Got this from neptunuslex.com...
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/lo...m02feb02,0,50943.story?coll=bal-local-arundel
Wanted to see what you think...The world probably doesn't need to be flooded with still more poli sci-type grads (I'm one myself; we're everywhere). If the focus moved away from engineering/hard science at the academies, would our military/innovation capabilities suffer, or would the benefits reaped on the ground through more 'int'l relations' offset it?
I would argue that while this is an important discussion, Ensigns and Second Lieutenants who graduate from the Academy aren't at the forefront of military innovation. They're at the forefront of driving ships, learning reactors, leading Marines or sitting in A-pool. Outnumbered by ROTC types and OCS types to whom this curriculum doesn't apply.
That said, from what little I know of it, I have always found the Academy's insistence on putting every student through a hard science curriculum odd. Nothing like giving your students a B.S. in English. Maybe nukes might have a different story having to live and breathe nuclear physics and the steam cycle, but as a pilot I haven't used calculus-based physics since I got a B- in it at Penn State. It more or less fits into the "nice to know" department behind how to shoot an instrument approach or land on the boat. That said, though my IST background seems to be giving me some insight into some parts of the Prowlerverse, some of the most valuable time I spent in college was in electives. One of the reasons I quit engineering was hearing a prof at student orientation say "don't worry about electives; we've got them all figured out for you." So I would have graduated with a boatload of techincal knowhow and precious little people knowhow.
I was lucky enough to attend Penn State while they had a professor teaching courses on Islam (He's since shifted to Oregon). Took the first one as an elective after the prof came to speak to our ROTC lab. Liked it so well I fit another of his courses and 2 semesters of Arabic in. I'd come within a hairsbreadth of getting out in 3 1/2 years but couldn't quite swing it, so I had credits to play with.
Given the current world environment, it was time well spent. Given the ideology of al-Qaeda, the Iranian mullahs, and other extremists, I can listen to their rants and get an idea of why they think the way they do. Conversely, when some right-wing pundit gets up and starts ranting about how Islam is a religion of hate and Muslims are all a bunch of maniacs, I know he's completely and utterly full of shit.
Undergrad is a rare opportunity; never again will you be able to pick some of the brains which are running around campus with as much frequency. So I would argue that the courseload of a future military officer needs to have a foot in both worlds. The technical stuff prepares you for having more techincal stuff thrown at you while earning your warfare quals. But war is the continuation of politics by other means, so language proficiency and humanities are just as vitally important.
*steps off soapbox*
.