To: goldworldnet who wrote (365661 ) 5/23/2010 4:31:26 AM From: unclewest 7 Recommendations Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793964 Maybe UW will weigh in on the Academies. I have three USAFA graduates and one USMA student in my close family. One was KIA. Two serve today...a nephew and a niece. A nephew is in West Point now. He just completed his 2nd year. He was an infantry PFC in Iraq when he was accepted. Having said all that, I am not a fan of the academies. We needed terrific engineering schools when we were building American roads, bridges, water supplies, railroads, cities and towns, etc.. West Point filled a needed gap for that. But we no longer have that need. I believe the Brits have the best officer program at Sandhurst. All of their officer candidates receive the same training. Nearly all who are accepted are already college graduates and many have previous combat experience as NCOs. Their students are much more mature and goal driven. Sandhurst makes war fighters out of them. In contrast the US military academy does not a war fighter make. 95% of students are just out of high school, confined to a strict regime for four years, and are still too young and too wet behind the ears when placed in a combat platoon leaders role. Too many silly and immature games are played out at our academies. Our combat leadership training takes place after West Point in the Infantry officer basic course for new Lieutenants, The Branch Advanced Course for Captains, The Command and General Staff College for Majors and Lt Colonels, and the War College for Colonels. ROTC and OCS graduates attend these schools too and excel there. Sandhurst strives to be the UK's national centre of excellence for leadership and does an excellent job of that. That goal is accomplished better than and at a fraction of the time and cost of our academies.