Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

When you look at the over all picture, is going to school at a service academy (AFA, Navy, Army) less likely, thus more prestigous, than attending an Ivy League school?

Should they be a top 25 school for this reason?

I say YES

By Shahab (Shahab) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 07:07 pm: Edit

mm no. obligatory military service and political indoctrination take away from all the possible positives at military schools

By Studentoflife (Studentoflife) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 08:25 pm: Edit

Yeah, I guess serving the greatest country in the world is a negative, but may be overridden by the fact that the education is free, and personally I don't think flying a fighter jet would be all that boring of a job after college!!! Anyways, the question wasn't if you like the curriculum or other obligations, but whether being admitted to a service academy is more difficult than being admitted to an Ivy League school... all other facts aside.

I would have to say YES, again.

By Lightspeedoo7 (Lightspeedoo7) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 08:30 pm: Edit

I've read books stating that the most difficult college to be admitted to is Air Force. They only accept 10-11% of aplicants.

By Crnchycereal (Crnchycereal) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 08:34 pm: Edit

No one is questioning whether the academies are more selective than the Ivy's (though this year, that may not apply to some ilke Yale). But you're claiming that selectivity alone determines prestige, which is far from the truth. Schools like HYP are prestigious because of their reputation for providing a world-class education amongst the most talented and gifted students in the country. Also keep in mind that Ivy's have only become hyper-selective in recent years, but their prestige has preceded them since before the turn of the century. In these aspects, the academies simply cannot compare. Also keep in mind that your statement that "flying a jetfighter wouldn't be that bad a job after college" is purely subjective; many Americans are completely turned off by the idea of military service.

By Shahab (Shahab) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 08:38 pm: Edit

see the selectivity is based on a lot of different principles than at the ivies. For instance, they look at physical requirements, they look at previous dedication to service (did you participate in military-type activities) etc etc etc. Academics, of course, are essential, but not to the extent demanded by a Harvard or a Yale. So overall, if you are talking academic selectivity, then its obviously the Ivies. If you're talking about choosing the best to serve the nation selectivity, then obviously it's the Military Schools

By Belle28 (Belle28) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 01:41 am: Edit

that's a close call.

the reason that the service academies have such low admit stats is that 1) it's a free education. who wouldn't want that? 2) you need a congressional nomination and each us level congressman can only give a max of 6 a year. The fact is though that when i worked at my congressman's nominations this past fall, stats for a lot of the applicants were pretty low. i'm guessing it's slightly inflated cuz there's no app fee.

By Wickedsmaht (Wickedsmaht) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 02:50 am: Edit

Why do you people forget music schools like Julliard when talking about selectivity?

By Tunan_Fish (Tunan_Fish) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 09:48 am: Edit

Service academies and music schools are more self-selective than Ivies. While it's no small feat to get into Westpoint/USMA/Julliard, in my experience there is more of a "wow" factor @ HYPSM than at the service academies or a music school.

By Conker (Conker) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 10:24 am: Edit

"personally I don't think flying a fighter jet would be all that boring of a job after college!!!"

Being shot down by Iraqi guerilla fighters isn't that boring of a death either.

By I1lmatics (I1lmatics) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 02:06 pm: Edit

try again iraqi has never ever shot down a US fighter jet ... it's pretty much impossible

By I1lmatics (I1lmatics) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 02:07 pm: Edit

apache helicopters yes.. fighter jets no

By Hoping (Hoping) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 02:20 pm: Edit

ivys have overwhelming no of apps and most of their admit %sare in teens down to around 10% plus you are not looking at military service afterward so it is probably a stronger app pool however military acads are great and so are the kids who apply to them semper fi

By Okiew5 (Okiew5) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 02:35 pm: Edit

I cant stand liberal yuppies.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 02:35 pm: Edit

"Also keep in mind that your statement that "flying a jetfighter wouldn't be that bad a job after college" is purely subjective; many Americans are completely turned off by the idea of military service"

Well, you know what? FREEDOM ISN'T FREE!

The people who look down upon our fighting men and women with condescension and distain, will be the first people yell for the military when things get dicey.

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 02:36 pm: Edit

i think harvard, yale, or princeton's applicant pool is stronger than westpoint's.

By Carolyn (Carolyn) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 02:45 pm: Edit

Yes, but could your average Harvard freshman cut it at West Point? Don't think so...

By S17 (S17) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 04:43 pm: Edit

Could your average West Point cadet cut it academically at Harvard? Doubt it.

By Rowan (Rowan) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Yes, S17.

By Voigtrob (Voigtrob) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 04:56 pm: Edit

Rowan: Wrong. Just check out West Point's statistics. Avg SAT 1268, 50% of students in the top 10% of their class. Their applicant pool obviously does not really come close, academically, to the calibre of Harvard and other such schools.

By Crnchycereal (Crnchycereal) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 05:10 pm: Edit

The average Harvard freshman couldn't cut it at Westpoint because of the physical discipline required, but first and foremost, a college should be an institution of LEARNING. Harvard certainly beats the pants off of the academies for that.

"The people who look down upon our fighting men and women with condescension and distain, will be the first people yell for the military when things get dicey"

And Valpal, I never said that military service is a bad thing or that it is not necessary to maintain stability and democracy. I simply said that many people do not like the idea of they themselves serving in that capacity. Especially in the past few decades or so...what with two illegitimate "wars" and countless unjustified military actions.

By Slayer (Slayer) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 05:55 pm: Edit

Carolyn has a good point!

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 06:06 pm: Edit

in response to the off-topic comments

you can put any harvard student (or any student who's not physically disable) through that physical strain and he/she will eventually get used to it. also, having athletic talent is not a criteria for admission to westpoint...and in most cases, physical skills can be improved upon.

in my opinion, harvard's sports teams are more impressive than westpoint's. and harvard leaves more room for growth.

in response to the original comment
harvard's admission percentage rate for last year is 9-10% compared to wespoint's 10-11% (as you mentioned). and like i said, harvard's applicant pool is so much stronger than westpoint's, meaning that the selection process at westpoint is easier.

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 06:14 pm: Edit

S17, my brother is a WestPoint graduate. He has an engineering degree from USMA and, yes, he could cut it at Harvard too. He has an MBA from Harvard as well along with a joint masters from Tufts and Harvard in international law. He was not highly ranked in his class at the academy but breezed through the graduate programs.

Many of the ivies are not as difficult to get through. It's getting in that is the hardest part. Because such an academically select group is admitted the education is presented at a very high level without strict standards. Many schools are much more difficult to do well than HPY. Those schools have a deserved reputation for being tough in curriculum, grades given, and cut throat atmosphere.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 06:37 pm: Edit

I'll split the difference and say that the top students at the service academies would do well at Harvard or anywhere else. The average service academy student...no. There's a reason that the military looks at the top academy graduate and flags them for advanced education, top assignments, etc.

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 06:47 pm: Edit

first of all, we need to define the average westpoint cadet. voigtrob defined him/her as with a 1268 SAT and just about 10% class rank. sure this person could cut it at harvard but generally not without working harder than kids with better credentials.

but the original poster's question is whether or not attending the service academies is considered more prestigious than attending an ivy league school. deciding on what's prestigious or not is subjective. but according to general opinion, the answer is no; attending a service academy is not considered more prestigious than attending an ivy league school.

"The people who look down upon our fighting men and women with condescension and distain [sic], will be the first people yell for the military when things get dicey" -valpal\

we're not trying to put down the military. we're simply saying that the average service academy cadet cannot compare with the average harvard admit. also, if you are speaking of the military in general, harvard students are not exempted from military drafts, just like service academy cadets are not exempted from these same drafts.

By Momofboys (Momofboys) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 09:05 pm: Edit

Although this is very dated information, when I was graduating from the Kellogg school the most requested person to be interviewed was a West Point graduate. He was a great guy but in the lower middle of our class. He went into consulting. I've lost track of him but I feel VERY confident he is by no means one of the most successful in our class. BUT, the Ivy league graduates are not either. Life is interesting.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 11:47 pm: Edit

The thing most people do not know about life at the Service Academies is how extremely rigorous and stressful it is. The Military academies' academic requirements are no cakewalk by any means, and are heavily science, math, and engineering oriented. Cadets are generally required to take anywhere between 19-22 credits hrs. per semester, while the average civilian student takes between 15-18. Cadets must arise between 5:00 and 5:30a.m. everyday, and undergo rigorous room and personal inspection, prior to MARCHING in formation to breakfast every morning. Each cadet must memorize a tremendous amount of "military knowledge" and be capable of demonstrating a mastery of that knowledge at a moment's notice under stressful circumstances. He/she must also endure, what would seem to the average person, to be arbitrary "physical conditioning" at the hands of "superior cadet officers". You cannot even begin to imagine the pressure cadets are under almost constantly. Someone is on their you-know-what almost 24/7.

At the average well regarded LAC, a student would have between 2-3 classes per day. And often, he/she enjoys the luxury of choosing classes that sync with their preferred circadian rhythms. Not the Service Academy Cadet. Classes start immediately after breakfast, and last until approx. 4:00 p.m. (with only a lunch break in between). Afterward, there are required sports team and intermural practices, special projects and other duties which must be performed before supper. After supper, there are assigned readings, study groups, inspections to prepare for, watches to perform, research papers to write, and in many instances, more team and sports practices.

I have often heard that the Service Academies purposely schedule 25 hours worth of "required activity" into 24. This is part of the training---to condition cadets to maintain a high level of performance under tremendous daily stress. The Cadet must be constantly vigilant to attend to every detail, as discrepancies and mistakes often carry what amount to pretty stiff penalties.

And sleep? What's that? The average Ivy League college student will never know the type of long term sleep deprivation the academy cadet experiences on a constant basis. He/she will never be required to go into the wilderness (ala Combat Survival Training) for two weeks at a time, with very little rations (and have to scavenge and "catch and cook" your own meals), all the while evading capture by "opposition forces". He/she will never have to jump out of an airplane and parachute safely to earth. Will never be required to run the mile in under 5 minutes and stay in peak physical condition, and demonstrate that prescribed level of fitness on a regular basis. You have no idea.

So while Joe Ivy League may boast an impressive GPA and test scores, he might very well crumble under the types of daily academic, mental and physical pressures endured by the average military academy cadet. Joe can kick back on the weekends, party hard, live in complete squalor, and genrally, do as he pleases after his assignments are tended to. Compared to the Service Academy Cadet, he lives the life of Riley.

The rigors of cadet life account for why the attrition rates at the Academies are very high--but also for why a Service Academy education is so very highly regarded.

By Ghewitt04 (Ghewitt04) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 12:29 am: Edit

I don't know where you guys got the stats for the academies but I know for a fact that the average SAT at the Naval Academy was a 1360 last year, and the average class rank was the top 3%. The academy sacrifices a little from their academic numbers to get people that are successful in life. I can guarantee that the average academy admit is far more well rounded than the average ivy admit, and they can afford to be this selective because they have 15000 aplicants for 1200 spots. When applying for a job or grad school, having come from an academy is hands down better than having come from an ivy. The question on the thread is tougher admissions, and the acceptance rates don't lie. Academically the ivies have slightly higher numbers, but looking at the bigger picture, I'd give my nod to the service academies.

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 11:02 am: Edit

with all due respect,
i think that well-rounded applicants are not as impressive as angular applicants.

" Each cadet must memorize a tremendous amount of "military knowledge" and be capable of demonstrating a mastery of that knowledge at a moment's notice under stressful circumstances."
-valpal
ivy students imply don't memorize facts; they learn to think.

why are you arguing that cadets are better than ivy students simply because they undergo more physical strain? being able to successfully handle life's adversities does not require undergoing physical strain. cadets choose to put pressure on themselves, and this level of strain is not needed to succeed in life. look at the tons of ivy grads. the reason they go undergo this pressure is because the academy's objective is to prepare them for military practices, wars and such- not for handling a family and a job. look at the tons of ivy grads.

is a larger percentage of harvard admits going to get rejected at any given service academy than vice versa? no

how can you justify that graduating from an academy rather than an ivy would put you in a better position when applying for a job?

in any given highly competitive high school, how many kids ranked in the top 10 (top 10 people, not top 10%) even apply to any one of the academies?

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 11:02 am: Edit

with all due respect,
i think that well-rounded applicants are not as impressive as angular applicants.

" Each cadet must memorize a tremendous amount of "military knowledge" and be capable of demonstrating a mastery of that knowledge at a moment's notice under stressful circumstances."
-valpal
ivy students don't simply memorize facts; they actually learn to think.

why are you arguing that cadets are better than ivy students simply because they undergo more physical strain? being able to successfully handle life's adversities does not require undergoing physical strain. cadets choose to put pressure on themselves, and this level of strain is not needed to succeed in life. look at the tons of ivy grads. the reason they go undergo this pressure is because the academy's objective is to prepare them for military practices, wars and such- not for handling a family and a job.

is a larger percentage of harvard admits going to get rejected at any given service academy than vice versa? no

how can you justify that graduating from an academy rather than an ivy would put you in a better position when applying for a job?

in any given highly competitive high school, how many kids ranked in the top 10 (top 10 people, not top 10%) even apply to any one of the academies?

By Carolyn (Carolyn) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 11:18 am: Edit

how can you justify that graduating from an academy rather than an ivy would put you in a better position when applying for a job?
>>

Are you kidding? Employers LOVE academy grads. I know MANY academy grads personally and they are usually snapped up by civil employers very quickly. What's more, that employer preference lasts throughout their career whereas many Ivy grads only get a boost from school name for their first job or two.

Reason: your average academy grad is going to have proven leadership skills within a few years of graduation that your average Ivy grad simply doesn't have a chance to develop until much later. After they graduate, academy grads are thrown into incredible situations where they take on intense decision-making, management, and leadership roles. It takes incredible discipline and self-confidence just to make it through an academy program. The average Ivy grad - or average 23 year old for that matter - won't get those types of experiences and skills for many years.

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 07:26 pm: Edit

"I know MANY academy grads personally and they are usually snapped up by civil employers very quickly" -carolyn

what about non-civil employers? are they generally more inclined to take academy over ivy grads?

who knows...i myself could end up in a service academy some day, but as of right now, i can hardly picture myself heading in that direction

By Ghewitt04 (Ghewitt04) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 08:02 pm: Edit

gianscolere:

In my class we've had 12 people apply to different service academies; Our class val scored a 1540 and has gone to state for tennis since his freshman year (took 2nd as a sophomore and is the favorite to win this year) and has all around unbelievable extra currics. He's going to the Air Force Academy; another kid who is ranked 6th scored a 1480, works 30 hrs a week, made 1st team in our conference in tennis; and also has unbelievale extra currics. He's going to West Point. I personally am less qualified- (9th out of 420, 1390, several varisty letters and some pretty good ECs) but i'm hoping to hear good news pretty soon.

My great uncle (distant) owns some sort of investment banking company and he has several service academy grads working for him. Too him, an academy degree is just as good as an ivy MBA if that tells ya anything (and it should because hes worth 400 mil and his yard backs up to Bill Gates).

You learn MUCH more at service academies than just how to serve as an officer in the military. The main goal of the exercises is being able think under stress, to build character and leadership, and develop morals; none of which are considered important at ivy league institutions and all are considered VERY important to 99% of employers. Besides, an ivy education can be bought (George W) but no amount of money can get you into an academy.

Which is toughest to get into???

West Point
http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/rankings.asp?listing=1023919&LTID=1

Vs.

Harvard
http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/rankings.asp?listing=1022984&LTID=1


and Harvard is considered the "top" ivy....the lower ivies (cornell, upenn, dartmouth, brown, columbia) don't hold a candle to the academies.

By Paulscott (Paulscott) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 10:16 pm: Edit

this is so silly, the academies are not as prestigious as harvard, and even if u were 100% confident in princeton review, which isnt too smart, difficulty would still include physical and senatorial requirements, which dodge yet again the point that even a 1360 SAT average at the naval academy or whatever it is... is still not harvard

as a side note im in Penn M&T (wharton and engineering) which i realize isnt as "low" as the college at penn, but id still rather go to the college at penn, probably dartmouth and definitely the college at columbia before westpoint

when you talk about leadership u might want to check where the most CEOs come from... the most investment bankers, lawyers... it isnt the service academies

By Chasgoose (Chasgoose) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 10:19 pm: Edit

For intellectualism, Ivies beat Service Academies hands down. Yes military academies are selective and physically and psychologically rigorous, but the academics there are more focused on what is practical to the military, which is not a bad thing considering that the point of military academies are to prepare future servicemenandwomen (God I hate political correctness). I would place military academies on par with pre-professional programs like Wharton, they are very narrow and do not provide the breadth of education that a solid liberal arts education does. To me, that means it will never be of the same intellectual prestige. It will have prestige with employers, but to all those people that think that the name of your school is what is going to get you a job, think again. A prestigious school might get you in the door at a job, but ultimately only you can get yourself hired or not.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 03:28 am: Edit

Most smug Ivy elitists with their 1600 SATs and 4.5 GPAs wouldn't last a month at one of the Service Academies. It takes far more than stats and an inflated ego. It takes brains, physical and mental stamina, courage, fortitude of heart, moral rectitude, SELFLESSNESS, the ability to work with others toward a team objective, and unwaivering committment. It's the ultimate academic and personal challenge.

And it is quite true that most corporations look extemely favorably upon Academy graduate applicants. My brother in-law (a Naval Academy Grad, himself) is now a pharmacueticals executive, who interviews and hires future employees for his company on a regular basis. His company's hiring guidelines specify that Academy grads are to be highly coveted for their proven work ethic, leadership abilities, and intellect under pressure (which is not to say that they don't hire graduates from HPY and the top LACs---they do. But academy grads often have the edge).

Oh, and the academies don't just offer math and science majors. More and more Air Force Academy Cadets, for instance, are choosing the so called, "Fuzzy majors", like political science, english, philosophy, and other humanities majors over the hard sciences and engineering. It's rapidly approaching a 50/50 split. So, it's a total myth that one cannot obtain a well rounded and intellectually stimulating education at one of the service academies. But those who choose to believe that one can't, are often the same people who want to believe that cadets are mindless robots, incapable of thinking for themselves... WRONG AGAIN!

By Conker (Conker) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 05:59 am: Edit

The political indoctrination at schools at West Point is insane, even if it offers impressive physical and competent academic training. While they may not be mindless robots and can generally think for themselves, when it comes to political issues they are rarely more than a Republican conduit. These academies train their students to be blind conservative patriots.

While these academies are gaining in prestige among employers, people still regard HYP with a certain venerance, sometimes unfounded. And few employers abroad will be impressed with a degree from West Point. But this will hardly matter, as the people attending these academies are usually too ignorant of the world to leave their coccoons and assimilate into other cultures.

By Usunkmyb_Ship (Usunkmyb_Ship) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 05:27 pm: Edit

^maybe it's the other way around.
It hurts to read some of these posts. Going to Annapolis is a dream of mine. I won't even explain the whole getting in/what they're looking for because noone here would ever understand nor would you care. Pretty much Valpal has the idea. The whole goal is becoming an officer. Yeah it's tough, harsh, and cruel and we're put in a simulated environment for 4 years, but we chose to do that. Other than that outside of school the mids and cadets have the brightest personalities I've ever seen, and most indeed unselfish. They also have to take ballroom dancing and etiquette classes plus there is an annual international ball to meet people from other countries. As for physical fitness, all that boot camp stuff you see is during the first 6 weeks, for the naval academy called plebe summer. After that you stay in shape by playing sports, there's also pt. I guess the only reason to bash the academies is for the hatred of the government and the military. god military is such a bad word. As for me I wouldn't spend my whole life in the navy. I want to have a family and I want to be there for them.
The only ignorance is people judging something they know nothing about.
As for the question, Ivy's are harder to get into plus a lot more people apply there making the acceptance rate lower. Academies offer prep schools to help candidates.

By Chasgoose (Chasgoose) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 06:03 pm: Edit

I don't think that there is anything wrong with military academies, for the right type of person (and I admire the people that attend such schools) they are great. Just like purely academic schools are the best for others. The typical University of Chicago, Harvard, or Williams student would fail miserably at West Point and vice versa. Trying to compare military academies to Ivies is like comparing apples to oranges, it just doesn't work.

By Usunkmyb_Ship (Usunkmyb_Ship) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 06:12 pm: Edit

"Trying to compare military academies to Ivies is like comparing apples to oranges, it just doesn't work."

Bingo

By Thedad (Thedad) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 06:58 pm: Edit

Closer to comparing oranges to carburetors.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 12:16 am: Edit

"when it comes to political issues they are rarely more than a Republican conduit. These academies train their students to be blind conservative patriots"

Chasgoose, I can't even begin to say how assinine that statement is. "Republican conduit"? Prove it! There are plenty of cadets/midshipmen at the academies who identify themselves as Democrats---granted, not the U.S. bashing, far left leaning variety, but centrists who pride themselves on carefully weighing all sides of any political or economic debate.---Which stands in sharp contrast with schools (UC Berkeley immediately springs to mind) which unabashedly tout themselves as the standard bearers for leftist extremism. Talk about knee-jerk, mindless acceptance of a political ideology..! At Berkeley, as well as at many LAC and Ivy campuses, the overwhelming political climate is EXTREMELY LIBERAL---one might easily refer to THEM as "conduits for the Democratic Party"---or at least the far left flank of it. But, it would be just as unfair to disparage the value of an education received at such schools (Hell, my D is applying to some of them, as well as one of the service academies. And I dare say, she's no "blind conservative patriot".) as it is to bash the service academies and their student bodies.

"But this will hardly matter, as the people attending these academies are usually too ignorant of the world to leave their coccoons and assimilate into other cultures"

What complete hogwash! Upon what, pray tell, do you base such a judgment? You'd be surprised at the number of offspring of corporate CEOs, labor union leaders, and Washington power brokers (who are often world travelers, well versed in various cultures and customs, and hardly, "coccooned"), attend the service academies. If anything, the service academies are the most democratic of institutions, admitting children of the corporate and political elite, the poor factory worker's son/daughter, and kids representing every socio-economic demographic in between.

"The typical University of Chicago, Harvard, or Williams student would fail miserably at West Point and vice versa."

Wrong again. While it is true that the "typical University of Chicago, Harvard, or Williams student" would fail miserably at one of the service academies, the reverse is much less likely to be true. The vast majority of service academy cadets have proven that they have what it takes to succeed in an academically rigorous environment. However, as I've relayed in an earlier post, it takes MUCH MORE than just a high GPA and stellar test scores to survive the service academies.

Hey, I just thought of a great new format for a Reality TV series. In a kind of variation on the "trading places" concept, they should take five service academy cadets/midshipmen, and five Ivy League students, and make them trade places for a period of one month. It would be QUITE interesting to watch. I can almost guarantee that the service academy students would view the life of their Ivy League counterparts to be a veritable cake-walk. While, I'd love to see Joe Ivy League keep up his studies while being put through the paces of life at one of the service academies.

Honestly, which group do you think would be the first to yell, "uncle"?

.

By Conker (Conker) on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 01:19 am: Edit

"There are plenty of cadets/midshipmen at the academies who identify themselves as Democrats---granted, not the U.S. bashing, far left leaning variety, but centrists who pride themselves on carefully weighing all sides of any political or economic debate.---Which stands in sharp contrast with schools (UC Berkeley immediately springs to mind) which unabashedly tout themselves as the standard bearers for leftist extremism."

I think your post speaks for itself. Were you truly a "centrist" who weighed political and economic situations judiciously, you would not correspond the "far left" with America-bashing. In fact, few right-leaning individuals would even say this. Only a genuine conservative would consider leftist values such programs as environmentalism, social programs, and pacifism "US bashing". If you're one of those people who thinks that anyone who hates Bush's war hates America, doesn't that only reinforce the stereotype of military academy graduates (or at least, proponents) as rabid conservatives?

To tell you the truth, I haven't met A LOT of service academy graduates. But I have met many veterans, including a handful of West Point, Annapolis graduates. And on the whole, they are one of the most conservative groups that can be selected from the general popluation. I have no doubt that there are Democrats (although I personally find that party rather vile) and liberals among the service academy graduates, just as I do not doubt that there are conservatives among UC Berkeley graduates.


"What complete hogwash! Upon what, pray tell, do you base such a judgment? You'd be surprised at the number of offspring of corporate CEOs, labor union leaders, and Washington power brokers (who are often world travelers, well versed in various cultures and customs, and hardly, "coccooned"), attend the service academies."

I notice how those are all domestic jobs. Obviously, any successful professional will have to go abroad. But just because they go to Europe on a business trip a few times every year hardly makes them "well versed in various cultures and customs". I have yet to meet an overseas entrepeneur who can claim having graduated from one of the service academies, and I've been around. But I have met plenty who have graduated from HYPS.


"If anything, the service academies are the most democratic of institutions, admitting children of the corporate and political elite, the poor factory worker's son/daughter, and kids representing every socio-economic demographic in between."

I agree with this statement. They are democratic and liberal in the sense that they are willing to admit anyone and everyone. But for Christ's sake, it's a military school! If Microsoft could open a university that would train its students in marketing Microsoft products AND succeed, they would act on such an investment. The same is true with the US government.

Obviously, not many people today find glamour in being shot down in some country whose name they can't pronounce. The fact that the US government can attract hoardes of people to a school, however prestigious, and be able to squeeze a few years of military service out of them is already impressive. The low tuition for the service academies ought to be EXPECTED of the government; otherwise, we may justly accuse it of being scandalous.


"I can almost guarantee that the service academy students would view the life of their Ivy League counterparts to be a veritable cake-walk."

That's probably true because the Ivy Leagues could be a lot better in terms of education. Getting in is much harder than staying in. Now, if the Ivies offered a standard of education comparable to their selectiveness during the admissions process, I doubt that most of the service academy students would fare well. In fact, I am sure that many would flunk out.

The West Point students are clearly expending more effort in their daily life when physical and academic factors are considered. Now if the Ivies would toughen their curriculum and academics, most West Point students would not perform well, whereas most of the current Ivy students would continue to excel. Just because one has outstanding abilities when it comes to juggling academic and physical demands does not mean that their physical prowess can be readily reshuffled into academics when necessary.

By Chasgoose (Chasgoose) on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 01:46 am: Edit

Ummm Valpal, I didn't make most of those statements that you attributed to me, that was someone else. I did, however, make the comment about placing an Ivy student at a service academy and a service academy student at an Ivy. What I meant by that statement is because people that attend a service academy are so different from people who attend an Ivy (not in a bad way, the two are just very different) each of them would not do as well at the other type of school. While I do think that the typical academy student would have an easier transition, I do think it would still be hard. My cousin is a West Point grad and I know other people who attend service academies and while they are intelligent and hard-working and devoted, I would not say that they were very intellectual.(By that I mean that they are not really interested in the life of the mind and they are more pragmatic and reality based. It is similar to the difference between an engineer and a philosopher.) They are all great people and I admire their devotion to their country and their strength of character (my cousin is currently in Iraq right now) it is just that they are different from the typical Ivy League student and they probably wouldn't do well in that type of environment.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 04:25 am: Edit

Were you truly a "centrist" who weighed political and economic situations judiciously, you would not correspond the "far left" with "America-bashing. In fact, few right-leaning individuals would even say this. Only a genuine conservative would consider leftist values such programs as environmentalism, social programs, and pacifism "US bashing". If you're one of those people who thinks that anyone who hates Bush's war hates America, doesn't that only reinforce the stereotype of military academy graduates (or at least, proponents) as rabid conservatives?"

Did I EVEN ONCE say that "leftist values", such as environmentalism, social programs, and pacifism were the equavalent of U.S. bashing? for the record. I DO NOT! My intention was
merely to point out that there are adherents of the extreme left, whose ONLY words pertaining to America are words of strident condemnation.


By the way, I am NOT one of those who considers anyone questioning "Bush's War" to be "America haters". I too have serious problems with the decision to invade Iraq, especially in light of the fact that the "weapons of mass destruction/threat to U.S. national security" excuse has proven to be bogus. And I DO NOT consider it unpatriotic to excercise our hard won right to fully examine and debate the political and economic ramifications of the Iraq War. I DO however, have problems with those who have used the Iraq invasion as a platform to rake the past 50 years of American foreign policy over the coals, by labeling America a mere "Global bully" (especially, those who can't seem to come up with ANYTHING POSITIVE at all to say about the country, even as they sit in their upper-class vacation homes, and within the ivy-covered halls of august academica, enjoying all the priviledges and rights afforded afforded them by America).

I personally consider myself to be environmentally concerned. It is of utmost importance to me that we preserve as much of the natural world for all of earth's inhabitants as possible. I will not sit for three months in a tree in order to prevent it from being cut down, but I will (and have} written letters to Congress, and donated to conservation groups dedicated to clean air, clean water, and a healthy planet for the generations yet to come.

I have to cut this response short, as it is ridiculously late (early, actually), and the medication I took that causes drowsiness has kicked in. But I will return to it, as I have other thoughts and observations on this matter.

Chasgoose, sorry I confused you with Conker. Menopause and the aging brain...it's just not pretty...

By Farrahday (Farrahday) on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 08:52 am: Edit

Okay, I agree with the whole oranges and carburetors idea. But what makes everyone think that people who get into Harvard wouldn't do well in the service academies? To make it in the services you have to have "brains, physical and mental stamina, courage, fortitude of heart, moral rectitude, SELFLESSNESS, the ability to work with others toward a team objective, and unwaivering committment" (quote taken from Valpal.) Obviously anyone who can make it into a top school has brains and mental stamina. People who get into tops schools have usually just spent four years working their butt off, either because of their nature or because they wanted to get into a top school. Either way shows unwaivering commitment. Most students know how to work well with others. Most students who get into top schools have moral rectitude, because you need a glowing recommendation from your guidance counselor. Three of the remaining are courage, fortitude of heart (that sounds like courage to me) and selflessness, which are all pretty subjective. And the final one is physical stamina. Most people, if they work out hard enough, can physically qualify for the service academies. And people who get into top schools are hardly strangers to hard work.

So as for the reality show, I'm sure it would be tough for the ivy students, just as its brutal for the service students when they first get there.

**Valpal, I read on another post that your daughter was medicallly disqualified, and I'm sure it stings that others who would qualify refuse that opportunity, but when you start making generalizations such as "smug Ivy elitists", you lose ground. Wanting a school where education is prioritized does not make me an elitist.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 01:43 pm: Edit

The "Smug Ivy elitists" (and they do exist) I was referring to, are those who look with complete distain upon the miliary academies, considering them to be far beneath a school like, "Haahvahd". I did not say that every Ivy Leaguer, or Ivy League aspirant was an elitist. I'm sure your motivations for applying to HPY are above reproach, but you must know that there are some whose sole criterion for applying is because it's "Haavahd".

There is no doubt that some who get into HPY could indeed do well at one of the services academies (especially, if he/she is an athlete), however, I still stand by the notion that most Ivy Leaguers would find it a much tougher transition, if they suddenly found themselves having traded places with an academy cadet.
The drug screening alone, would preclude the possibility for many. And the "mental and physical stamina" I'm referring to involves a heck of a lot more than the ability to pull a couple of consecutive all nighters and still function the next day. The mental and emotional strain under which cadets/midshipmen are constantly subjected goes far beyond academics and athletics. As I've said, you have no idea! I've done a considerable amount of research (as well as speaking with a number of service academy alumni aquaintances of mine) and still have a hard time fathoming how anybody survives four years (and you MUST indeed graduate in four) at a service academy.

And as far as my D's bid to attend the USAFA, I can't say that I don't harbor a certain amount of sheer relief that she won't likely be attending. As I've said in an earlier post, the attrition rate at these academies is quite high compared to that of civilian schools. It is precisely that combination of academic, physical, and mental stress that ultimately spells the undoing of those who don't make it. It's certainly NOT the educational experience that I desire most for her. I've only stood behind her in her decision to apply because she was so set on giving the academy her utmost. I quite frankly don't understand why she wants to put herself through it. But it was her dream, and I wanted her to have her chance at it. The application process is quite a bit more drawn out and complicated than that of a civilian school (she's applied to seven of those, too), so when she received the DODMERB'S decision, she decided to apply for a medical waiver, if for no other reason, to know that she took the whole process "to the wall" before relenquishing her dream. The prospect of a medical waiver does not look good, and quite frankly, I can comfortably live with that. So no, Farrahday, it does not "sting that others who qualify would refuse the opportunity". Clearly the service academies are NOT for everybody. I just take issue with the incredibly ignorant assumptions about the academies and their attendees that people have displayed in this thread.

By Farrahday (Farrahday) on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 02:49 pm: Edit

What incredibly ignorant assumptions? Most of the posts have been postive. The only negative point was political indoctrination, which is a fair point, though a lot of people who enter the service place a high value on national defense, which is traditionally a more conservative value. Maybe other people you have encountered look down on the service academies, but everyone on this thread has been pretty respectful of people who choose to enter them.

Back to the switch lives question: If you magically switched one day, of course if would be harder on the ivy students because they hadn't had any time for preparation. But most people would be able to eventually meet the physical requirements. The issue is time, not ability. The major problem would be ability to perform under pressure. Pretty much all ivy students would eventually meet the requirements, mental and physical. But not all of the service academy students would do as well. (I'm assuming you take a broad cross-section from each school) We've already established that the average service academey students are less book smart.

So, some ivy students would fail at the service academy, and some service would fail at an ivy.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 09:22 pm: Edit

What incredibly ignorant assumptions? Well, I don't honestly have the energy, nor the will to rehash the statements with which I have taken issue in this thread. Perhaps if you'd re-read the entire thread, you'd see what I was talking about. In any case, it hardly seems worth further debate. Lets just agree to disagree.

By Usunkmyb_Ship (Usunkmyb_Ship) on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 09:34 pm: Edit

Valpal what is your daughter doing now?

By Mjl86 (Mjl86) on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 09:59 pm: Edit

Valpal:

"And sleep? What's that? The average Ivy League college student will never know the type of long term sleep deprivation the academy cadet experiences on a constant basis."

Well, according to the Myer's Psychology textbook 6th edition, William Dement reports that 80% of Stanford students are "dangerously sleep derpived" (252). I know that Stanford is not an ivy, but its academic rigor is comparable to those of the ivies.

By Usunkmyb_Ship (Usunkmyb_Ship) on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 10:05 pm: Edit

And what exactly are standford and ivys studying?

By Carolyn (Carolyn) on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 11:45 pm: Edit

what about non-civil employers? are they generally more inclined to take academy over ivy grads?
>>

I stand by my statement: the average corporation will take an academy grad over an ivy league grad any day. As will government agencies.

I know both ivy grads and academy grads. You can be successful through either route but the
effect of an academy degree is going to last throughout your career while an Ivy degree will only give you a slight edge for your first or second job.

Frankly if I were given a choice, I'd much rather work for an academy grad than an ivy grad (of course there are exceptions to every rule). The reason? Academy grads are much better managers, have stronger people skills, and tend to be more grounded in the real world.

By Tricializ (Tricializ) on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 12:13 am: Edit

Carolyn:
While I agree with you from the standpoint of lifelong edge as an academy grad, I think it is a broad generalization to say that Academy grads are better managers etc. In any cross-section, you will have the full spectrum. With these two types of schools, I would say that the lower achieving individuals would be pretty scarce. But, other than that, I think you would have a good representation from both. My Daughter is a candidate at Navy and, while I am not sure it is the path I would have chosen for her, I support her 100% for her decision and dedication. The free part, while nice, really doesn't come into play for her and her situation. So, her desire is pure and I salute her for that.

I've read the posts and agree that for the most part they are positive. The few irritating ones to me are the ones who put down those who support your right not to serve, to pick your college, express your opinions and live the life you choose to live. The academies may not be for everyone. However, they are certainly fabulous training grounds for the future officers who are willing to give their lives for your freedom.

By Conker (Conker) on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 07:43 am: Edit

"My intention was merely to point out that there are adherents of the extreme left, whose ONLY words pertaining to America are words of strident condemnation."

Hardly. I speak to leftists all the time (and I may be considered one myself), and I have yet to meet one who truly hates America. There are plenty who are unwaveringly critical of US foreign policy, but to deny their attacks against appalling US foreign policy over the last few decades is to view America through a rose-stained glass.

I think that the military academies are great schools. They will undoubtedly prepare people better for the real world than their Ivy League counterparts, and obviously, there aren't any better schools for those aspiring to become future officers. I realize how intense an experience the service academies are, but I think that the people who believe that they are offering more rigorous academics than the Ivies and ignoring the inherent political indoctrination are clinging to an overtly optimistic view of the academies.

By Galagos (Galagos) on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 08:44 am: Edit

In terms of prestige, our congressman personally called our son to congratulate him on his appointment to the naval academy, and will be attending an appointment ceremony at the high school this spring. He does this for all service academy appointments. I don't believe this happens for students accepted to HYSP.

In terms of comparing academics at the Ivies to the service academies, I believe the academic challenge is greater at the academies, but at the same time I could actually see my son doing worse academically at HYSP than the Naval Academy. I feel that he thrives under the stress and pressure of strict discipline and high standards, and without those immediate pressures at a place like Harvard, he would tend to slack off and would not perform to his best abilities.

Even if you leave aside the academic comparison, students at the service academies gain much greater experience in leadership and management than most Ivy graduates since they have to actually perform as leaders for other cadets under very real and stressful conditions, both in the academic year as well as during summer trainings.

A good read on the overall experience at service academies is "Absolutely American", it follows a class through 4 years at West Point.

By Farrahday (Farrahday) on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 09:39 am: Edit

okay....Valpal, upon your advice, I reread the entire thread for the third time and I have yet to see any ignorant assumptions. I see some people who don't feel that the academics at the service acadmey are not equal to the ivies-but I wouldn't count that as an ignorant assumption. If you could quote what you find so incredibly offensive, with the author's names and context, that would be a lot more helpful than simply making grand statments. I honestly cannot see anything offensive, unless you count people disagreeing with you as offensive.

By Conker (Conker) on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 10:12 am: Edit

"I honestly cannot see anything offensive, unless you count people disagreeing with you as offensive."

No doubt that Valpal is talking about my disgust at the conservative slant of the service academies, but I don't believe my views to be any more presumptuous and unfounded then Valpal's views on the far left and UC Berkeley.

By Najy (Najy) on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 10:58 am: Edit

the academics conbined with the req'd boot camp for west point make it a much more rigorous program.

But 5 years of service is req'd after graduation. however you don't have to fight, you can do something like linguistics or do something with the embassies.

By Farrahday (Farrahday) on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 01:31 pm: Edit

I mentioned that(the conservatism) in my first post, but Valpal didn't pick up on that, so I assumed it was something else. Anyways, I wouldn't count that as incredibly ignorant. It looks like from Valpal's last post that he/she no longer wants to participate. If anyone else can offer a clue as to what was so offensive, chip in.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 01:57 pm: Edit

I don't why people are saying that political indocrination is the negative for people attending service academies. The reason why they attend is because they have undying loyalty to their country and its interests. I venture that they are already "indoctrinated" before they enter.

By Got2go (Got2go) on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 05:34 pm: Edit

I can understand Conker's disgust with the conservative slant at the academies, after all, look at what West Point has for their mission statement:

"To educate, train, and inspire the Corps of Cadets so that each graduate is a commissioned leader of character committed to the values of Duty, Honor, Country; professional growth throughout a career as an officer in the United States Army; and a lifetime of selfless service to the nation"

By Farrahday (Farrahday) on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 06:27 pm: Edit

Why disgust? There is a conservative slant, just as there tends to be a liberal slant at most colleges and universities.

By Disparat (Disparat) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 05:58 pm: Edit

This is a very interesting thread as I've been accepted to both West Point and the Naval Academy. I'm not really sure that I'm up for it, but right now it just seems like my best choice. I'm a pretty good student, not anywhere near some of you guys, and I didn't apply to any Ivy league schools because, well, I don't know why. MIT's decisions should be coming soon (I think?) so I'll know what's up with that. But the question I always ask myself when I consider service academies vs. civilian universities is "How much hell do I want to put myself through?" I honestly see service academies as more difficult to get through than the other places I've applied (MIT excluded perhaps). but I know the benefits will be extraordinary. Plus it's free, and that's not too shabby.

By Toxicity01 (Toxicity01) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 07:19 pm: Edit

Westpoint has an acceptance rate of about 6% (Vs. Harvard and Princeton that have 11%) And you need to be nominated by the President or member of Congress to get in.

By Gameguy56 (Gameguy56) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 06:36 pm: Edit

Most people here don't understand. Athletic ability is like intelligence, you only can work it up to a point. The rest is innate talent. Some people will never break a 6:30 Mile no matter how much they run, just like some people may never break a 1300 SAT. The point here is that it's just not a matter of "adjusting" to the athletic rigor of the academies its being able to do it at all and still maintain your GPA.

Besides, the Ivys are soft and elitist, the average SAT at West point is ~1320 and I bet at least 1/2 the class would do perfectly fine at the grade inflated HYPS. You could never say that 1/2 of Ivy students are West Point material. I'm sure, however, that there are Ivy students who would do fine at the academies, but those would probably be the Ivy athletes.

(Although I'm sure someone is going to bring up the fact that West Point WAS in the Ivy league for a time)

By Dxiw (Dxiw) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 08:29 pm: Edit

u have to consider the pools here..

10% to air force of a pool of idiots is not nearly as competitive as 15% to MIT of a pool of really smart ppl

By Farrahday (Farrahday) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 09:07 am: Edit

Dxiw--the pool of acadmy applicants are not stupid, but the pool is significantly weaker than the selective schools. I figured people would jump on you for the use of idiots

To Gameguy---What are you talking about? The ivies are soft and elitist? Elitist because they only take intelligent people? Soft because the don't require people to bench a lot?

I'm starting to get really sick of all these posts. THe schools are different, period. But both types are good choices for school. Anyone who completly dismisses the Ivies or the Service Academys probably isn't good enough to go to either.

By Shogun (Shogun) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 09:15 pm: Edit

The number one stated goal of the service academies is to produce LEADERS. That is NOT the number one goal of the IVY's. In most cases the IVY's will select and graduate people of extraordinary intelligence, but that is no guarantee of their ability to lead others, be physically fit, or to function well in any organization. The average West Point graduate will do well in all three areas.