Did we run out of clouds to yell at today?

My two cents:

I commissioned through the Corps of Cadets and have served with many officers from the academy and other commissioning sources. There are many fallacies spoken throughout this thread. Namely, OCS officers being the most respected. From my experience, the OCS graduates who were prior enlisted are very respected, but the OCS grads who were not are generally lost and require a lot of instruction to "catch up."

The Academy is a great institution and is the way to go if you want to go SEALs or EOD (they get the most slots). However, their officers are very hit or miss. I've personally had some who worked with and for me who were outstanding, but the worst officers I have worked with or had work for me were also Academy grads. There is a lot larger sample size of them as they commission more officers though.

Every command I have reported to has told me they knew I would be a quality leader and officer because I came from A&M. We have a great reputation of developing great leaders.

I have also been an instructor at Auburn University. They have a good program as well, but nothing like A&M (nobody does). The president of Auburn University spoke at the Auburn Commissioning Ceremony while I was there and our program is so good, he mentioned the Corps of Cadets in his speech!

If I had to do it again, I'd still go to A&M (even during the Fran years). We have a GREAT reputation, an alumni network like no other, a great degree, and a top notch program that is much more than an ROTC.

Gig'Em and good luck in his decision.

AirborneAg04 said:

---

A2Aggie60 said:

---

"A&M is a good experience but this is simply ludicrous. The academies are highly selective and basically Ivy League institutions. They set you up for life in and out of the service, much more so than A&M. Go look at the bios for flag officers and tell me if you notice any trends."

If anyone thinks the academies are similar to Ivy League school they know not what they are talking about.

There are two major differences between any service academy and TAMU.

• Service academies are fully funded for the student. At A&M not so.
• The quality of education you received is much better at TAMU. Service academies provide a good but really not excellent degree far from being Ivy League.

Since service academies own their branch of service, they have first rights to appointing flag officers. I have seen an 06 go to 07 and still couldn't poor piss out of a boot. But they were West Pointers.


Out

---

I couldn't help but notice you said I didn't know what I was talking about, then neglected to defend your claim with any evidence at all.

TAMU is an excellent state school, one of the best land grant institutions you will find. It's near the top of the best return on investment schools. But you'll get a better education at a service academy, and I'm not sure how that's even empirically up for debate.

---

Something else that should be considered are the teaching methods. Research the Thayer Method. Definitely a proven way to teach/learn but can be a shock for those not prepared. Onus is all on the cadet to prepare... which ultimately is one of the biggest lessons theyre there to learn.

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

Quote:

---

The Academy has an excellent Economics department and routinely sends grads to the top MBA programs.

Agree that if you want to study poetry or social work or some other useless degree than don't go to an academy.

---

Service academy grads attend MBA programs post service or during service just like every other commissioned officer. We are talking undergrad. TAMU has a Business School, the Naval Academy does not. TAMU has liberal arts, the Academy does not. Both have excellent engineering schools.

---

This has nothing to do with academy v state school or private. The military sends a % to get a grad degree of their choosing to many schools. I know personally an intel officer who got a Harvard MBA on the gubments tab and another buddy got his from Rice. Plenty of others have gone to whatever state school for masters degrees in whatever and all while on active duty. You get a couple of years of relaxation away from big Army to make yourself that much more competitive in the private sector (should you go that route) or simply to groom another well educated leader. Lots of opportunities out there if you chase em down, Academy v Ags v whoever.

The Last Cobra Commander said:

---

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

Quote:

---

The Academy has an excellent Economics department and routinely sends grads to the top MBA programs.

Agree that if you want to study poetry or social work or some other useless degree than don't go to an academy.

---

Service academy grads attend MBA programs post service or during service just like every other commissioned officer. We are talking undergrad. TAMU has a Business School, the Naval Academy does not. TAMU has liberal arts, the Academy does not. Both have excellent engineering schools.

---

This has nothing to do with academy v state school or private. The military sends a % to get a grad degree of their choosing to many schools. I know personally an intel officer who got a Harvard MBA on the gubments tab and another buddy got his from Rice. Plenty of others have gone to whatever state school for masters degrees in whatever and all while on active duty. You get a couple of years of relaxation away from big Army to make yourself that much more competitive in the private sector (should you go that route) or simply to groom another well educated leader. Lots of opportunities out there if you chase em down, Academy v Ags v whoever.

---

What class are you? I was the C-1 Commander a few years back. This is in reference to your username.

Since y'all are discussing grad school opportunities, Naval Postgraduate School is an outstanding opportunity and is most likely the best shore duty you will get throughout your career. As a Surface Warfare Officer, I completed a two year program there immediately following my initial two Division Officer Tours and I cannot recommend it enough. The only way I would turn down NPS is if you were able to get three year orders to Texas A&M as an instructor. However, at NPS, you are a student and that is it. You get your master's degree and JPME Phase I accomplished and have an incredible amount of time for your family. Great shore tour.

champagnepapi said:

---

The Last Cobra Commander said:

---

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

Quote:

---

The Academy has an excellent Economics department and routinely sends grads to the top MBA programs.

Agree that if you want to study poetry or social work or some other useless degree than don't go to an academy.

---

Service academy grads attend MBA programs post service or during service just like every other commissioned officer. We are talking undergrad. TAMU has a Business School, the Naval Academy does not. TAMU has liberal arts, the Academy does not. Both have excellent engineering schools.

---

This has nothing to do with academy v state school or private. The military sends a % to get a grad degree of their choosing to many schools. I know personally an intel officer who got a Harvard MBA on the gubments tab and another buddy got his from Rice. Plenty of others have gone to whatever state school for masters degrees in whatever and all while on active duty. You get a couple of years of relaxation away from big Army to make yourself that much more competitive in the private sector (should you go that route) or simply to groom another well educated leader. Lots of opportunities out there if you chase em down, Academy v Ags v whoever.

---

What class are you? I was the C-1 Commander a few years back. This is in reference to your username.

---

I'm slightly bothered by your username. All that can really be said at this point is that Old Army dies the day you graduate.

PBV

If that means anything to you maybe we can talk.

The best and worst commanders I have worked for were USAFA grads. The best and worst CGOs I've ever worked with were prior enlisted (crossed over as E-5s). There's no magic formula.

The Academies are great institutions. So is Texas A&M. The truth is, the OP's son can't go wrong in either choice...depending on what his career goals are. If he wants to be a flag officer some day (a lot to fathom at 18...or 32, even), the Academy will give him a better shot and that is indisputable.

Two years after commissioning, his experience on AD will be a bigger factor in what kind of officer he is than his commissioning source. A&M gave me a fantastic leadership boot camp for four years but the officer I am today (10 years in) has more to do with the opportunities I've had over several assignments and the influence of the fine Airmen, Marines, and Sailors I have served with than four years of playing Army in the Corps (and to a lesser extent, even, my ROTC curriculum).

I'm sure OP will be tremendously proud either way!

Champagnepapi is C-1... Nothing against you personally, but a Cobra should not have your username.

I have long felt when an outfit is disbanded its name and heraldry should be permanently retired as well.

When outfits are merged forming a new outfit (i.e. C-1 & A-2 to make B-2) the name and iconography of the merged outfits should be retired; until the combined outfit is split, at which point the new outfit may adopt the emblem of one of its parent outfits.

Specifically to avoid a situation where cadets wear C-1 Cobra gear but have no connection to the historic C-1. Whatever legacy Old Army C-1 had exists in B-2. Forming a totally unrelated company whole cloth with out significant connections to the past and naming it after a dead or merged outfit is wrong. New C-1 could have been named:
Chargers
Crusaders
Comanches
Crazy Horse
Cougars
Cats
Cavaliers
Crimsons
or literally anything other than Cobras.

Swing Your Saber said:

---

Champagnepapi is C-1... Nothing against you personally, but a Cobra should not have your username.

I have long felt when an outfit is disbanded its name and heraldry should be permanently retired as well.

When outfits are merged forming a new outfit (i.e. C-1 & A-2 to make B-2) the name and iconography of the merged outfits should be retired; until the combined outfit is split, at which point the new outfit may adopt the emblem of one of its parent outfits.

Specifically to avoid a situation where cadets wear C-1 Cobra gear but have no connection to the historic C-1. Whatever legacy Old Army C-1 had exists in B-2. Forming a totally unrelated company whole cloth with out significant connections to the past and naming it after a dead or merged outfit is wrong. New C-1 could have been named:
Chargers
Crusaders
Comanches
Crazy Horse
Cougars
Cats
Cavaliers
Crimsons
or literally anything other than Cobras.

---

So, you know he's using this as a random username for a relatively anonymous internet forum and not a guidon he is parading around the quad, right?

Arguing the sanctity of an alpha numeric is dangerous. Lots of recycling.

Cobra C-1 existed 1971-1985, but was gone 1986. The name and image were resurrected later
.

93Spur said:

---

Arguing the sanctity of an alpha numeric is dangerous. Lots of recycling.

Cobra C-1 existed 1971-1985, but was gone 1986. The name and image were resurrected later
.

---

I have no qualms w/recycling alpha numeric designations, just the specific name & iconography. C-1 could have been brought back as almost anything reasonable besides "Cobra" & I would be happy. However C-1 Cobras should have been permanently retired, or held on to until they spin out of B-2.

Prince... I don't think you get it. Although, a champaign guidon sounds pretty amusing.

What's it to ya snake!