|
"Patton:
VMI one year. Deficient in Mathematics first year at WP. Repeated first year with honors and appointed Cadet Adjutant. Not stupid just young."
Well that's the point- the relentless drive to quantify the "best" by some arbitrary academic exercise like SAT's or Class Rank just doesn't make sense and if you applied the standard that this academic wants you to - you would have excluded some of the great leaders of the past. It's the folks who are defining quality and standards as "must have high 600's or better on all SAT's and a 3.99 GPA while taking at least 5 AP courses" who are using the wrong measurements for success of the Academy. Success is measured by their graduates performance and committment to career service as military officers. Diversity is a worthwhile goal and it's foolish to believe that a citizen military doesn't have a responsibility to resemble the society it serves- if you have to ask why you probably have never been a leader in the military. The SA broadening it's search pattern to bring in more minority mids and cadets strengthens the service. If they land smart , committed individuals who become solid leaders upon graduation- then they have doen their job. So if their avg SAT score goes down slightly- who cares if they still get bright individuals with the capacity to lead in the 21st century. And it is a given that they routinely have lowered required test scores and GPAs for recruited Athletes, prior service etc... they send them to NAPS; MAPS etc or just disregarded the scores because they wanted the individual- so it is already a way of life and nobody thinks that the Academy or the service has made an error in doing so- well nobody other than a disgruntled civilian English teacher who sounds like he should be at St John's rather than at USNA.
|