<p>My son got up this morning, read the article and ended up saying (with some unprintable words) that Noonan doesn’t really understand. He illuminated me a bit. He said the reason they study engineering and become “scientists” is that those are the people who are “problem solvers”, and that is what a military leader needs to be. He also pointed out that the Thayer System is not what Noonan stated at all, but has more to do with how the classes are structured. The cadets learn the material BEFORE class and are prepared to present it. He did say they ALL study psychology, sociology, history, and liberal arts areas for content and understanding. </p>
<p>I disagree a bit about the languages, although I understand where you are coming from. The military has always tended to concentrate on what they need now, not in the future. Fortunately the language programs are wide spread now, with people studying a broad variety of languages from most every geographical area. I think it is telling that Chinese is being pushed heavily. DLI is absolutely outstanding for creating fluent liguists, but it would be nice to have officers that had proficiency and understanding without being fluent. The strong traditional core courses are still part of the curriculum.</p>
<p>My 2008 son is something of a language prodigy (his professor’s words). In addition to studying Arabic, he is fluent in Spanish, Italian and French, and conversant in Portuguese. Why would you not want someone like that to major in an area that plays to his strengths (he is actually a double major in Arabic/Spanish) and be able to use that in his career?</p>
<p>By the way, my son was quite insulted by Noonan’s insinuation that VMI had a stronger Arabic program. He said the Arabic Program at USMA is recognized as the best in the nation, and that the book used to teach Arabic at VMI was written by his professor at USMA… :)</p>