depends more on your major...I studyied mechanical eng. for 2 1/2 years and men i had to work my ass out to get a B(i'm very good in math and science).i don't think a person majoring in geography at stanford would have harder time(on the contrary easy life) then another stydying eng. at U of colorado for exemple..</p>
<p>'tisthetruth:</p>
<p>No, I am not agreeing with your statement that Ivy students are more cultured and less indoctrinated. In the cultural aspect, I have no solid evidence one way or another. By indoctinated, it depends on what you mean. Yes, I now have a habit of doing certain things in a military way. When I iron my clothes, they always come out a certain way, for example. However, I have seen a few Ivy students who are heavily indoctrinated in a political sense.</p>
<p>I believe that confidence, poise and charisma are closely linked. I do not know of charismatic people without confidence. The academies try to produce leaders with knowledge and confidence; which I would argue are often leaders with charisma. With regards to confidence, you will see very few timid cadets. Fear is something the academies work hard to overcome.</p>
<p>Fitness tests are a minimum way to measure performance. There are, of course, less than fit cadets. By no means are all cadets some sort of perfect physical specimen. However, they are required to be generally fit.</p>
<p>Well, I'm not sure how learning to march stifles creativity, but there are some very creative cadets around the academies. </p>
<p>When you say the army and navy should cooperate, you are correct. Please realize that they DO cooperate. However, when you start talking about the service academies, each academy would rather see their own teams win. </p>
<p>"On the fields of friendly strife are sown the seeds, that on other days and other fields will bear the fruits of victory." is a view widely accepted at the academies. While sports is obviously not combat, we try to play like we fight--to win.</p>
<p>We ARE training the people who will go to war. Each cadet will serve in the military-that is why the academies exist.</p>
<p>Alas, we are far off topic. While the academies may not equal MIT in stressful academics, I think they are overall more stressful and have very high academic standards.</p>
<p>'tisthetruth, if you want to continue our discussion, let us continue someplace where we are not merely interruptions to an ongoing topic. Could you please say "does not equal" rather than =!. I know we like to use logical operators, but let's keep it at an english level rather than at a programming language.</p>
<p>raimius -- the thoughtful Zoomie!! Bravo :D</p>
<p>to LFWB dad</p>
<p>Perhaps they taught you at your service academy to misquote and selectively quote, and perhaps deliberately to mislead, but I hope not.</p>
<p>John Stuart Mill said, without your excisions:</p>
<p>"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice,—is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other." </p>
<p>By leaving out the key parts of this writing, you are misleading people. I hope you are not merely parroting a paraphrase that is promulgated without criticism within the military academies. Although I was educated at three Ivies, I have great respect for the military academies and their roles. At my alma maters, however, I know I could never get away with the academic solipsism reflected in your cut and paste citation. </p>
<p>You might also do well to note another of Mill's writings:</p>
<p>"The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest."</p>
<p>Redcrimblue, </p>
<p>Thanks, for the full quote. Didn't know there was more.</p>
<p>No, its not something parroted as paraphrase that is promulgated without criticism within the military academies. </p>
<p>Its just a quote that popped up on google.</p>
<p>I appreciate you putting it in context.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>Thanks. I didn't mean to be so harsh, but it is irritating how much, on all sides of a discussion, epigrammatic miscitations can be sprinkled like incantations. I was particularly hoping that this elliptical quote was not being relied on at West Point or Annapolis to buttress a view that was not the author's. Mill was certainly strong enough without the slippery excising of his qualifiers to the virtue of war. </p>
<p>That said, we should all be grateful that we have officers trained at the academies, and are not relying on the generic Ivy League graduate to lead our troops, in war or peace.</p>
<p>People need to understand the topic is "Top 10 schools with most stressful ACADEMICS?"
With that being said, there shouldn't be any discussion about university acceptance rate, acceptance requirement, or sports. </p>
<p>To those who bring up any sort of business schools to this discussion, well, you obviously don't know what you are talking about! Any technical major will and can easily outdo business major in stress any day.</p>
<p>Personally, I think the followings are among colleges with the most stressful academics:</p>
<p>-Cornell
-MIT
-Caltech
-Harvey Mudd + Pomona
-Carnegie Mellon
-Swarthmore
-UChicago (econ) -the only exception
-Reed
-UC Berkeley
-Johns Hopkins
-Northwestern, Williams, Amherst
-absolutely not Stanford or Harvard (being most exclusive doesnt at all mean most stressful academics)</p>
<p>now, for those military schools, I can imagine the stressful and intensive lifestyle, but just not sure of the academics.</p>
<p>Your time isn't your own and what little you have is strickly regimented. That's were the stress comes in...you're always overloaded. The academics aren't a cakewalk and even English and History majors take engineering clases, chemistry, physics and differential equations. Everyone has to fit in a sport each season also and with formations, uniforman and room standards to meet, it is very, very challenging.</p>
<p>Struggled through a SA and then went to an Ivy league school and got all A's without a problem. The Ivy school was much easier.</p>
<p>I would tack them on the list.</p>