# Higher Education in a Military Career



## Matty B. (10 Nov 2005)

I am interested in a career as an officer, but I'd like to know if I'd have a good opportunity, say in 5 years down the line of BOT, to complete an MA or a PhD? I'm not talking about staff college or doing an MBA, but actually attending a humanities graduate school. Would I be able to take a year off to do an MA? Is the opportunity there in a military career to take a PhD?


----------



## SHF (10 Nov 2005)

Most officer occupations have post grad positions.  After you are in for awhile (usually after your first tour), you have to apply and be sponsored by a unit with the PG position.  Your PG might not be in the excat field you want.  Some PGs move on towards a PhD in the military.  Some of these folks teach in RMC, others work in R&D, and some are back operational.  We have need for academics as well as warriors.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Dirt Digger (10 Nov 2005)

Every year around the end of July, DGMC will put out a list of possible PG studies individuals can apply for.  Most of the PGs are only open to specific trades.

The application process requires you be accepted both by the military (for the funding) and by the approved educational institute (for the seat), which can be a nightmare to try and coordinate.  Some of the PGs are at RMC, some at Canadian civvie U's...some US, etc.  If you think that you stand a good chance to get the funding, don't wait to apply for the PG.  I did, and almost missed the application deadline for the program I'm in at U of T (MHSc Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Health). 

If you get accepted, the CF will cover all tuition fees, student fees and books.  Pretty much the only thing you have to cover is a parking pass or a bus pass.  You'll end up owing a few years back to the CF, but if you're like myself and have 15 more years until a pension...really, you can't lose.


----------



## MdB (10 Nov 2005)

Dirt Digger said:
			
		

> If you get accepted, the CF will cover all tuition fees, student fees and books.   Pretty much the only thing you have to cover is a parking pass or a bus pass.   You'll end up owing a few years back to the CF, but if you're like myself and have 15 more years until a pension...really, you can't lose.



Is it related in any way to the Master (or Graduate) degree the CF are offering after 9 years in when on DEO program?

Matty: for your info, Direct Entry Officer program offers the candidate (which has an Undergraduate degree) a tuition-free Master degree. Don't remember where it's written, but it's in the official papers somewhere.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2005)

Being able to spell "Military" correctly should be your first goal - worry about the PhD later.


----------



## Dirt Digger (10 Nov 2005)

MdB said:
			
		

> Is it related in any way to the Master (or Graduate) degree the CF are offering after 9 years in when on DEO program?
> 
> Matty: for your info, Direct Entry Officer program offers the candidate (which has an Undergraduate degree) a tuition-free Master degree. Don't remember where it's written, but it's in the official papers somewhere.



Not mine at least.   I'm a DEO, but this is the first I've heard about the program you've mentioned.   In the Bioscience trade, we pretty much have two dedicated PGs that we apply for (Hygiene or Human Factors).


----------



## Danjanou (10 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Being able to spell "Military" correctly should be your first goal - worry about the PhD later.


 :rofl:


----------



## Matty B. (10 Nov 2005)

Ouch. Writing "Militay" in my heading is pretty bad. Sorry for the mistake.  ???


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2005)

There, I fixed it for you - now when you want me to read over your dissertation, give me a dingle....


----------



## Gunner (10 Nov 2005)

Matty, there are several programs that you can apply for to take graduate and post graduate studies.  I took my MA through Royal "Militay" College   on a part time basis.  RMC contracts out to local professors within the large garrison locations.  

Pursuing higher education is a very worthy of a current and/or future officer.  I will caution you to set realistic goals for yourself as you should be focusing on learning your chosen career during your first five years. Depending on your classification, you may find yourself with very little free time to pursure a graduate degree.

You may wish to check out the Canadian Defence Academy website and explore some of your options.

http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/index/engraph/home_e.asp


----------



## TCBF (10 Nov 2005)

From what I have seen lately, I would say the greatest threat to the Canadian Forces consists of University Degrees wrapped in CAD PAT.  Comes complete with a "Get Out Of Reality Free" Card, and a "License to Avoid Learning From The Past."

Tom


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Nov 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> From what I have seen lately, I would say the greatest threat to the Canadian Forces consists of University Degrees wrapped in CAD PAT.  Comes complete with a "Get Out Of Reality Free" Card, and a "License to Avoid Learning From The Past."
> 
> Tom



Your point?
Can you define the threat, and explain exactly what, besides your personal comfort zone, is being affected?
Can you contrast it to those who refuse to step out of the past to give a frame of reference?
Please present your alternative solution.


----------



## kincanucks (11 Nov 2005)

_Matty: for your info, Direct Entry Officer program offers the candidate (which has an Undergraduate degree) a tuition-free Master degree. Don't remember where it's written, but it's in the official papers somewhere._

Yes when you find it let me know so I can start recruiting for it.

Or perhaps you are referring to Medical Officer Training Plan or Dental Officer Training Plan? ;D


----------



## pbi (11 Nov 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> From what I have seen lately, I would say the greatest threat to the Canadian Forces consists of University Degrees wrapped in CAD PAT.   Comes complete with a "Get Out Of Reality Free" Card, and a "License to Avoid Learning From The Past."
> 
> Tom



Interesting point of view. Consider this: every (EVERY) US Army or Marine officer fighting right now in Iraq or in Afghanistan has a degree. Some have two, and almost all General officers have post grad. Most did not get their degree from a military academy, but instead through a civilian university. How does having a  degree make them worse officers? A degree (by itself) mght not make them better officers (but just in case, see below), but how does it make them worse?

Does a degree make a better officer? I never believed that when I commissioned in 1983: I was an OCTP guy, with no degree, as were many of my peers. Then, times changed and in 2000-2001 I completed a degree through the Army. When I was serving in Afghanistan last year, my place of duty was the HQ of US Combined Joint Task Force 76, the operational-level HQ for US forces in that country. One day I sat down with the Chief of Staff, a very long-serving and tough old Infantry Colonel. I asked him if he thought having a degree made any difference. What he said was basically this: up to abut Coy Comd, it probably doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference. But, after that, in command at battalion and above, in staff positions, in teaching positions at military educational establishments, in multi-national forces and HQs, in working with non-military agencies, and in designing campaigns, strategy or policy, he stated that the educational experience was invaluable not because of the "stuff" that was taught in university, but rather in the broadening and deepening of the minding and the training of its processes and habits. I still agree with this.

The fact that we have undoubtedly produced incompetent officers who have degrees is IMHO merely a correlation, rather than cause and effect. I would be much more inclined to lay the blame on a system that fail to weed out weak characters, incompetents and otherwise generally unsuited types, or that automatically bestows HM commission on someone just because they have a degree. There, in my view, lie the real problems.

Cheers


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Nov 2005)

To be fair, I would think the type of degree plays a role, and also the time and method it is obtained. For younger officers, obviously CompSci and Eng are much more desirable to the CF than Religious Studies or Sociology [of any kind.]. Even with regards to law, there are several former infantry and armoured officers currently emerging from the MLOTP- a much more palatable development for the CF than some 27 year old idealist spewing the crap they teach at Osgoode Hall or the UoT.  

Perhaps a system whereby one serves a period of time [5-6 years] in the NCM ranks and then is given a posting of sufficient duration to obtain a general degree by attending and experiencing campus life. This would likely produce a much more rounded officer candidate. Of course, this would be completely infeasible in some MOC's, but it may work for others.   

Assuming entry into the CF at 19 or 20 years of age, a young person could concieveably have served 10 years by the age of 30, served at least a couple of tours overseas, attained a junior leadership position as an NCM, graduated with a university degree and most importantly will have matured immensely through their experience. To me, this is a pretty good candidate for officer training. 10-12 years later, an opportunity for some level of post grad could be made available. 

A 30 year old 2lt with that background might be more valuable than a 23 year old with no experience whatsoever.


----------



## pbi (11 Nov 2005)

Whiskey: based on my own experience, I agree with almost everything you have said. As has been stated before : "Education is wasted on the young". I certainly got way, way more out of my university education when I was in my 40s than the first time I tried it at age 19 (unsuccessfully...).

The only point I disagree with you on is the demeaning of Sociology (or other relevant Arts/Humanities, for that matter). There is strong debate that an officer today, especially a Combat Arms officer who aspires to higher leadership or staff positions, would do well to have a solid grounding in the "people studies". Psychology, History, Law, Criminology, Sociology and Political Studies all have something to offer in this area.

Cheers.


----------



## visitor (11 Nov 2005)

Re: education. My kids   have all gotten their   BAs or BSs degrees from good universities. Some in   "useless" subjects. I am immensely proud of them when we sit around the kitchen table and they can discuss current events   intelligently. They can make cogent arguments based on evidence.   They can evaluate what they hear and read critically.   They have tolerance for those that think differently than they do, but nevertheless can critique ideas.   I contrast them with some of their peers that fall for scams, hold stereotypes uncritically, do not seek out different points of view with which to challenge their own. Self made men do not necessarily come to these qualities on their own. Some do.   Some get through their education without these strengths. But a good education   should enable students to come away with these qualities, quite apart from job skills or heads stuffed with facts.


----------



## pbi (11 Nov 2005)

visitor said:
			
		

> But a good education   should enable students to come away with these qualities, quite apart from job skills or heads stuffed with facts.



Visitor: This is it, exactly. To me what you have explained are the greatest and truest advantages of post secondary education. In particular, the abilities to think critically, to always look for a better source of info, and to question "conventional wisdom" are important. Now, to be honest, not everybody with a degree has those abilities, and of course not everybody lacking a degree lacks those abilities either. But, I think it is reasonable to assume that education is likely to encourage them, while an environment without education is more likely to stifle them.

Cheers


----------



## Matty B. (11 Nov 2005)

If I entered the Army as a 23 year-old 2Lt., and got chewed out like that for being too young and inexperienced, then I would make one bad officer, and generally hate my job. On the other hand, if my senior officers and NCO's showed me how to be a good officer, I'd learn quickly.

If the minimum age for a 2Lt. was 30, then you're going to have to promote a lot of officers up the chain of command pretty fast (early retirement age). I know some get promoted fast, but if everyone did, you'd get a lot of inexperienced generals (think military sociology ???).

Many different entry plans such as the DEO, ROTP and pulling officers from the ranks create a diverse balance. It's not about choosing black or white, but finding the best solution. Anyway, it's great to see what people think of DEO's and university degrees. I appreciate it!


----------



## MdB (11 Nov 2005)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> Yes when you find it let me know so I can start recruiting for it.
> 
> Or perhaps you are referring to Medical Officer Training Plan or Dental Officer Training Plan? ;D



No, I'm not. But, I'm pretty sure about that. Now, if YOU don't know about that...


----------



## TCBF (13 Nov 2005)

"The fact that we have undoubtedly produced incompetent officers who have degrees is IMHO merely a correlation, rather than cause and effect. I would be much more inclined to lay the blame on a system that fail to weed out weak characters, incompetents and otherwise generally unsuited types, or that automatically bestows HM commission on someone just because they have a degree. There, in my view, lie the real problems."

- The above is much more in line with what I SHOULD have written, rather than shooting from the hip with "degrees wrapped in CAD PAT".  Refusing to release people merely because "we have to much money invested in them" - whether officer or OR - is merely throwing good money after bad.  It is bad MHR policy, but that does not mean that the policy of giving officers a university degree is bad MHR policy.

So, I stand corrected.

Tom


----------



## pbi (13 Nov 2005)

TCBF: OK-we are in full agreement. 

Cheers


----------



## Matty B. (13 Nov 2005)

Great point. I agree as well.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (15 Nov 2005)

An theres the rub!

    Is being a good officer leader about education or about the innate ability of leadership?

Begs the real question that will answer the education one "*are officers born or made*"

  Although I agree at the higher levels the ability to argue a point or develop a plan along side your PhD US buddy in a coalition HQ is important, is it really important in the big bayonet picture. Education never made a mediocre leader great but it will make him competent in a staff position and great leadership is not about staff positions. Great leaders emerge in the crucible of fire (battle) it is just in them not in there education.


----------



## pbi (15 Nov 2005)

I hesitate to go here, because this subject was well and truly thrashed out on these pages quite a while back, but I have to say that there is no truth to the idea that it is an "either/or" situation when it comes to the issue of higher education for officers. I do not see why we can't have good leaders who are well educated, or well educated officers who are good leaders. Where is the automatic exclusion?

I agree fully that training alone will not make a good leader: I subscribe (dinosaur-like) to the "trait" school of leadership theory in the sense that I believe some people's character and personalities make them utterly unsuited to be good leaders. We all know of these people, and we all know that unfortunately they can in fact progress in a military system, and progress quite far. Quite often their troops kill them, or at least daydream about it.

However, I do not see how being more broadly and fully educated automatically creates a problem for leadership quality, such that we have to start talking about balancing one off against the other.

The way I see it is that as an officer progresses in his career, the demands on him change. While he is always expected to be a leader, the type of leadership he provides to a platoon or company is not the same type he provides in a battalion, in command of a formation, or on a staff. (and, believe me, there is a very big requirement for leadership in a staff, especially an operational staff).

Do you need a degree to be effective in those jobs? Maybe not. I was A/G3  LFCA for a while and did a few ops, before I completed my degree. Was I a worse G3 because I didn't have a degree? Peha not. But, having walked the path, I feel much better having the education in political studies that I have now.

I go back to a point I made earlier: if we have bad officers with degrees, IMHO it is not because they have degrees. It is because, for whatever reason, they are bad officers and perhaps are not even suited to be leaders at all. This is a military system problem, not a higher education problem. IMHO what we need to do is give all of our officers (and indeed as many WOS/NCs as makes sense, too) better education, whether military or civil. At the same time, we need to set and demand high standards of leadership peformance, and place much more emphasis on character (or signs of its lack). Over time I think that the "education vs leadership" thing would then fade away.

Cheers.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (15 Nov 2005)

I agree with all you say, and yes it would be a slippery slope to go down the born/made issue all those made guys battling the born ones what fun.....

  I guess my point is I agree but fear the education criteria becomes the measure not the ad on to a leader. If we select only grads to be our leaders we are selecting from a smaller pool of people and thus will have less to chose from. I as a political science guy feel its important but not the critical issue that it is turning into. I can comment on an officer who lead me as an OCTP he was the best of the best. At LCol he was told get a degree or it ends, he went off and the right thing is he better for it...yes for civiy street is he a better leader NO.

  I would suggest best system is recruit your leaders as officers (thats the born ones) if they have degrees great if not who cares, later at the 9 year mark give them a  year off to get the degree after they sign on the IE then the IPS give them another year off to do the masters thing. If they already have a degree than good only one year off at IE point fr masters and at the IPS they 2 for the PhD. Good incentive for the IE, IPS


----------



## pbi (15 Nov 2005)

> I would suggest best system is recruit your leaders as officers (thats the born ones) if they have degrees great if not who cares, later at the 9 year mark give them a  year off to get the degree after they sign on the IE then the IPS give them another year off to do the masters thing. If they already have a degree than good only one year off at IE point fr masters and at the IPS they 2 for the PhD. Good incentive for the IE, IPS



OK-I'm with you here. While the details are slightly different, this is more or less how I got my degree. 

Cheers


----------



## MdB (23 Nov 2005)

What about that?



			
				http://torontosun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2005/11/23/pf-1318739.html said:
			
		

> Masters of freeloading
> 
> By PETER WORTHINGTON
> The Toronto Sun, November 23 2005
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (23 Nov 2005)

How else are we going to give them the education to walk straight into an Executive, COO or CEO job with a large conglomerate?  How else will we be able to produce future Lobbyist's?  

Last year's SCAN seminars were telling us that we would be entitled to $2000 per years Service towards Education after Release, to be used within the three years of Release.  At Christmas that all got canned.  

That is a good question - why are we giving these guys PG Educations and Degrees and not allowing Serving members of lower Ranks to do so?  Why are we squashing Education Benefits to the long time Serving NCMs and those on Release?

Col (Ret'd) Drapeau does pose a good question, when he asks why these guys don't use their own time and money to further their Educations.  Then we probably wouldn't have them going off to get "Master of Distance Learning, Master in Concentration Counselling, Master of Ocean Sciences, PhD in Psychology, Master of ergonomics, or Master of Aerospace Vehicle Design" degrees.


More questions than answers.


----------



## Pieman (23 Nov 2005)

> Drapeau says: "Think of the poor student who has to borrow, go into debt and live on the cheap to get an education. It's a good thing he or she doesn't know the fellow sharing classes is on an all-expense paid scheme and on full salary."


I can relate to this. I did one of my degrees with a Airforce NCM who was upgrading his education on this type of program. (I have no idea what program he was doing it under, but apparently it is not always just Officers who get to do this). Meanwhile, I was living effective in poverty and shelling out 50K+ for my education (in total), while he was living in comfort the whole time. I kind of ticked me off, so I tried not to think about it at the time.

However he was taking a degree that was applicable to his job as an Airforce Officer, and he also would not have been able to do it without this kind of program as he had a family to worry about etc. In the long run, I think it was good investment for the Air force, as they had an experienced worker who upgraded to become an educated skilled worker.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Nov 2005)

Actually, Pieman, in a case like that, where there is a NCM upgrading and getting a Degree in a field related to his Trade and a requirement (Now) to his becoming an officer, I see no problem.  That is what I would like to see RMC become (Covered in other Threads already.).  It is the Senior Officers abusing this to get Post Graduate Degrees in fields that may have no relevance to the CF that is obscene.


----------



## Pieman (23 Nov 2005)

> It is the Senior Officers abusing this to get Post Graduate Degrees in fields that may have no relevance to the CF that is obscene.


I totally agree with you there.


----------



## Dirt Digger (23 Nov 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Col (Ret'd) Drapeau does pose a good question, when he asks why these guys don't use their own time and money to further their Educations.   Then we probably wouldn't have them going off to get "Master of Distance Learning, Master in Concentration Counselling, Master of Ocean Sciences, PhD in Psychology, Master of ergonomics, or Master of Aerospace Vehicle Design" degrees.
> 
> 
> More questions than answers.



Maybe I can answer a few of those questions, at least for my own situation, since I'm currently on a PGTP.

First off, I don't see my degree as some bird program for adding a few letters to the end of my name.   I'm taking a Masters in Health Sciences; Occupational and Environmental Health.   Once I'm done, I'll be put into a DHHAT so I can deploy overseas.   Without this degree, because I'm in a specialist trade, my opportunities for deployment are nonexistant. 

Second of all, I don't plan on being a CEO with a large conglomerate or an Ottawa lobbyist.   I plan on doing my time, just like everyone else.   Due to the pension rumbling a few year back, I signed on for my twenty when I was on year five.

Third, I used my own time and money to get my BSc.   The program I'm in is only taught in three locations in Canada, one of which doesn't offer a program that meets the military's needs (professional program vs research).   It is impossible to do this program by night courses...it's hard enough maintaining my sanity with the amount of studying I do these days, without throwing in a day job.   My day job is to go to school and work my ass off.

Forth, every other person that's in my program knows that I'm on full salary and the military is paying for it.   They also know that when I'm done, I'll be going anywhere the CF needs a soil sample or a noise level reading.   They also know that I buy four pitchers of beer when I go to the pub with them because I know what it's like to have a beer vs food budget.   They also know that when they graduate, they'll be making a hell of a lot more money than I'm going to be making, plus they won't get moved every four years, plus they don't have to worry about landmines as a health & safety issue.

Please do not assume that every PGTP student is trying to milk the CF for meal ticket.   Col. Drapeau (ret'd) should maybe learn what these PGs are going towards before he starts making blanket statements about their value to the CF.   You want a civilian to do my job?   My entire tuition would be covered in less than a week's salary...


----------



## PJ D-Dog (23 Nov 2005)

The CF should look into creating something like the GI bill here in the US.  There are a couple of programs available to both active duty and former active duty service members.

In the GI bill, we contribute $1,200 during your first year to the GI bill in order to qualify for $36,000 of education money once you get out.  If you serve only four years, you are still entitled to the GI bill.  The amounts have recently changed, but these were the numbers a few years ago.

While serving on active duty, you are entitled to 100 per cent tuition assistance up to a maximum of $5,000 a year.  If you run out of tuition money during that year (attending an expensive college), you can use a portion of your GI bill for top-up.  You can only use the in-service GI bill after you served two years.

If you are enlisted and apply for an officer program and you are selected, you are sent to a college of your choice (based on the list provided to you) and you are given three years to complete your degree.  While in college, you will be promoted to the rank of Sgt (or remain at the same rank if higher than Sgt) and receive full pay and allowances.  The catch here is that you can't use tuition assistance although you can use your GI bill or just pay out of pocket.  Your course of study does not have to be anything relevant to your chosen military field...as long as you get your degree.  As an officer (other than pilot), you don't necessarily choose your MOS.  You are assigned one.  You cannot be an officer without first completing an undergraduate degree.

Degrees are no longer for officers.  The Marine Corps has recently unveiled the MOS road map for every MOS in the Marines.  In it, it details the duty stations you should strive for, the billets you should fill and the military and civilian education you should complete for every rank level.  By the time you reach the rank of Staff Sgt (like a CF Sgt), you should have your undergradate degree completed.  This is not required although it is recommended.  Those with completed civilian post-secondary education will have a far better chance at being selected for promotion although promotion does not rest solely on a degree completion.

Just thought I'd let you all know what is going on south of the border as far as education benefits are concerned.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## MdB (23 Nov 2005)

Dirt Digger said:
			
		

> Please do not assume that every PGTP student is trying to milk the CF for meal ticket.   Col. Drapeau (ret'd) should maybe learn what these PGs are going towards before he starts making blanket statements about their value to the CF.



Thanks for the input. That's exactly what I was looking for. Broader view.

Anyway, speaking specifically about Senior Officers, and as it was earlier stated by pbi, Master's and Doctorat Degree brings in the CF scholars of the same quality as in the civilian world. It helps think ahead and devise good policies for the CF. The CF has to get more Master's and Doctorat Degree qualified people. Compared with the US armed forces, we have a long way to go.



			
				PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> The CF should look into creating something like the GI bill here in the US.   There are a couple of programs available to both active duty and former active duty service members.



As for the GI bill, this wouldn't improve the academic level of officers or NCOs. This serves to reintegrate the civilian world, which is all good too. Maybe the aforementioned article author is mixing up professional development programs and is just plainly of bad faith.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (24 Nov 2005)

Again, Worthington and Esprit de Corps' favourite Col Drapeau are attempting to stir the pot to further their own ends.   As I have posted repeatedly, I believe that this group has an axe to grind against the CF's leadership and have repeatedly engaged in scandal-mongering to try to prove their rather nebulous points.

So, Worthington doesn't believe that a graduate degree in aerospace design is of any value?  Why not?   Does it not help the CF to have officers who are conversant with aircraft engineering, especially when we're about to spend billions of the taxpayers dollars on airlift and helicopters?   Or Ocean Sciences for a naval officer?   Honest to god.   Even an MBA is useful in dealing with civilians, including contractors and like, something that obviously isn't even considered by this type of "reporting".

Are there people who take advantage of PG training?   Perhaps, but I'd need names of people who have and proof, not innuendo.   An ATI-generated list of officers who have obtained degrees just doesn't cut it with me.   The Canadian Defence Academy approves all these requests and validates the requirement - the generals aren't simply handing out cheques to their buddies to go to Cambridge on a swan, despite what Worthington and Drapeau want people to believe.

I'm a DEO who did PG training part-time, paying for it myself.   Even with that, I don't begrudge funded PG training for any member of the CF if there's a genuine requirement.   Other armies do it, why shouldn't we, especially for the comparatively miniscule financial cost?


----------



## Infanteer (24 Nov 2005)

First off, anyone interested should go through this thread:

UP FROM THE RANKS

It covers alot of the ground in a pretty detailed manner.

Second point, PJD-Dog's post is excellent in highlighting the way the Army needs to move in its approach to PSE.   As our Army further increases its level of professionalism, more brain power is a must.   The US Marines arm their Officers and SNCO's with PSE; they don't even take highschool drop-outs anymore.   Now, before I get flamed, this isn't a slight on those who dropped out and became professional soldiers - it's only that, in the future, we are going to have to consistently set the bar higher and making it to graduation is one of those bars.   "Education" (in the form of a PSE) shouldn't be seen as "Officer turf" or the status symbol that makes one "worthy of a commission", it should be a weapon that we arm our leaders with.   NCO's and WO's will need this tool to apply to their technical expertise just as Officers will need it to apply to their generalist expertise.

Finally, having got my degree right out of Highschool while I was a troopie, I do not think education is wasted on the young (or on Officers below the rank of Major).   Education isn't a set of skills, it is a tool that arms our leaders with the ability to use that grey matter to better accomplish the mission.   Now, like any tool, it may not get used properly and at times or the task can be accomplished without the tool, but having it in the belt while developing as a subbie is pretty important - it allows them to start applying their experiences at the bottom of the totem pole through the lens of what they have learned.   This way, when they become Field Grade Officers, they have a considerable mass of experience that they've already filtered through their brain to draw from.   Having said that, I think that the PSE for Officers needs to be focused; it needs to provide a liberal education (which one can use to later follow other fields) that is honed into a true military education.   As well, I think this military education is further enhanced if the officer candidate has been grounded through some time in the ranks.   I peeled my post from the above link to highlight what I think is essential in a "Military Education".



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> As for the idea of a military education here are a few of my thoughts on what should be in the curriculum for Officer Candidates in the Army (The Navy and the Air Force will have different requirements due to the fundamental nature of what these officers do).
> 
> 1. Leadership:   Courses in Leadership should go beyond the basic "Principles of Leadership" that are constantly expounded on (these core values are kind of no brainers anyways).   Courses in the leadership field should also be based on Psychological frameworks (The physiology and behaviour of soldiers in battle, the mental effects of military operations, the effects of battlefield stimuli upon a leaders troops; ie PTSD) Sociological frameworks (Small unit cohesion and bonding, vertical and horizontal relationships of soldiers within the group, the military culture in general) and Management frameworks (Adminstration of your units and soldiers, etc)
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Nov 2005)

I'm a little tired of saying that Worthington is full of it, but:

"¢	If we want bright, recently sharp-end experienced officers to help sort through the ever expanding range of technological _solutions_ (aids, really) to our problems then they need better and better educations;

"¢	RMC is a perfectly adequate source of good young engineering, especially, officers but more advanced work - at AETE in Cold Lake, for example, or in a project office or engineering directorate in NDHQ requires more;

"¢	Officers are selected for a job, then sent on the applicable PG programme - mostly a two year MSc programme specified as being required by the director or project manager (but yes there are some MBAs required - especially in some of the _business-like_ areas in logistics and finance) - then (s)he does three or four years in that job and fulfills a four or five year (I don't know how many, things have changed since I served) commitment before release/retirement is possible; and

"¢	PG selection, like selection for a junior leaders' course, for example, is not perfect - a few dunderheads go and few really top drawer people get left behind.

It is my personal opinion that:

1.	Our _(your, really)_ basic officer education package needs reform - we _(you, but old habits die hard)_ need a "Military Arts and Sciences" programme which looks more like McMaster's - http://www.mcmaster.ca/artsci/about_the_program/about_the_program.html - ideally with both BA and BSc degrees depending upon the _weight_ of the science part.  We need professional logistics programmes - both BA and BSc levels - to replace e.g. commerce and engineering management degrees.  We need to keep Aeronautical, Chemical, Civil, Computer, Electrical and Mechanical engineering programmes to meet the needs of our engineering branches: MARE, MILE, CELE, AERE, etc;

2.	We need more graduate programmes - less than 50% should be at RMC because the university is too small, graduate students should go to other, bigger schools where they will be exposed to new ideas.  Too many RMC grads return there for MA/MSc and study with the same professors - not good;

3.	We need to expand, and maybe 'up-qualify' to graduate degree level, the Army's Tech Staff and the Aerospace Systems courses - perhaps by doing one year at e.g. RMC/Army Tech Staff and one more year at RMC/engineering;

4.	We need our own Executive MBA programme;

5.	We need to reinvent the National Defence College - maybe allowing some officers to pursue multi-year graduate programmes at major universities - leading to MA and PhD degrees in e.g. international relations.

Obviously I think Worthington would head us down precisely the wrong road - towards a dumb army, which is not, I suggest, what we need.

This is not 1950.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (24 Nov 2005)

MdB said:
			
		

> As for the GI bill, this wouldn't improve the academic level of officers or NCOs. This serves to reintegrate the civilian world, which is all good too.



I have to dissagree with you on that.  We can still use the GI Bill while on active duty.  I for one not only use the tuition assistance program for college but I also use the GI Bill to pay for my enrollment fees and graduation fees at my college.  I can also use it to help defer the cost of books for my classes as tuition assistance only covers the actual cost of the course.

For active duty, the GI bill can be used while in service or after you get out.  Benefits expire 10 years after you are released from active duty.

For reservists, the GI bill can be used for education immediately after leaving boot camp.  They have no up-front monetary contribution to make although they are required to sign a contract of obligated service for six years.  I am unsure of the total amount available to reservists through the GI Bill although it does range somewhere around $400 a month.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## pbi (24 Nov 2005)

The value (not to mention the relevance) of commentary by people such as Mr Worthington and Col (retd) Drapeau declines daily. Obviously, in their minds, the last good soldiers Canada ever had wore puttees and battledress. I expect that as they encounter less and less warm reception from those serving today, they will get ever more shrill.

Cheers.


----------

