Maj. Aristides Moreno, Infantry

This article explains and clarifies the conduct of and the methods employed at The General Service Schools, concerning which, criticisms have recently appeared in the INFANTRY JOURNAL.-EDITOR'S NOTE.

HE school at Fort tions, international law, military law, Leavenworth, now and laws of war, operations of war, and called The Command practical instruction in surveying and and General Staff reconnoitering by itineraries and field School, has been in notes. Officers who were less prepared existence for 41 first pursued a preliminary course in years. During this correct reading aloud, with care and period it has devel- precision, with proper accent and oped from a primary pauses; writing a plain hand easy to military school to a read; grammar; arithmetic; geometry; great military univer- trigonometry; outline of general hissity. It, like all other successful institory, and history of the United States. tutions, has had many ups and downs, but in general, there has been consistent and steady development. For any given period, the subject-matter covered in the course and the methods of instruction have been recognized as the most advanced. Its graduates as a class have always ranked high professionally, both in peace and war.

The school was established in 1881 by General Sherman, at that time commanding the Army of the United States. The idea was to have a school for Infantry and Cavalry officers similar to the school of application for Artillery officers then in existence at Fortress Monroe. It was, therefore, given the name The School of Application for Infantry and Cavalry Officers. The course covered a period of two years. The first class was composed of two groups of officers. The better prepared officers took a course consisting of outposts, signalling, field fortifica

In 1886 the name was changed to The United States Infantry and Cavalry School. In 1888 the policy was changed so as to admit officers to take the course without an examination who presented diplomas from West Point or any institution of merit. Officers not possessing such diplomas were examined by the school staff to ascertain if they possessed sufficient knowledge. of the following subjects to enable them successfully to pursue the course. General history and history of the United States; geography; arithmetic; algebra to include the theory of logarithms; and geometry. In 1887 the curriculum was changed to have practical instruction in ceremonies, school of the soldier and battalion, cavalry tactics, minor tactics, functions of the three arms, and practical and theoretical instruction in military geography, military law, hippology, military surveying, Infantry tactics (school of the brigade), cav

alry tactics (regiment and brigade), instruction in bits, bitting and saddling, and modern tactics (map maneuvers).

With a few minor changes, generally developments, the curriculum continued the same until the close of the schools on account of the SpanishAmerican War, in 1898. The course at this time was divided into six departments, military art, engineering, law, Infantry, cavalry and military hygiene. It comprised tactics, strategy, logistics, military history (lectures on campaigns of Europe and of the United States), military geography, map maneuvers, war games, and field exercises with troops of the garrison, military field engineering and topography, observation rides (road reconnaissance), military administration (U. S. Army regulations), international and constitutional law, Infantry fire, small arms firing regulations, hippology, and military hygiene.

In September, 1902, the school was reopened under the name The General Service and Staff College. The course of instruction covered one year. The old departments of military art, Infantry, and cavalry were consolidated into a department of tactics. The curriculum covered security and information, small arms firing regulations, cavalry drill regulations, Infantry drill regulations, manual of guard duty, organization and tactics, hippology, field exercises, military topography, sketching and field engineering, with practical work in the use of instruments and in the construction of field fortifications, military law, international law, administration, and military hygiene. From 1904 to 1911, Spanish was part of the

course.

The Spanish-American War had developed the idea that some training for higher command and staff duties was desirable. This idea developed into the establishment in 1904 of the Staff College. At this time the name of the General Service and Staff College was changed to the Infantry and Cavalry School. Detail to take the course at the Staff College was to be made from specially selected graduates of the Infantry and Cavalry School, or its predecessor of the two preceding years, the General Service and Staff College, the Artillery School, and the Engineer School of Application. About two years later, detail of officers was limited to graduates of the Infantry and Cavalry School.

In 1907 another change was made in the name. The names of The Army School of the Line and Army Staff College were given to the two schools, and the group designated as the Army Service Schools.

Until 1916, when the schools were closed owing to the mobilization of troops along the Mexican border, no radical changes were introduced in the course of the School of the Line, although constant development was made in the courses and the methods of instruction.

In September, 1919, upon the reopening of The Army Service Schools, the following subjects were included in the curriculum of the School of the Line: Military organization, tactics and technique of the separate arms, tactical functions of larger units, combat orders, tactical principles and decisions, solution of problems, logistics, principles of strategy, military history, field engineering, care of troops, animals and transportation, military intel

have been tried out. In addition, the question of whether or not to use marks at all has been constantly before the commandants and faculty boards. While it is not the purpose of this article to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the use of marks, it may be well to say that all commandants and faculty boards, after thorough study of the subject, and the great majority of graduates are unanimous in the opinion that marks are an essential feature of the system of instruction. For any given period, the method has always been the best that those in authority have been able to devise. It is generally conceded that the best method of determining relative efficiency of those engaged therein is by comparison of the character of work performed. This is the aim of the present system of marking.

The applicatory method of instruction is used because it more nearly simulates war conditions than any other method practicable of employment in time of peace. Likewise, the work of the officers, their solution of practical exercises, is used to determine class relative efficiency. This is the principle employed throughout the service to determine relative efficiency as shown by efficiency reports. We never hear officers on duty with troops, or on other duty, say that the character of their work is upset, or that their performance of an assigned duty is adversely affected by the thoughts of the effect it may have on their efficiency report.

From 1881 to 1895, relative standing was determined by daily examination. marks. Officers failing in any subject were not given diplomas until they had passed a satisfactory re-examination in the subjects in which they had been

found deficient. In 1896, the daily marking system was discontinued, class standing being determined by marking solution of problems and practical exercises. Many different gradations and variations of this method have been employed at different times.

Many different plans have been employed to inform student officers of their marks and class standing. At one time, lists showing marks and class standing were posted after each examination or exercise; subsequently, they were not posted until the completion of the series constituting a subject. At another period the method of posting the marks was discontinued, and in lieu thereof each student was given his own mark confidentially after each examination or practical exercise. Later, student officers were not informed of their marks or standing until the end of the school year. With the reopening of the schools in 1919, students were given their rating by means of letters placed on the solutions of practical exercises, the letters A, B, C, D, E, corresponding to a general classification of superior, above average, average, below average, and unsatisfactory, respectively, and to a percentage classification of A equals 100 to 95 inclusive; B, 94 to 90; C, 89 to 80; D, 79 to 75; E, 74 to 0. Final mark and standing were given each student at graduation.

Beginning with the class 1921-1922, individual solutions are returned to students, bearing the letter A, to indicate that the solution is in the first 25 per cent of the class, the letter B to indicate that the solution is in the second 25 per cent, the letter C to indicate that the solution is in the last half of the class. The letters CU indicate that the solution is unsatisfactory. Thus,

each officer knows continuously his approximate relative standing and whether or not his work is satisfactory. Neither the final mark made in the course nor class standing is given out by the school authorities. However, under the present policy, when an officer's work is falling below the standard required for graduation, he is advised of the fact, and an effort made to ascertain the cause thereof, and when determined, he is given special instruction in an attempt to help him out of his difficulties.

Also, beginning with the 1921-1922 class, recommendation of graduates for higher training are based on a consideration by the Faculty Board of the War Department efficiency reports of the officers concerned, taken in connection with their class standing. The efficiency reports have now reached such a high state of reliability, showing as they do, the general character of service rendered by officers during their entire service, that they are very valuable, when considered in connection. with officer's work at the school, in determining qualifications for higher training, as well as their qualification for performance of various duties.

The classification of graduates into honor, distinguished, and graduates

has also undergone some changes. From 1881 to 1889, the first three members of the class were declared honor graduates and graduates and the remainder announced as graduates. In 1889, the classification of distinguished graduates was introduced, and the number of honor graduates increased to five. Beginning with the class of 1904, all officers graduating with a grade of 95 per cent or better were distinguished graduates, and the first five men honor graduates. In 1909, the method was changed so as to limit the distinguished graduates to those graduates who were recommended for detail to the Army Staff College. In 1920, the method was again changed so as to make the first 10 per cent of the class honor graduates, and next 15 per cent distinguished graduates. The question of honor or distinguished graduate in itself has no bearing on the recommendations given. the graduates.

In conclusion, it may be said that results are the best criterion. Since the establishment of the schools, graduates as a class have always ranked professionally among the best officers of the Army. Likewise, as a class they have stood out rather prominently in the two wars in which our country has been engaged.