I thought so too, and I went to one of the three National Service Academies, so I was taught about a lot of these people directly. Many of the modern top genera

I thought so too, and I went to one of the three National Service Academies, so I was taught about a lot of these people directly. Many of the modern top generals were some of the lowest-ranked graduates, and generally took the easiest majors, mostly Political Science. The bottom-ranked leader phenomenon starts with the leaders selected by the cadets themselves, and continues to the top of the ranks. So why was it different back then? There was a stronger emphasis on military science, but they also prided themselves on outperforming Harvard in whatever colleges used to compare each other, so it wasn’t the only focus. The obvious answer is pretty simple: graduation order determined time-in-rank seniority, so they were considered for promotion before anyone else, and this both continues and compounds throughout their career. Is there an actual correlation to military performance? Probably, and probably slightly more so for the academy than other schools, because of the way that subjects are taught. I later went to several other name-recognizable universities, and there are large differences in the pace and depth of what is taught and tested, with the academy having a much greater pace over much more material at a much lighter depth, so it’s kind of like testing your ability to take in a lot of information very quickly and react to it, rather than master a domain of knowledge and creatively expand upon it. There is also a social effect of named leaders to gain support among a cohort, especially in ‘minority’ populations, which are formed by commissioning source in the military officer corps. For example, Westmoreland was “first rat” at The Citadel, which has a much lower admission standard than West Point, but it was a brutal program with fierce advocacy among graduates.