Why, because McCoy didn't know who Captain Dunsel was? I'd have to say that that proves nothing: McCoy could have been on a different track there, I think, where he did not pick up that term, or it's a term that came into vogue after he'd gone through the Academy. That said, I agree that it's clearly compatible with McCoy not having gone to the Academy, and it certainly hints at it, but just not in any way that fully commits to the idea (IOW, it's easily reversible).
Speaking of oft quoted Trek facts that are not true.
Fair enough: They don't know Star Trek.
You can't separate it from context. This was a show written by and for veterans of the war, who knew how the military worked. An assumption going into it was that doctors didn't go to the military academy. Similar assumptions were that ensigns didn't interrupt captains.
Still not accurate.
Then, there we go. It's not a fact, then. It's an interpretation. It's a fair and reasonable interpretation, as I've already indicated, but it's an interpretation nonetheless.
Just FYI...While it's not an "academy" the Department of Defense does run it's own medical school. Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland. It was founded in the 70s, so post-TOS but before any of the other shows or movies.
It's mentioned in Trials and Tribble-ations
Ah, I thought you were asking where he got his undergraduate degree. That's generally what I understand it to mean when someone is asked where they "went". If you're asking if McCoy ever took any courses, classes, seminars, etc. at Starfleet Academy, then you are correct that it's never explicitly stated.
Taking how something is written and played at face value is not an interpretation. Sometimes, context and subtext can be open to interpretation, and sometimes not. If I see a movie about Sherlock Holmes, and everyone is dressed in Victorian attire and rides around the cobbled streets of London in hansome cabs, it is not a valid interpretation that it takes place in the 21st century, even if the film at no time mentions the year in which it takes place.
Unlike the adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Star Trek is not historical fiction. The use of suggestive tropes compatible with certain facts that are historical to us does not imply (i.e., logically necessitate) that those historical facts necessarily hold in the hypothetical, fictional future universe that Star Trek is set in. If it's not necessitated, it's not a fact.
I think they started the school because doctors were leaving once their commitment was up and so they didn't have very many senior physicians. USU grads on the other hand are much more likely to be lifers. For law school, I believe the military offers scholarships to civilian schools.
They don't interpret the Star Trek universe the way you do. There's a huge difference. GR didn't think Have Bennett "got it" when he made Wrath of Khan, but nobody doubts he watched all the original episodes and did his homework.
That's patently absurd. Star Trek has always been a reflection of the times in which it was written, surely, and many an episode has been topical of those same times, but TOS was not about the 1960s. There weren't mobster gangs of the 1920s or Nazis running things in the 1960s. I don't recall many salt-sucking telepathic hypnoids or silicon-based rock tunnelers running around either. Nor was I aware of my evil twin.
Sure, because Alex Kurtzman isn't executive producer and currently isn't providing the overall direction of both STD and STP. Sure.
Delegation. Going by some of you, you'd think Alex Kurtzman writes EVERYTHING. Every word, every sentence, every line. He does not. You know this.
