Some people here have commented on the need, or lack thereof, for degrees amongst Army officers. When I commissioned, I did so under the old OCTP propgram, which basically required you to have completed high school, period. I didn't see any need for anything more, and neither did most of my peers who were OCTP or UTPNCM or CFR. When, in the late 90's, the goal posts were moved by the requirement for an all-degreed officer corps, I was furious. I felt that I had been tricked: nobody ever told us non-degreed guys that we were going to become second-class citizens. I went so far as to write to the Director of Military Careers. I never got an answer from them, but around about that time I had a new experience. I was the Canadian student at the USMC staff college in Quantico. All the US officers there (from all five services) had degrees (mostly from civilian universities). They assumed that all officers did, and were very surprised to discover I had only high school. The course was run like a graduate program, and during the year I began to realize that I liked this learning thing. Not only that, but clearly the armed forces of the world's most powerful nation thought this degree thing was pretty important too. The Marines in particular were very big on education: they stressed the study of military history, and the Commandant of the Corps published a Reading List that officers were expected to complete. A post graduate course, the School of Advanced Warfighting, was also run there, just like any post graduate course: all self-paced study, discussion groups and papers.
Anyway, the point is that I came to view education for officers differently. When I got back to Canada, I applied for the UTPO and was accepted. Now that I have a degree, I see the true value of the post-secondary education. It does not teach you how to do an estimate or plan an attack or write a PER better: that is what your purely military training is for. And, it really isn't the "stuff" you learn in University that matters. (I've probably forgotten most of it...) What PSE does, in my opinion, is broaden the mind, teach you to study deeply and in detail, to reason and to understand the arguments and views of others, and to express your views clearly, supporting them with reasoned arguments. It does not teach you "what" to think, it helps you discover "how" to think.
Just as an example, we spent much of the first term at Quantico studying the Peloponnesian War of the ancient Greeks. Does that sound like a waste of time? Well, it wasn't: it was a perfect example of the formulation of national strategy and its execution through a series of campaigns and political struggles. Very relevant to today, despite all the changes in technology. People, war, strategy and leadership have not changed much, so the detailed study of military history, politics and psychology all have value.
Now, is all of that any good in running a rifle platoon? Maybe not. But, remember this: the officer is intended to go on to bigger things, where these skills and this understanding of history and people are vitally important. Do we really want the higher command and staff positions in our Army filled by people who don't have these skills, or who think learning is "stupid" or "a waste of time"? Anti-intellectualism is not the mark of a healthy officer corps, in my opinion.
Does educating our officer corps (or our NCOs/WOs, for that matter) cost too much? If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
The US Army, in its post mortem on its troubles in Vietnam, identified the need for an officer corps that was much more broadly educated, especially in the humanities. They felt that a too-narrow technical specialization (with an emphasis on Engineering) was not productive of the flexible, agile mind needed to fight an unconventional enemy on a modern battlefield. Neither they, nor the Marines, have ever looked back.
Nor should we. Cheers.
