Table of Contents



The West Point Study Group obtained its information from:

A. Consultations with:

1.    The Army Staff
2.    The Superintendent, Commandant, and Dean, USMA
3.    125 USMA Faculty members
4.    206 USMA Tactical Officers and staff
5.    580 USMA Cadets
6.    20 Active Army General Officers
7.    21 Retired Army General Officers
8.    16 Leaders of the Academic Community
9.    Superintendent, Commandants, and Deans of all US Service Academies and Canadian, British, German,
       and French Academies
10.  99 Staff and Faculty at other service academies
11.  38 other service academy cadets and midshipmen
12.  Others including ex-cadets and ROTC students
B. Visits to:
1.  All US Service Academies
2.  British, Canadian, French, and German Military Colleges
3.  Six private or state military colleges
4.  10 civilian colleges and universities
5.  US Army War College
6.  US Army Command and General Staff College
7.  Seven Training and Doctrine Command Schools
8.  Nine Active Army Divisions
C. Questionnaires administered to:
1.  824 recently commissioned Lieutenants serving as platoon leaders (both USMA and ROTC graduates)
2.  750 of their commanders and subordinate non-commissioned officers
3.  1,165 cadets
4.  385 West Point staff and faculty
D. Letter replies from current Corps Commanders, Division Commanders, Major Command Chiefs of Staff, Commandants of Combat Arm and Combat Support Arm Schools, and separate Brigade and Regimental Commanders

E. Analysis of literature available to include:

1. Accreditation reports of USMA and USNA
2. Previous studies of the Academies, such as:
      (a) The White Committee Report
      (b)  The Folsom Committee Report
      (c)  The Kappel Board Report
      (d)  The Borman Commission Report
      (e)  GAO Report on Student Attrition
      (f)  Report of Special Study Group on Honor
3. Annual Class Questionnaires

4. Surveys of Graduates

5. Commercially published works concerning the history and operation of the Academy.

 Table of Contents



A. Policy Board Committees

     1. Committee on Committees.

          Responsibilities: To advise the Policy Board on the need to establish, change, or terminate Policy Board Committees to recommend the membership and chairmanship of standing and ad hoc committees the terms of appointment for members, and the charters of those committees.

          Composition: Dean (Chairman), Commandant, Chief of Staff, three tenured faculty members who are not members of the Policy Board elected by the Academic Board for 3-year terms, and Director of Plans and Analysis (Secretary without vote).

     2. Tenured Personnel Selection Committee.

          Responsibilities: To advise the Policy Board concerning policies and procedures for selection of tenured staff and faculty.

          Composition: Associate Dean, Deputy Commandant, Chief of Staff, a tenured representative from each academic department, one non-tenured representative from each Academic Division, and the Assistant to the Dean (Secretary without vote).

     3. Scheduling Committee.

          Responsibilities: To advise the Policy Board on the scheduling of activities, the development of the yearly events calendar (with special attention to demands on cadets), policies relating to scheduling; and to resolve exceptions to policy, and conflicts in scheduling.

          Composition: One representative of the Dean, Commandant, and Director of Intercollegiate Athletics, one representative appointed by each chairman of Academic Division Committees and each Director of the Office of the Commandant, one representative of the Deputy Post Commander, one representative of the Director of Plans and Analysis, and the Assistant to the Dean (Secretary without vote).

     4. Cadet extracurricular Activities Committee.

          Responsibilities: To monitor the policies, regulations, and procedures of cadet extracurricular activities and to recommend appropriate changes.

          Composition: Brigade Tactical Officer; Director of Cadet Activities (Secretary); a representative of the Dean; the officers in charge of SCUSA, the Debate Council and Forum, and the Fine Arts Forum; two representatives from other academic departments to be appointed by the Dean; and a representative of the Director of Intercollegiate Athletics.

     5. Athletic Committee.

          Responsibilities: To advise the Policy Board on policy matters concerning the total USMA athletic program, to include facilities, in order to provide for an integrated, coordinated, and balanced athletic program.

          Composition: Director of Intercollegiate Athletics (Secretary); Director, Office of Physical Education; Director of Cadet Activities, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel and Administration; one representative each, colonel or below on rotating basis, of the Dean and Commandant; one non-tenured faculty member; a company tactical officer; one representative each appointed from the Post Staff and from the Alumni Association; a tenured colonel from an Academic Department (chairman), not an Admissions Committee member, selected by the Superintendent for a 2-year term renewable up to 6 years; and appropriate cadet representation as determined by the Commandant.

     6. Professional Development Committee.

          Responsibilities: To monitor the professional development of cadets; to ensure that the academic and military components of the program of instruction reflect the changing needs of the graduate, the Army, and the Academy.

          Composition: Dean and Commandant (to alternate chairmanship for 1-year terms), a representative of each Academic Divisional area, a representative of the Brigade Tactical Officer and of the Director of Cadet Activities, and two non-tenured faculty members and two company tactical officers to be appointed by the Superintendent for 2-year terms; the Dean will designate a Secretary without vote.

     7. Cadet Life Committee.

          Responsibilities: To monitor the quality of cadet life.

          Composition: Representative of the Dean; a representative of each Academic Divisional area, a representative of the Director of Cadet Activities, two non-tenured faculty members and two company members and two company tactical officers appointed by the Superintendent for 2-year terms, a cadet from each of the three upper classes appointed by the Commandant. The Commandant will designate a Secretary without vote.

     8. Computer Committee.

          Responsibilities: To advise the Policy Board on automation related matters(computers, microform, etc.); to review and support Academy automation requirements; to establish automation policies and resolve problems regarding automation support.

          Composition: Heads or designated representatives of the Academy agencies which are primary users of computer support (Office of the Dean, Commandant, Director of Plans and Analysis, Director of Intercollegiate Athletics, Director of Administration, and Comptroller). Non-voting members will be the Automation Management Office (AMO) and other personnel involved in computer support or instruction.

     9. Institutional Research Advisory Committee.

          Responsibilities: To advise the Policy Board on current institutional research and to recommend programs of institutional research.

          Composition: Director of Plans and Analysis, one tenured and one non-tenured faculty member appointed by the Dean for 2-year terms, two representatives appointed by the Commandant, the Director of Admissions and Registrar, Assistant to the Dean for Academic Research. The Director of Plans and Analysis will appoint the Secretary without vote.

     10.Chaplain Coordinating Committee.

          Responsibilities: To advise the Policy Board on the religious and ethical activities of the Corps of Cadets and the West Point staff and faculty.

          Composition: Deputy Commandant; Special Assistant for Honor; two tenured faculty members appointed by the Dean; Chaplain, United States Military Academy, Post Chaplain; Catholic Chaplain; and Jewish Chaplain.

B. Academic Board Committees

     1. Cullum Committee.

          Responsibilities: To carry out the provisions of the will of General Cullum for the planning, procurement, installation, custody, care, and preservation of all statues, busts, mural tablets, portraits, and other works of art in the Cullum Memorial Hall.

          Composition: Superintendent (Chairman), Heads of four Academic Departments, Alumni Secretary (Secretary without vote).

     2. Admissions Committee.

          Responsibilities: To recommend annually to the Academic Board criteria for admission and readmission to the Military Academy and, based thereon, to present to the Academic Board the names of candidates found qualified and recommended for admission and readmission.

          Composition: Director of Admissions and Registrar (Chairman), tenured representatives of the Departments of English and Mathematics, representatives of the Commandant, director of Physical Education, and Professor of Military Hygiene (when appropriate), two other members appointed by the Superintendent to serve for a period of 2 years, and Deputy Director of Admissions and Registrar (Secretary without vote).

     3. Faculty Research Advisory Committee.

          Responsibilities: To advise the Academic Board on instructional and faculty research.

          Composition: Associate Dean (Chairman), one tenured and one non-tenured faculty member appointed by the Dean for 2-year terms, two representatives appointed by the Commandant of Cadets, the Director of Plans and Analysis, Assistant to the Dean for Academic Research (Secretary without vote)

C. Dean's Committees.

     1. Curriculum Committee.

          Responsibilities: To conduct a continuing review of the curriculum and to develop proposals for change that may be deemed necessary.

          Composition: Associate Dean (Chairman), a tenured representative from each Academic Division, two non-tenured faculty members appointed by the Dean for 2-year terms, a representative each from the Offices of Physical Education and Military Instruction appointed by the Commandant for 2-year terms, and the Assistant to the Dean (Secretary without vote).

     2. Class Committees. (First, Second, Third, Fourth)

          Responsibilities: To report to the Dean on academic matters pertaining particularly to the cadet class concerned, including the determination of proficiency of cadets, cadets to be advanced from class to class, the disposition of cadets who are deficient, and cadets who are to be granted diplomas.

          Composition: Two non-tenured faculty members from departments which teach required courses to the class concerned, a representative from the Office of Physical Education, a representative from the Department of Tactics, and the Chairman (appointed by the Dean) who will be the Head of an Academic Department which teaches a required course to the class concerned; the Assistant to the Dean will be Secretary without vote.

     3. Scholarship Committee.

          Responsibilities: To recommend to the Dean cadet candidates for scholarships authorized by current Army regulations; to monitor administrative arrangements for scholarship candidates; to report on cadet participation in scholarship programs.

          Composition: Representatives of Department Heads of Social Sciences, Engineering, Physics, and Foreign Languages; a representative appointed by the Commandant and representatives from two other academic departments appointed by the Dean for 2-year terms. The senior member will be Chairman; the Assistant to the Dean will be Secretary without vote.

     4. Academic Division.
          Responsibilities: To recommend to the Dean course content, elective courses, concentration, and field requirements, and other matters relating to the several disciplines in the academic division.

          Composition: Chairman to be elected by the tenured faculty members in each department within the divisional area, a tenured and non-tenured faculty member appointed by each Head of Department in the divisional area for a 2-year term, and a representative appointed by the Commandant for a 2-year term.

     5. Instructional Support Committee.

          Responsibilities: To advise the Dean on matters concerning the use of Academic Computer Center and instructional technology to support cadet instruction.

          Composition: Associate Dean (Chairman), one representative from the Departments of Earth, Space, and Graphics Sciences, Mathematics, Physics, and Engineering; two representatives from other Academic departments to be appointed for 1-year terms on a rotating basis; and a representative each from the Office of the Commandant, the Deputy Post Commander, and Instructional Support; and Assistant to the Dean (Secretary without vote).

     6. Library Committee.

          Responsibilities: To advise the Dean on matters concerning the operations of the USMA Library and to recommend to the Dean changes in policy, regulations, or procedures applicable to the Library.

          Composition: Librarian; Director of Plans and Analysis; tenured representatives of the Heads of Departments of English, History, and Social Sciences; and a non-tenured representative of each of the remaining academic departments who shall serve for a period of 2 years. The Chairman will be the senior tenured faculty member; the Assistant to the Dean will be Secretary without vote.

     7. Cadet Academic Council.

          Responsibilities: To advise the Dean on academic matters of concern to the Corps of Cadets.

          Composition: Sixteen cadets (one from each class in each regiment) appointed by the Commandant; the Chairman and Secretary will be elected from the members.

     8. Mathematics Instruction.

          Responsibilities: To coordinate the content and timing of mathematics instruction with the requirements of other courses; to eliminate duplicatory teaching requirements; to develop applications and requirements which exploit the use of computers as mathematical problem-solving devices.

          Composition: One representative each from the Department of Behavioral and Leadership Sciences, Chemistry, Earth, Space, and Graphic Sciences; Electrical Engineering, Mathematics, Mechanics, Physics, Social Sciences; Office of the Commandant; and Instructional Support and Information Systems Division, Office of the Dean. Secretary without vote, Assistant to the Dean.

     9. Writing.

          Responsibilities: To develop and coordinate a logical and balanced program of written requirements spanning the four-year curriculum; to establish standards for the length and scope of requirements within each year; to review and establish grading standards for grammar and manner of expression.

          Composition: One representative each from the Departments of Behavioral and Leadership Sciences, English, History, Law, Social Sciences; Office of the Commandant; Basic Sciences and Mathematics Division; and Applied Science and Engineering Division. Secretary: Assistant to the Dean.

D. Commandant's Committees

     1. Professional and Military Training.

          Responsibilities: To advise the Commandant of Cadets on the program of professional and military training of the Corps of Cadets by the Department of Tactics.

          Composition: Director of Military Instruction (Chairman), two company tactical officers, one instructor from the Office of Physical Education, two representatives from the Department of Military Instruction, and one tenured faculty representative and one non-tenured faculty representative appointed by the Dean. Secretary to be appointed by the Chairman.

     2. Disciplinary Review Committee.

          Responsibilities: To advise the Commandant on the state of discipline in the Corps of Cadets; to propose any needed changes in policy or procedures; and to recommend the dismissal of any cadet for deficiency in conduct.

          Composition: Brigade Tactical Officer (Chairman); three additional officers appointed by the Commandant; one tenured and one non-tenured faculty member appointed by the Dean for 2-year, overlapping terms; two cadets (without vote or attendance on matters of dismissal) appointed by the Cadet First Captain; a commissioned officer from the Commandant's office (Secretary without vote).

     3. Category I and II Leadership Boards.
          Responsibilities: To advise the Commandant on leadership instruction, positions, and evaluation, and to recommend for dismissal those cadets deficient in leadership.

          Composition: Brigade Tactical Officer (Chairman), regimental/ battalion Tactical Officers, two officers appointed by the Commandant, tenured representative of the Department of Behavioral and Leadership Sciences, and three officers appointed by the Dean for 2-year terms.

E. Deputy Post Commander's Committees

     1. Installation Planning Board.

          Responsibilities: To prepare the proposed Master Plan for the Academy, to ensure appropriate coordination with Federal, State, and local agencies for resolution of unusual physical development problems, to ensure that maximum use is made of existing facilities, and to formulate and justify the construction program for the installation.

          Composition: Dean (Chairman), Commandant, three Heads of Academic Departments to be appointed by the Superintendent, Chief of Staff, Deputy Post Commander, Director of Industrial Operations, Comptroller, Director of Plans and Analysis, Director of Facilities Engineering (Secretary), and the Deputy District Engineer of the New York District.

     2. Museum Board.

          Responsibilities: To recommend policy for museum operations; to advise on museum memorial gift and award activities, and on joint gift funds of the West Point Museum and the USMA Library.

          Composition: Tenured representative of the Department of History; three faculty members appointed by the Dean for 2-year terms, Director of Alumni Affairs and Gifts, Museum Director, and USMA Librarian (Secretary). The Superintendent will appoint the Chairman.

     3. School Board.

          Responsibilities: To review curricular, faculty and staff, and facilities matters of the West Point Elementary School System.

          Composition: Three representatives appointed by the Dean, one representative appointed by the Commandant, one representative appointed by the Deputy Post Commander; Secretary (without vote) will be the school superintendent. The Superintendent will appoint the Chairman.

     4. Housing Advisory Council.

          Responsibilities: To review housing policies and to recommend needed changes.

          Composition: Three members appointed by the Dean, one member appointed by the Commandant, one member appointed by the Deputy Post Commander (Chairman); the Chief of the Housing Division will serve as Secretary (without vote)

     5. Real Property Construction and Maintenance Review Board.

          Responsibilities: To advise on all matters pertaining to minor new construction and all major real property maintenance projects.

          Composition: Chief of Staff (Chairman), Deputy Post Commander, Dean's representative, Commandant's representative, Director of Industrial Operations, Director of Facilities Engineering (Secretary), Comptroller, Assistant Deputy Post Commander (Stewart Army Subpost).

 Table of Contents




A. Discussion.

     Perhaps no other single factor influences the environment of a university as dramatically as does the quality of its entrants. With regard to the Academy, some interviewees stated during the course of our study that the primary success of West Point could be attributed to the consistent quality of its entering classes. This perception indicated the importance of the Admissions Office and its programs to the environment. In turn, it is this importance which has focused attention upon the Admissions Office from sources both internal and external to the Academy. Much is expected from the Admissions Office, and it is readily criticized for real or imagined faults. Inseparable from our study of admissions were the topics of pregraduation attrition and post-graduation resignation. The Study Group found no unanimity concerning the relationship of cadet attrition and graduate resignations to the cadet environment nor could any definite relationships be established concerning the effect of the cadet environment on these losses. However, no topics involving the Military Academy have been the subject of as much internal and external study and conjecture as the attrition of cadets over the four-year program and of graduates prior to the completion of a full career. This attention is understandable, given the outstanding quality of each entering class, the considerable cost of the educational and training programs, and the public nature of the institution. Since West Point is a national institution, its cadets and graduates are viewed by the public as more than just college students and Army officers. This fact alone demanded the inclusion of these brief comments on both attrition and post-graduation resignation.

     The mission of the Admissions Office is to establish and execute admissions procedures and maintain candidate records. Perhaps no other major office at the Academy has changed so radically in recent history. The expansion of the Corps of Cadets during a period of vocal anti-militarism was the catalyst which caused significant change in the administration of the admissions program. This required the Admissions Office to depart from its traditional role of processing candidate records and Congressional education and liaison to that of an active seeker of qualified, motivated candidates. While the traditional missions of the Admissions Office remain, all available indicators of the target population dictate an aggressive program of recruiting, admissions information distribution, high school counselor education, and personal contacts with interested groups and individuals. The Admissions Office generally has moved aggressively in these areas with the excellent, innovative Cadet Public Relations program, the Reserve Officer Liaison program, use of the West Point Societies, and the educator visits. The computer program, designed to support admissions programs, was found to be one of the most innovative management systems at USMA.

     Through the years West Point has continued to attract an outstanding class; and, judged by any standards, candidates are competitive with the other academies. It is significant to note that, while SAT scores nationwide have declined and the size of the entering classes have expanded, the quality of candidate attracted to the Academy, as measured by SAT scores, has remained basically constant. A different type comparison, that of attitudes, educational background, and career aspirations of entrants, compared with other groupings of college and universities, again indicates the high quality of Academy entrants.

     Figures analyzed indicate that the admissions program must continue to improve if scholastic achievement is to be the primary indicator of quality for the incoming class and if USMA is to compare favorably with the other Federal academies. One method of improvement which should be consistently pursued is to question candidates declining appointments and other top quality prospects to determine what the Academy and the Army could do to improve the competitive position of West Point. Studies of prospects who decline have been conducted in the past but need institutionalization until negative factors can be identified and corrected.

     The admission procedures for the admittance of women appear to have been well planned, managed, and coordinated. The entry figure of about 100 women per class appears to be an appropriate number, not only to provide a proper environment at West Point, but to meet projected needs of the Army as well.

     The admissions procedures are cumbersome, complicated, difficult to understand, and time-consuming in comparison with civilian schools. Steps should be taken to reduce the amount of pre-entrance paperwork required of candidates. Some procedures are mandated by Congress and are beyond the ability of the Academy to change substantively, this difficulty reinforces the importance of providing information to prospective candidates and counselors and explains the shift of emphasis of the Academy's educational efforts from high school juniors and seniors to sophomores and freshmen. Admissions procedures, other than those required by Congress, should be streamlined. Some procedural changes are currently under study by West Point authorities. In addition, West Point should take full advantage of an aggressive early acceptance program for outstanding candidates.

     The pool of qualified, motivated candidates for USMA does not appear to be as great as commonly believed. In an effort to maintain the strength of the Corps of Cadets at the level required to meet input quotas for Regular Army officers, candidates may have been admitted whose motivation made them poor risks. Additionally, there appears to be no substantial pool of qualified, motivated women who desire admittance to West Point as long as the curriculum maintains an engineering orientation. Considering these factors, cadet strength should be allowed to fluctuate, within manageable bounds, as agreed upon by the Academy and DA, OSD and the Congress so that the quality of entrants will provide for a high probability of success as cadets and as Regular Army officers.

     The composition and functions of the USMA Admissions Committee were similar to all other institutions investigated. The committee deliberations observed were thoughtful, efficient, and mindful of the whole person concept. The Admissions Committee is empowered to act on those candidates obviously qualified and those obviously not. They send to the full Academic Board only those cases upon which they cannot agree or which represent some degree of risk. Nevertheless, over 500 files per year are considered by the Academic Board. It is apparent that current procedures require the forwarding of excessive numbers of files from the Admissions Committee to the Academic Board. The majority of these cases appear to represent excessive attention to detail by the Academic Board. The limits of authority of the Admissions Committee should be broadened so that only those admissions cases which represent major deviations from admissions policies for the entering class are brought before the Academic Board. An expansion of the authority of the Admissions Committee is currently being contemplated by USMA and the Study Group agrees that this is appropriate. It also appears advantageous for the Admissions Office to be authorized to decide on certain obviously qualified or disqualified candidates within established policies.

B. Findings.

     In summary, the Study Group found that:

     - The USMA Admissions Office appears to be well managed, mission oriented, and anxious to improve its operation. Particularly, commendable is its application of automation to admissions procedures. It is apparent that Admissions Directors at the other service academies respect West Point's admissions operations and techniques.

     - The quality of incoming classes has remained high in both absolute and relative terms. However, continuous studies of prospects who decline and independent research of outstanding prospects may allow USMA and/or the Army to identify factors which, if eliminated, would improve USMA's recruiting position.

     - The admission program for women appears well-planned, coordinated, and apparently meets the needs of the Academy and the Army.

     - While the quality of incoming classes remains high, a more aggressive early admissions program may be necessary in the future to recruit and retain gifted candidates. Recruitment will be necessary to ensure the admission of classes of continued high quality.

     - The pool of qualified, motivated candidates desiring to attend USMA does not appear to be as great as is commonly believed.

     - The Academic Board consistently reviews approximately 500 candidate files per year. This number appears excessive and easily correctable by broadening the authority of the Admissions Office and the Admissions Committee.

Table of Contents 


     The IFI, a product of the Educational Testing Service, was administered at USMA in April 1977. Those completing the survey included 100 faculty members, 38 administrators, 48 members of the Tactical Department, 112 senior cadets (Class of 1977), and 89 junior cadets (Class of 1978). The IFI uses the responses to 132 questions to develop scores on 11 scales. Students answer only the first 72 questions which result in scores for six scales. According to the ETS technical manual:


     The IFI provides a means by which a college or university can describe itself in terms of a number of characteristics judged to be of importance in American higher education. The instrument assumes that different individuals and constituent groups will perceive the institution differently; the IFI thus affords the opportunity for study of sources of disparate beliefs about work of the college as a device for self-study, a college's scores on the IFI would have meaning only in relation to the institution's presumed roles and objectives, about which, to be sure, there may or may not be agreement.      The scores of the three staff and faculty groups on the IFI agree on virtually all scales except Institutional Esprit (IE). Scores and definitions appear at the end of this Appendix. The IE scale refers to a sense of shared purposes and high morale among the staff and faculty and low scores suggest antagonism among and between groups as well as poor morale in general within the group. The members of the Department of Tactics are approximately 20 percentile points below the faculty and administrators on the IE scale. Although the IE scores for the faculty and administrators are higher than the average of other institutions, they are lower than one should expect for West Point. When the IFI was taken by 79 faculty members in 1968, the IE score ranked at approximately the 90th percentile, while the current scores for faculty and administrators are at about the 60th percentile. As was mentioned, the Department of Tactics ranks even lower, near the 40th percentile. One explanation for low scores of both the staff, faculty, and Tacs, of course, may be the Electrical Engineering 304 situation and its aftermath, but it should be a matter of concern for the future.

     The ETS technical manual suggests that "low scores on the Freedom, Democratic Governance, Improvement of Society, and Meeting Local Needs scales and relatively high scores on the Institutional Esprit and Self Study and Planning dimensions are consistent with one's expectations, given the special mission of the military academies." The manual does not predict the relatively high score on Concern for Advancing Knowledge (AK) or the significantly low scores on Concern for Innovation. The high AK score may have resulted from a misinterpretation of some questions. However, given the mission of USMA, one would expect that the AK score would be lower, particularly in comparison with Concern for Undergraduate Learning (UL). AK measures the degree of emphasis on research and scholarship while UL reflects the degree of emphasis on undergraduate teaching and learning. If the scores on AK and UL are accurate descriptors of the perceptions at USMA, one might conclude that some shift in emphasis is desirable.

     The lower score on Concern for Innovation (CI) may be the most significant indicator of this survey. The technical manual says:

     Concern for Innovation refers, in its highest form, to an institutionalized commitment to experimentation with new ideas for educational practice. A high score reflects the view that senior administrators are receptive to new ideas, that people are encouraged to innovate and experiment at all levels, and that significant changes, in the curriculum, for example, have, in fact, been made in recent years. Low scores could imply traditionalism, complacency, or opposition to change in the college community. Examination of responses to the questions which contributes to the CI scale shows a low rating in "general willingness here to try innovations that have shown promise elsewhere," extremely high rating in "tradition so strong it is hard to modify established procedures or try new ones," very low rating in "senior administrators and department chairmen encourage professors to try new courses and methods," and unusually strong agreement with the statement that "ideas for innovations must be approved by top level administrators before being tried out." The answers support a perception that decisions are controlled at too high a level and that innovations suggested at low levels receive little support. The CI score for this survey is much lower than on the 1968 survey. In 1968, the CI score was only slightly below the national mean while in 1977 it is more than a standard deviation below the mean.

     The scores for the two groups of cadets agree with the staff and faculty on Intellectual-Aesthetic Extracurriculum (IAE), Freedom (F), and Democratic Governance (DG). Minor variations occur on Human Diversity (HD), Concern for Improvement of Society (IS), and Concern for Undergraduate Learning (UL).

     Cadets perceive the West Point community as less heterogeneous (HD) in terms of faculty and student background and beliefs than do the staff and faculty.

     Both cadet groups scored higher on IS than the staff and faculty. The difference is explained when one examines the questions feeding this scale. For example, while 63 percent of the cadets perceive that a number of professors are involved in economic planning at the national or state level, only 26 percent of the staff and faculty believe this is true.

     The junior cadets (Class of 1978) scored higher on the UL scale than did the staff and faculty or the Class of 1977. This difference indicates a perception of a slightly greater emphasis on undergraduate learning and teaching than that seen by the other groups.

     From the above examination several conclusions emerge:

     a. Although the perceptions of the various groups of the functioning of USMA are in basic agreement, not all of the ratings are at desirable levels.

     b. Esprit and morale among the staff and faculty, especially in the Tactical Department, are unusually low.

     c. The relative emphasis on research and scholarship (AK) and an undergraduate teaching and learning (UL) are inappropriate.

     d. The traditionalism, complacency, opposition to change, and lack of encouragement to innovate and experiment (CI) have become too strong and are stifling initiative.
     e. Too many decisions have to be made at too high a level at the Academy.

The following chart depicts scoring by category of the various groups. Cadets were not surveyed on the last five items.

National Average  Raw Score 8.49 9.05 7.11 6.75 8.18 6.99 6.86 7.81 4.5 7.95 8.5
**Percentile 49 45 49 46 39 45 45 45 67 47 49
Faculty Raw Score 7.3 3.1 6.6 3.5 7.7 2.8 3.8 7.8 4.7 6.0 9.1
Percentile 24 1 40 12 32 1 8 57 70 8 62
Administrative Raw Score 7.8 2.5 6.4 3.9 7.7 3.3 3.8 7.9 4.7 5.2 8.9
Percentile 30 0 38 15 32 4 8 60 70 3 60
Tactical Officers Raw Score 7.4 2.5 6.3 3.6 7.4 2.7 3.7 7.6 5.0 5.1 8.2
Percentile 24 0 35 14 24 0 7 51 73 1 35
Class of 1977 Raw Score 7.7 2.5 5.6 4.8 7.4 2.3 * * * * *
Percentile 30 0 16 22 24 0 * * * * *
Class of 1978 Raw Score 7.7 2.6 6.0 5.0 8.1 2.1 * * * * *
Percentile 30 0 27 24 38 0 * * * * *
  * No Response
**All percentiles are approximate

BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ELEVEN SCALES OF THE INSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONING INVENTORY1. Intellectual-Aesthetic Extracurriculum (IAE): the extent to which activities and opportunities for intellectual and aesthetic stimulation are available outside the classroom.

2. Freedom (F): the extent of academic freedom for faculty and students as well as freedom in their personal lives for all individuals in the campus community.

3. Human Diversity (HD): the degree to which the faculty and student body are heterogeneous in their backgrounds and present attitudes.

4. Concern for improvement of Society (IS): the desire among people at the institution to apply their knowledge and skills in solving social problems and prompting social change in America.

5. Concern for Undergraduate Learning (UL): the degree to which the college in its structure, function, and professional commitment of faculty-emphasizes undergraduate teaching and learning.

6. Democratic Governance (DG): the extent to which individuals in the campus community who are directly affected by a decision have the opportunity to participate in making the decision.

7. Meeting Local Needs (MLN): institutional emphasis on providing educational and cultural opportunities for all adults in the surrounding communities.

8.Self-Study and Planning (SP): The importance college leaders attach to continuous long-range planning for the total institution, and to institutional research needed in formulating and revising plans.

9. Concern for Advancing Knowledge (AK): the degree to which the institution-in its structure, function, and professional commitment of faculty-emphasizes research and scholarship aimed at extending the scope of human knowledge.

10. Concern for innovation (CI): the strength of institutional commitment to experimentation with new ideas for educational practice.

11. Institutional Esprit (IE): the level of morale and sense of shared purposes among faculty and administrators.

You are at the end of the West Point Study Group Report.  Press this link to return to the table of contents.

Press this link to return to Paul Werner's WP Honor Home Page