Air University Review, November-December 1968

The USAF Academy Academic Program

Brigadier F. McDermott, USAF (Ret)

For over a decade the Air Force Academy has taken pride in the effectiveness with which it has fulfilled its mission of providing “instruction, experience and motivation to each cadet so that he will graduate with the knowledge, character, and qualities of leadership essential to his progressive development as a career officer in the United States Air Force.” This effectiveness has been clearly evidenced by the performance of USAFA graduates in their varied service assignments, most conspicuously in Vietnam. Their record of dedication to service is one which could well serve as a goal for future Academy graduates.

Many factors have contributed to the Academy’s success. Certainly the efforts, ability, and example of its personnel have been consistently outstanding. The Academy’s curriculum has also played an important part in preparing our cadets for the intellectual, physical, and moral demands of an Air Force career. Unfortunately, the relationship between the Academy’s curriculum, particularly the academic program, and its mission has been widely misunderstood, both within and outside the Air Force. Concern has occasionally been expressed that there may not be a proper balance between intellectual and non-intellectual emphasis in the Academy’s total program; that the content of the academic program does not relate to the Academy’s mission and the preparation of career officers; that the academic majors prepare graduates for civilian careers rather than military careers; and that the enrichment program puts pressures on cadets at the expense of other Academy programs, making development of the “whole man” difficult or impossible. The Academy’s record clearly negates the validity of these allegations, but their persistence indicates that the true record has not been widely or successfully publicized. A brief look at the academic program’s objectives, content, and results will, in my view, do much to clarify what the Academy’s faculty is attempting to achieve and how well we have accomplished our goals.

The program which the Academy has established to accomplish its objectives and mission is purposefully designed to challenge each cadet to develop his intellectual, physical, and leadership capabilities to the maximum. It is a program which requires the best from a well-rounded and competent individual, a young man who has the potential to meet the demands of a rapidly changing profession of arms. The great number and high quality of talented young men in the United States who show some measure of aspiration to attend a service academy have been established by many surveys. For example, in 1960 a five percent survey of high school students in 1353 schools throughout the country showed that the service academies as a group attracted the top male talent in the nation in terms of general academic aptitude, scientific aptitude, and leadership potential.¹ Another survey of approximately 120,000 high school juniors conducted by the National Merit Scholarship Corporation over the period 1961-63 indicated that the Air Force Academy ranked 24th as the top choice of the male students. It is significant that the Air Force Academy was the only school founded in the twentieth century listed among the top 25 ranked schools. In a later ranking (published in November 1966) of 1629 schools by 400,000 males taking the National Merit Scholarship Tests the Air Force Academy had climbed to seventh place. Furthermore, the Air Force Academy ranked sixth among the 140,000 so-called high-ability males in this total group of 400,000.

The validity of the Academy’s interest in candidates with high ability is proved empirically in the performance of its graduates. This validation will be discussed at length later. At this point it is sufficient to say that the Air Force Academy does attract and does enroll some of the top talent graduating from the nation’s high schools each year.

The challenges which the Air Force Academy offers to match the talents of its cadets may be considered under two headings: the formal program of instruction and the cadet way of life. The latter includes such features as the honor system, the conduct system, the aptitude system, compulsory chapel attendance during the first three years, a high degree of self-governance, leadership experience through the Cadet Wing organization, and a multitude of extracurricular and recreational activities.

The formal program of education and training may be described as evenly balanced between the academic program, which totals 2375 contact hours over four years, and the military training and athletic programs, which total 2325 contact hours over four years. This indication of balance, however, is somewhat misleading for two reasons: first, study hours are not included for the recitation courses in either the academic program or the military training program; second, many of the courses in the academic program are professionally oriented to such an extent that as a group they clearly constitute what could be labeled a major in military arts and sciences.

The academic curriculum’s total of 146 semester hours is closely comparable to the number of semester hours usually taken to meet the undergraduate requirements for the engineering profession; but the content differs markedly in that the military profession requires fewer hours in science and engineering and more hours in the social sciences and humanities. The Academy cadet must take a minimum of 54½ semester hours of social science and humanities courses and 50½ hours of basic and engineering science courses to complete his core curriculum requirements.

The Academy curriculum is also scheduled differently from that of most engineering schools. Since the cadet’s schedule must accommodate some military training and physical education in addition to academic courses during the academic year, the Academy spreads the load over four 38-week academic years, rather than the traditional 33- or 34-week academic year, in order to maintain a reasonable semester-hours-per-week load for the cadet. As a result of the longer semester, the cadet takes slightly less course work per week than his counterpart enrolled in the engineering schools at Purdue and Wisconsin, for example.

The Academy’s academic curriculum consists of a core curriculum of 105 semester hours, which includes both general education and professional education courses, and electives totaling 41 semester hours, which provide an opportunity for each cadet to pursue an academic major in a limited area. Like many other institutions of higher education, the Academy has further individualized the curriculum through the offering of advanced and specialized courses in its enrichment program.

The general education portion of the academic core curriculum is designed to acquaint the student with the major areas of knowledge—the biological sciences, the physical sciences, the humanities, and the social sciences. The purpose of this part of the curriculum is the intellectual preparation of the cadet, as man and as a citizen, through courses in the liberal arts and sciences, which are focused on the study of nature, the study of man, and the study of society. The importance of this general education has been emphasized by several advisory groups since the Academy’s conception. The 1950 report of the Service Academy Board, for example, cited the reasons for a general undergraduate education for all career officers:

Professional military knowledge alone will not suffice to solve the problems of modern war. In the last war, officers of the armed services often became engaged in pursuits other than purely military which required a general educational background. Graduates of the Service Academies as they progress to positions of high responsibility in the military establishment will have an increasing range of contacts among leaders in civilian life, both at home and abroad. The complexities of modem war require large numbers of officers to undertake postgraduate studies. The Board, therefore, considers it essential that a graduate of a Service Academy should have a background of knowledge comparable to that possessed by graduates of our leading universities. His field of knowledge, therefore, should include the arts and sciences in addition to professional military subjects.

The professional education portion of the academic core curriculum builds upon the major areas of knowledge studied in the general education courses. Thus, basic knowledge, ideas, and modes of thought derived from a study of philosophy, psychology, history, economics, and government lay a foundation for the professionally oriented courses in military history, leadership, law, economics of national security, defense policy, geography, and international relations. Similarly, study of the basic disciplines in mathematics, chemistry, physics, and human physiology is followed by engineering courses that provide an understanding of the technological basis of Air Force weapon systems. These prerequisite engineering courses include mechanics, electricity, and engineering fundamentals followed by prescribed professionally oriented courses in electronics, aeronautics, and astronautics.

The Academy offers every cadet an opportunity to earn an academic major. Approximately 30 percent of the academic credit hours required for graduation are allocated for this purpose. The majors program is consistent with the practice of almost all institutions of higher learning in the United States, to give the student an opportunity for exploration in some limited area of study. However, the majors offered by the Academy are generally restricted to those which relate to the military profession and, for the most part, to career fields of specialization within the Air Force. The cadet voluntarily selects his own major from among 27 majors currently offered. Approximately 55 percent of the cadets pursue majors within the fields of science and engineering. The other 45 percent of the cadets pursue majors in the social sciences and humanities, including approximately 15 percent in management. The majors program not only is tailored to the needs of the Air Force but also serves to individualize the curriculum in its response to the aptitudes, interests, and talents of the cadets.

One of our academic innovations in service academy education is the curriculum enrichment program, which was formally established in 1956. Its objective is to challenge each cadet to advance academically as far and as fast as he can. The enrichment program takes into account the differences in ability, preparation, and interest of the cadets and offers each one a challenge to live up to his potential in the pursuit and achievement of academic excellence. It is a challenge and opportunity to the mentally gifted cadet analogous to the challenge and opportunity that our intercollegiate athletic program offers to the physically gifted cadet.

Cadets participate in the enrichment program in one or more of four ways. Those who have attended a college may be granted transfer credit and replace core courses with more advanced substitutes or move core courses forward so that they may begin taking elective courses earlier in their programs. If a cadet has taken college-level courses in high school or preparatory school, he may take advanced placement tests for the award of validation credit. Some gifted cadets are given the opportunity to accelerate their study in mathematics and chemistry. Finally, a cadet who achieves a B average or better may choose to take an extra elective over and above a normal semester load. During any given semester approximately three-fourths of the cadets participate in the enrichment program in one or more of these ways, with about one-third taking overloads.

For especially well-prepared and motivated cadets, particularly those with prior college preparation, the enrichment program extends the opportunity to accelerate meeting the undergraduate requirements and to take graduate-level courses in the First Class year. Since we do not offer master’s degrees at the Academy, we have worked out cooperative programs with six civilian universities. A cadet in one of these programs takes the equivalent of one full semester of graduate study while here at the Academy. These are true graduate-level courses taught by our own faculty and are coordinated with the master’s degree requirements of the cooperating graduate institutions. Following graduation from the Academy the cadets selected for these programs proceed to the civilian institutions and enroll for summer session and fall semester (or fall and winter term) courses. After completing their programs and earning their master’s degrees around February following their June graduation from the Academy, they report to their first military assignments. Most of them go on to flying training, armed with an advanced academic degree and only seven or eight months behind their classmates. About 10 to 12 percent of the graduates each year are selected for participation in one of these programs.

Another challenge for our most talented cadets is the competition for national and international scholarships and fellowships. Nominees for these scholarships are selected by the Academy’s Graduate Scholarship Committee on a whole-man basis, and the winners are representative of some of the top talent graduated from the Academy. The success of Academy cadets in competing for these scholarships and fellowships can be seen from the following table:

While this record is indicative of the dedication and hard work on the part of the cadets, it also reflects the efforts and example of the Academy officers with whom the cadets have close contact. All faculty members are active duty military officers. The all-military faculty is designed in consonance with the Academy’s mission, which is not just to impart knowledge but also to develop character and qualities of leadership in the cadets and motivate them for a lifetime Air Force career.

The ideals of duty, honor, and service to country are not self-generating. They must be imparted. They are imparted by teachers who teach by what they are as well as by what they say. Through precept and example, these ideals are imparted by instructors on the academic, military training, and athletic faculties who are in daily contact with the cadets. Approximately half of the cadets’ formal contact hours of instruction take place under the supervision of the academic faculty.

The first requirement for selection as a member of the academic faculty is that he be a career officer in the United States Air Force. The second criterion is that the record of his performance as an officer clearly show that he is above average as indicated by his officer effectiveness reports (OER). From these same reports and from interviews and letters of reference, we assure ourselves that he will meet the third criterion: character, integrity, and the other qualities of leadership which it will be his role to impart by precept and example.

The fourth criterion is that he possess the academic qualifications to teach the courses assigned to him. Our policy in this matter is that he possess at least a master’s degree and that at least 25 percent of the faculty members hold doctorates. We also look for related professional experience because we know, for instance, that the officer with a degree in aeronautical engineering will be a better teacher if he is also a pilot, preferably a test pilot. The important link of relevance of the subject matter taught in the classroom to an Air Force career is obviously strengthened if the instructor has this kind of related professional experience. The fifth criterion, teaching ability, is met in two ways. We conduct a teacher training program for all new instructors during the summer before they teach their first classes, and the supervisors in each department visit classes frequently to guide, assist, and evaluate the instructors.

We think we have the finest teaching faculty in the country. On the other hand, measured by doctoral degrees and publications, our faculty cannot compare favorably with the faculties in many civilian institutions, where much more emphasis is put on research. We do some research, yes, but it is limited to the direct support of Air Force commands and requirements. This spring, for example, we have five department heads with doctoral degrees (three in science or engineering and two in the humanities) engaged in consultant and research assignments in Southeast Asia. I doubt very much whether there are five Ph.D. department heads from all the other educational institutions in the United States engaged in consultant or research work for the military in Vietnam. Recently I received a request for the consultant services in Vietnam this summer of two officers with Ph.D.’s from our Chemistry Department. So far we have sent 26 faculty members to Southeast Asia on consultant and research assignments. In addition, 77 faculty members have served or are presently serving combat tours as rated officers, ten of whom have been listed as missing in action or killed in action.

The Academy’s percentage of doctorates, 25 percent, may not compare favorably with percentages at civilian colleges and universities, particularly with those granting advanced degrees. On the other hand, we think it is more than adequate to support our curriculum and the relatively small number of graduate-level courses we teach, as well as the limited amount of research we do in support of Air Force requirements. And it should be emphasized that all our faculty members are primarily engaged in teaching, which means that our undergraduate cadets have the benefit of instruction in every class by officers holding graduate degrees in their field, a benefit which is denied to most civilian undergraduate students. The result is not only excellent academic instruction but also, more important, unexcelled character molding and motivation.

These results have been verified by numerous criteria the Academy employs to validate its program in relation to the performance of its graduates. In terms of general intelligence as measured by the Defense Officer Record Examination, motivation as demonstrated by pilot training attrition, and general performance as indicated by officer effectiveness reports, Squadron Officer School ratings, and duty in Southeast Asia, Academy graduates are showing their ability to build upon the foundations established at USAFA so as to develop into highly effective Air Force officers.

Despite this record, the notion remains prevalent among some Air Force people that the Academy’s academic program is counterproductive. Specifically, they say that the academic program develops intellectual talent at the expense of leadership or athletic capability. Too often they arrive at the simplistic deduction that a cadet can be an “egghead” or a leader, an “egghead” or an athlete, but never both. The facts simply do not bear this out. First, there is a high correlation between academic excellence and athletic and military excellence. Of the 2464 graduates in the 1959-65 classes, 44 percent of those who ranked in the top third academically also ranked in the top third in military order of merit. And 31 percent of those in the top third academically also earned athletic letters—quite remarkable in that to achieve both academic excellence and athletic excellence a cadet must take overloads in both programs.

Second, a comparison of pilot attrition with academic order of merit shows that intellectual competence is closely related to military performance and motivation. Of the 232 graduates in Classes 1959-1965 who later dropped out during undergraduate pilot training in Air Training Command, 54 had been in the upper third academically, 70 in the middle third, and 108 in the bottom third. For test pilot school at Edwards AFB, the prerequisite training for astronauts, selectees included 14 who had been in the top third academically, 6 from the middle third, and 4 from tile bottom.

Third, of the 159 resignations of members of the same classes, 46 had been in the top third academically, 59 in the middle third, and 54 in the bottom third, indicating that academic success goes hand in hand with those characteristics sought in career officers.

Fourth, a comparison of academic order of merit with officer performance as indicated by later earning of “outstanding” rating on officer effectiveness reports, Silver Star awards, and below-the-zone promotions gave further evidence of consistency in the way the top third of Academy graduates later perform.

In other significant comparisons, 32.3 percent of graduates in the top third academically had earned outstanding OER’S, against 25.8 percent of all graduates. Of graduates in the top third in military order of merit, 35.1 percent had outstanding OER’S, against 25.8 percent of all graduates. Of graduates who had earned athletic letters at the Academy, 26.9 percent had earned outstanding OER’S, against 25.8 percent of all graduates. Finally, of graduates who achieved one or more standards of excellence in academic order of merit, in military order of merit, or in athletic letters, 73.2 percent went on to earn outstanding OER’S, as contrasted with 25.8 percent for all graduates.

Similarly, the record shows that the academic enrichment program does not compete with other Academy programs for the talents of the cadets but rather complements them. For example, 71.8 percent of the 1967 graduating class took one or more academic overloads while at the Academy and completed more than the required minimum of 146 semester hours. Among those cadets who achieved the top military ranks in the cadet chain of command, the participation in academic overloads was approximately ten percent higher. Furthermore, 68.3 percent of the winners of varsity athletic letters also participated in the enrichment program. A varsity athlete probably spends nearly 15 hours per week in practice and contests, as contrasted with 3 hours for the cadet participating in the intramural program. An academic overload requires up to 7½ extra hours of cadet effort. It is therefore remarkable that so many athletic letter winners take both academic and athletic overloads, though indicative that the academic enrichment program does not prevent cadets from developing their physical and leadership potential. Rather, the cadet who strives for excellence in academics, or athletics, or military training is motivated to do so in all his activities, and this character trait is one of the most important that we seek in our future Air Force leaders.

Perhaps the most impressive evidence of the relationship between the pursuit of intellectual excellence and high motivation for flying can be seen in the record of our graduates who have participated in the cooperative graduate programs. Of the 134 graduates who qualified for flying training and went to graduate school, 120 or 90 percent have taken flying training after earning their master’s degree. Only four, or 2.9 percent, have washed out, and two of these were for medical reasons, not flying training deficiencies. This compares with 79.6 percent of their flight-qualified contemporaries who attended flying training, 11.9 percent of whom washed out. The point is that our top cadets are interested in becoming both scholars and “warriors,” they pursue both graduate training and pilot training, and their motivation and success in both programs should be commended.

The Academy’s ten Rhodes Scholars present a similar picture of competence and dedication. It is important to note that the Rhodes Scholarship competition is based on a “whole man” selection system that evaluates character and leadership potential as well as academic performance, as does the procedure for selection to attend the Academy. Their records are replete with Number One ranking in whatever activity they undertake, heroism in line of duty or beyond, and distinguished service. Their profiles are representative of the kind of whole man the Academy produces. They are both scholars and warriors, who have climbed many peaks of excellence and will, I am confident climb many more. They are important to the Academy not primarily because they are Rhodes Scholars but because their abilities, dedication, achievements, and potential exemplify the whole man we seek to develop.

This leads me to the conclusion that I draw from the Academy’s record. We are interested in the whole man, most definitely; but we are not interested in the whole man who might be symbolized as a circle with a short radius. That circle indeed might symbolize the balance in our prescribed programs, which set the minimum standards and goals for all cadets in each of our three programs-academic, military training, and athletic. But to set these minimum standards and goals as our maximum expectations would lead to regimentation and mediocrity and would constitute a gross failure on our part to match the challenges of our programs to the stature of our cadets.

Our three programs, with elective and selective opportunities for enrichment in the academic curriculum, the intercollegiate athletic program, and the military training program, are based on the philosophy that at least half of a man’s potential is to be found in his patterns of uniqueness. The significance of this is that if he is trained only in those procedures which are equally useful to everybody, he will have the necessary skills to achieve no more than half his maximum potential. On the other hand, if he is stimulated, challenged, and rewarded in the pursuit of excellence in those areas where his talents and interests are strongest, the development of his intellect, his physical skills, his military skills, and his character will be at optimum. This optimum development will lay the foundation of self-discipline that will establish in him an insatiable appetite for exploiting his potential talents and performance up to his capacities. It is this philosophical tenet which is the basis for the Academy’s academic majors and enrichment programs, intercollegiate athletic program, and military training program.

United States Air Force Academy

Note

1. John T. Dailey, The American College, A Report by Project Talent.

Contributor

Brigadier General Robert F. Mcdermott (USMA; M.B.A., Harvard) was Dean of the Faculty, United States Air Force Academy, from 1959 until his retirement on 1 August 1968. Rated pilot two months before graduation from West Point in 1943, he served as a fighter pilot and assistant group operations officer until February 1944, and then until September 1945 in Europe as Operations Officer, 474th Fighter-Bomber Group. Other assignments were as a personnel staff officer in Hq USFET to 1947 and in Hq USAF to 1948; as instructor, Department of Social Sciences, U.S. Military Academy, from 1950 to 1954, when he joined the new Air Force Academy as Professor and Head of the Department of Economics, with additional duties, successively, as Vice Dean and Faculty Secretary. General McDermott is author of Principles of Insurance and Related Government Benefits for Service Personnel and Principles of Personal Finance for Service Personnel and has edited Readings in Personal Finance. His academic accomplishments have been widely acclaimed and attested to by two honorary doctorates (St. Louis University and Saint Bernard College).

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor