5 ms·
Isn't it likely that those people got to be top generals precisely because their good school results?
by vintermann 3y ago
Isn't it likely that those people got to be top generals precisely because their good school results?
- dmurray 3y agoI wouldn't think so. They might get their first choice of specialty within the army as a young second lieutenant, and get some compounding advantages from that. But twenty years later, when you're up for promotion to general, aren't they going to look at your achievements as a colonel rather than wave you through on your long-ago test scores?
- scrlk 3y agoThe class of 1915 had 36% of its 164 graduates go on to attain the rank of general. John Keliher (rank 159) made it to Brigadier General. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_class_the_stars_fell_on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_class_the_stars_fell_on
- ffhhttt 3y agoThe pool of professional officers was very small and completely insufficient for the needs of the expanded military. Being a semi-competent officer with some experience basically guaranteed that you’d be fast tracked to a senior command. e.g. Grant left the military in 1854 and was just a captain when the war started. In about 4 months he was already a brigadier general
- LanceH 3y agoPromotion to general is very much a political effort as well as job performance today, but even more so back then. Being at the top of your cohort from the beginning has a number of advantages. Your name is known from the very start. Big things are expected and big opportunities are presented. There is probably a very strong personal commitment to a military career by those bothering to achieve top scores, and not being a career captain, but aiming for colonel or above. Being the top of the class also puts a person on a track that is even promotable to the very top. A 2nd lieutenant supply officer just isn't on the same trajectory as a high profile infantry officer commanding a forwardly deploy combat unit.