# So You Want to be an officer, eh!



## George Wallace

So You Want to be an officer, eh!

So?  What makes you so special?  Are you articulate and a dedicated Administrator?  Are you a good leader and mentor to your peers and subordinates?  Do you accept criticism?  Are you going to work for the betterment of your men and the CF?  Are you loyal to those below you, as much if not more than those above you?  Do you take responsibility for your own actions, and not try to shift the blame to others? 


Or are you a 'Social Climber', looking for the fastest, easiest way to the top; not caring on whose toes you step and how many eggs you break to get there?  Do you have a "Who gives a damn about you" attitude towards others?  Is your career advancement the top of your agenda?  Do you think it is 'kool' to be insubordinate, disrespectful and not professional in communicating with or to others; seeing no fault with improper use of grammar, spelling and English writing skills to communicate?  Do you think the use of MSN Speak portrays a 'professional' profile of who you are?  Do you think that you are unique and can do whatever you please, and be whatever you want?


Have you done any research into:



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> The Principles of Leadership
> 
> The following principles, updated to reflect lessons learned from experience, cover important
> aspects of the five major dimensions of effectiveness and are offered here as an introduction to the responsibilities of leadership:
> 
> 1.  *Achieve professional competence and pursue self-improvement*—Leader competence is critical to mission accomplishment and the preservation of lives. Very early on, junior leaders must master the technical and tactical skills of their military specialty, maintaining and improving proficiency through self-study, experiential learning, formal training, and education.
> 
> 2.  *Clarify objectives and intent*—To provide subordinates with maximum freedom of action and the capability to operate independently if necessary, leaders must communicate a clear picture of the outcome or outcomes they wish to achieve.
> 
> 3.  *Solve problems; make timely decisions*—The whole purpose of small-unit leadership is to accomplish missions and tasks. This means solving mission problems and making appropriate considered decisions. Some decision situations will allow for little or no analysis, but where time and circumstances allow, leaders should gather as much pertinent information as possible, involve others who possess relevant experience or a have stake in the decision, and consider the advantages and risks of each option before making a decision.
> 
> 4.  *Direct; motivate by persuasion and example and by sharing risks and hardships*— Leadership is about exercising influence. Leaders have to know when to direct, when to motivate, and when to enable performance through the conspicuous sharing of risks and hardships.
> 
> 5.  *Train individuals and teams under demanding and realistic conditions*— Being operationally ready means being able to deal effectively with normal and worstcase
> scenarios, handle the unexpected, and recover from setbacks. Demanding and realistic
> training provides these capabilities.
> 
> 6.  *Build teamwork and cohesion*—Training and other formative activities that reinforce mutual dependence and support will pay off in enhanced performance and greater
> resistance to stress.
> 
> 7.  *Keep subordinates informed*; explain events and decisions—The routine and
> prompt passage of information contributes to subordinates’ situational awareness and their
> ability to respond appropriately to a changing situation. Candidly explaining events and
> decisions often reduces tensions created by uncertainty, and is critical to maintaining the
> trust relationship between leaders and led.
> 
> 8.  *Mentor, educate, and develop subordinates*— Leaders must train and develop
> subordinates to master the unit’s operational functions, provide strength in depth, and
> ensure a broadly distributed leadership capability.
> 
> 9.  *Treat subordinates fairly*; respond to their concerns; represent their interests—
> Leaders have moral and practical obligations to know their subordinates’ needs, take care of them, treat them fairly, and provide essential support for their families. Such actions help to establish and maintain trust, while also enhancing subordinates’ service commitment.
> 
> 10.  *Maintain situational awareness*; seek information; keep current—Leaders have
> to develop the habit of being on top of what is happening around them. Situational
> awareness is critical to anticipating future environmental conditions and identifying
> opportunities to secure a tactical advantage.
> 
> 11.  *Learn from experience and those who have experience*—In both training and operations, leaders must constantly review performance with a critical eye and ask if there isn’t a better way. Learning from personal experience and the experience of others is critical to ensuring high reliability performance and maintaining a competitive edge.
> 
> 12.  *Exemplify and reinforce the military ethos*; maintain order and discipline; uphold professional norms—Disciplined, obedient, and law-abiding military forces are a mark of civilization. Leaders must ensure that their personal conduct and the conduct of their subordinates at all times reflect the best of Canadian military professionalism.
> 
> Ref: A-PD-131-002/PT-001 Leadership in the Canadian Forces Doctrine Chapter 4, pg 32-33


----------



## George Wallace

Oh!  Guess what?  I wanted to be a Pilot.  I'm not.   :camo:


----------



## Quag

social climber...

George,

I've been following your comments reference the Engineer that wanted to be subsidized for a year and I sense some your hostility and bitterness in this post.

Do you seriously consider this post a benefit to any potential officer? Even more so deserving a sticky?

Maybe I'm reading it the wrong way, but to me this thread comes off very smug and almost portrays the stereotypical Snr NCO bitterness at Officers (which can occur bilaterally at any rank level).


----------



## George Wallace

Hey!  These aren't "Principles of officership".  They are the "Principles of LEADERSHIP".  That means at all levels; from Jr NCO on up.


----------



## Quag

I hear what your saying.  I like the principles of leadership, even though I must digress it is a very limited list and a good leader has attributes and traits that are above and beyond the aforementioned (to include all ranks).

I think maybe I'm missing the point here.  I just read the second paragraph of your post almost as a slander.  Maybe I'm just tired from another day of IBTS haha.


----------



## GAP

Quag said:
			
		

> social climber...
> 
> George,
> 
> I've been following your comments reference the Engineer that wanted to be subsidized for a year and I sense some your hostility and bitterness in this post.
> 
> Do you seriously consider this post a benefit to any potential officer? Even more so deserving a sticky?
> 
> Maybe I'm reading it the wrong way, but to me this thread comes off very smug and almost portrays the stereotypical Snr NCO bitterness at Officers (which can occur bilaterally at any rank level).



The post is timely and very, very valid....for months I have been reading threads of people who won't take the time to scroll through the various threads, so pop up here wanting their duplicate questions answered......all this with stars in their eyes...

If they had any clue about being an officer, Georges post will orientate them towards what is required. It's all about leadership, and other people are depending on it, sometimes with their lives.


----------



## George Wallace

Quag said:
			
		

> I hear what your saying.  I like the principles of leadership, even though I must digress it is a very limited list and a good leader has attributes and traits that are above and beyond the aforementioned (to include all ranks).
> 
> I think maybe I'm missing the point here.  I just read the second paragraph of your post almost as a slander.  Maybe I'm just tired from another day of IBTS haha.




Yes you are partially correct.  I am getting frustrated, pissed off, etc. when I see so many lazy, self-centered, egos with humongous senses of entitlement come onto the site and use illiterate means to communicate that they want to become our future leaders.  On the other hand, I wanted to temper that frustration and try to ask a balanced question: "Are you _para 1_ or are you _para 2_ and have you bothered to do some research as to what may be expected of you?  There are just as many who come onto the site, and have used their initiative to do some research, or at the very least admit to their lack of knowledge, and ask questions pertaining to answers they have discovered on the site.  I look at these people as showing more potential and probably more likely to have people give them constructive answers.   Perhaps I need a vacation.  




As an aside......

Please don't mention IBTS.  We have no sooner finished and we have to start again.  Herding cats is very frustrating, especially when higher is looking for results, and at the same time tasking out all the cowboys.


----------



## Quag

The fact is, the majority of the people that you and George are talking about are not officers yet.  I dare even say that if they should get enrolled, based on some of the professionalism I've seen posted, they would not make it through phase training.

If this post is oriented towards what you are saying, then I think a little clarity on the issue would go a long way rather than paint officers in two very contrasting states; the social climber and the "officer's" officer.

I won't get into the nuts and bolts here, but to a certain extent, every person in the military dips into both of these domains and has to balance it carefully.  Anybody with a coffee break in the CF knows there is a heavy "political aspect" not only on a national scale but at the unit level as well.


----------



## Quag

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes you are partially correct.  I am getting frustrated, pissed off, etc. when I see so many lazy, self-centered, egos with humongous senses of entitlement come onto the site and use illiterate means to communicate that they want to become our future leaders.  On the other hand, I wanted to temper that frustration and try to ask a balanced question: "Are you _para 1_ or are you _para 2_ and have you bothered to do some research as to what may be expected of you?  There are just as many who come onto the site, and have used their initiative to do some research, or at the very least admit to their lack of knowledge, and ask questions pertaining to answers they have discovered on the site.  I look at these people as showing more potential and probably more likely to have people give them constructive answers.   Perhaps I need a vacation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As an aside......
> 
> Please don't mention IBTS.  We have no sooner finished and we have to start again.  Herding cats is very frustrating, especially when higher is looking for results, and at the same time tasking out all the cowboys.



Seen.  I see exactly where you are going with this now... 

Sorry about the tank ruts I interjected.


----------



## George Wallace

I edited my prior post, but again, I wasn't posting with the intent on pigeonholing them, but rather asking which one they thought themself's to be.   Asking them to look in the mirror and contemplate who they are.  

I know many are joining the CF, not only to be officers, but to join some Trades that have 'sexy' names without really realizing what they want, nor what that Trade may entail.  Some of these people may be heading down the wrong path in search of a Trade or rank, just because it sounds 'kool' and 'sexy'.  Perhaps they do not have what it takes to do a mundane job as an INT OP, or really have a wrong impression of what an officer is.  Perhaps that picture of the 'Dashing young Cavalry officer charging the enemy' in their minds does not match reality.  Sometimes 'Reality Bites'...... or is that "Sucks"?


The internet doesn't facilitate the familiarity of sitting around a table over beers and covering some of these topics in a more congenial manner.


----------



## Quag

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The internet doesn't facilitate the familiarity of sitting around a table over beers and covering some of these topics in a more congenial manner.



You can say that again!!!  I think now with the additional information added to this thread, it is shaping into a fine instrument of which potential officers can measure where they stand and what they truly wish to do.

Cheers!


----------



## Larkvall

I think this is an excellent thread and it deserves a sticky.

There are always people coming on this site with officer vs. NCM questions and this should help them.

There are also a bunch of whiners who they would make good officers just because they hold a degree and need to be set straight. This thread would be a good place to direct them.


----------



## Infanteer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So You Want to be an officer, eh!
> 
> So?  What makes you so special?



 :boring:

We're all special in our own ways.

Your points can be applied to those who aim at the NCO ranks as well....


----------



## George Wallace

True. (See Post #3.)  Anyone joining the CF, or, as a matter of fact, any other occupation.


----------



## Dilanger

Infanteer said:
			
		

> :boring:
> 
> We're all special in our own ways.
> 
> Your points can be applied to those who aim at the NCO ranks as well....





I agree, there are a million different paths to the same end, as long as they all go in the same direction it's all good. There are many different qualities that make a good Officer and it's these qualities that makes every officer unique.

*Sorry not just Officer, any leader in general....


----------



## the 48th regulator

Infanteer said:
			
		

> :boring:
> 
> We're all special in our own ways.
> 
> Your points can be applied to those who aim at the NCO ranks as well....




And, in this day and age, you believe there is room for a separation of leadership, within the Canadian public, based on not scholastic acceptance but how they apply for the military?

Is that not an insult to our military, on how we train our leaders?

A kid, at 17, can apply to be a leader, go to school and be "respected" with an archaic method of recognition, however a cpl. who took the same course has to bow down to him?

Is this modern Canada?

And, if anyone makes a critical remark about this, a reverse discrimination Psychology is applied......pffft.


dileas


tess


----------



## Dilanger

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> And, in this day and age, you believe there is room for a separation of leadership, within the Canadian public, based on not scholastic acceptance but how they apply for the military?
> 
> Is that not an insult to our military, on how we train our leaders?
> 
> A kid, at 17, can apply to be a leader, go to school and be "respected" with an archaic method of recognition, however a cpl. who took the same course has to bow down to him?
> 
> Is this modern Canada?
> 
> And, if anyone makes a critical remark about this, a reverse discrimination Psychology is applied......pffft.
> 
> 
> dileas
> 
> 
> tess



I think everyone just needs to respect each other more, For example the 2Lt fresh out of the RMC, though higher in rank then the sgt should still show a great amount of respect. sr nco's have years up on a lot of jr officer's and have alot they can teach though technically a lower rank, however it is how you said it works both ways, just because someone is a new officer doesn't mean they should be respected less. 
I'm of to the RMC in two days and if it's one thing that I've learned for talking with many people in the forces, it's that even thou when you graduate and receive commission you should still respect and listen to your senior NCO's for they have years of experience that you can use and learn from, not only that but with the amount of time some have being serving they deserve and have earned the respect. 
As to George's post about people trying to take the easy way. Thinking it was directed to me, It's not that I'm wanting to take the easy way out nor am i going too, I'm just someone new to the military world asking a question. I don't feel it was necessary to criticize someone who just wanted to know how something worked.


----------



## George Wallace

Dilanger said:
			
		

> I Thinking it was directed to me, .....



This topic is not directed at you.  It is not directed at anyone.  It is asking you who you are?  "Do you know, who you are?"  Are you what is discribed in para 1; or are you what is discribed in para 2?  I don't want an answer.  I want you to reflect on who you are.  Then you can look into the Principles of Leadership, which all CF members will have to follow when they are placed in leadership positions.  

I suppose, I could have started out the topic with large, bold, flashy, coloured letters, spelling out "SEX", but would that have caught your interest past the first word?  You would have been gone after "SEX" as soon as you found out the topic wasn't related at all to sex.


----------



## Gunner98

IMHO, you can hold supervisory or superior positions but suffer from under-developed leadership acumen. Without enthusiastic followers who respect, show loyalty and follow willingly, you are left with rank.  

Rank will: 
- allow you to be heard but not understood, 
- permit action through orders but not discipline, and 
- on its own can lead to adventures without the benefit of forethought into expectations, boundaries and the preferred outcome. 
(Ergo principles 1, 11 and 12 are very relevant to me.)

Likewise without a leadership role you can provide support to your team/sub-unt/unit through:
- enthusiasm
- commitment
- honesty and 
- the calm ability to say I don't understand at the appropriate time, rather than asking why continually?


----------



## the 48th regulator

Dilanger said:
			
		

> I think everyone just needs to respect each other more, For example the 2Lt fresh out of the RMC, though higher in rank then the sgt should still show a great amount of respect. sr nco's have years up on a lot of jr officer's and have alot they can teach though technically a lower rank, however it is how you said it works both ways, just because someone is a new officer doesn't mean they should be respected less.
> I'm of to the RMC in two days and if it's one thing that I've learned for talking with many people in the forces, it's that even thou when you graduate and receive commission you should still respect and listen to your senior NCO's for they have years of experience that you can use and learn from, not only that but with the amount of time some have being serving they deserve and have earned the respect.
> As to George's post about people trying to take the easy way. Thinking it was directed to me, It's not that I'm wanting to take the easy way out nor am i going too, I'm just someone new to the military world asking a question. I don't feel it was necessary to criticize someone who just wanted to know how something worked.




Dilanger,

This is a phenomenal post.

However, after you have been to RMC, for the full term, I want you to come here and validate this post.

I am not busting your balls, but I will say this.  You will not be taught that in RMC, trust me.

And if you go against the grain, you will be a pariah...

Trust me, 

dileas

tess


----------



## Gunner98

I agree 48th, it took me 8-10 years of commissioned service to earn the respect of Sgts and WOs and have the confidence to challenge their ways.  After that first decade, I came to truly understand that importance of relationships built on trust and respect rather than rank and experience, my career took on a whole new dimension.  It is kind of like building a good marriage - only in that case it took me the first 20 years to reap the same benefits (those being the same - trust and respect).


----------



## Dilanger

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Dilanger,
> 
> This is a phenomenal post.
> 
> However, after you have been to RMC, for the full term, I want you to come here and validate this post.
> 
> I am not busting your balls, but I will say this.  You will not be taught that in RMC, trust me.
> 
> And if you go against the grain, you will be a pariah...
> 
> Trust me,
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



I wont forget too


----------



## McG

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> And, in this day and age, you believe there is room for a separation of leadership, within the Canadian public, based on not scholastic acceptance but how they apply for the military?
> 
> Is that not an insult to our military, on how we train our leaders?
> 
> A kid, at 17, can apply to be a leader, go to school and be "respected" with an archaic method of recognition, however a cpl. who took the same course has to bow down to him?
> 
> Is this modern Canada?


You've lost me.  Are you suggesting (& simultaneously lamenting) that the difference between an officer & an NCM is the university degree hanging on the wall, or are you upset by the fact that the officer corps even exists?

Certainly, the difference between officer & NCM is not simply how an individual chose to apply.  Officers & NCMs are enrolled based on different entrance aptitude requirements, they are trained differently, they have different education requirements and follow different career paths.  All of this is because they have different jobs which require emphasis of different knowledge & skills.

And yes, this absolutely is modern Canada.  You will find very few (if any) large commercial organizations in which the executive came all the way up from the level of the wrench turners & nail drivers.

... If your complaint is that the Officer - NCO distinction creates a false class system that brings out petty dysfunctions by members of both groups, well you might be right there.  However, that is a problem with individuals & not either group as a whole.  Maybe we could identify some ways to ease macro officer-NCM tensions.

I suspect the first step is respect both ways & recognition that each group has a different role to play.


----------



## Roy Harding

I've been studiously and deliberately staying out of this thread, up 'till now.

But I can't resist.

Here's an OLD quote from some guy named Roy Harding - from 2005:



			
				Roy Harding said:
			
		

> ... but don't make the mistake of thinking that Jr Ranks, Sr NCO/WOs, and Officers are different "levels" on the same continuum.  That may hold true for Jr Ranks and Sr NCO/WOs - to a certain extent - but an Officer is NOT simply a tradesmen with a university degree - their function is different...



You can read the whole thread here (it's not that interesting - has to do with an individual who couldn't decide whether to be a Log Officer or an RMS Clk):  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32385/post-237237.html#msg237237

This is a tired, hackneyed, emotional, and rarely logical argument.

You fella's that want to be Officers - go for it.  Understand that being an Officer doesn't make you "better" than your NCOs, indeed you will _probably_ be less technically proficient than your NCOs at whatever function you may choose to pursue.

Being an Officer means that if you do well in your career - you will exercise "executive" authority.  Which basically means - when your plan fails - YOU wear it.  And by "wearing" it, I mean legally, morally, and physically.

For the record - and for those who do not yet know how to check an individual's profile - I retired a Warrant Officer, _not_ a Commissioned Officer - which is what is being discussed here.


----------



## RubberTree

Back in IAP/BOTP we were told (and retold, and retold) that upon commissioning it would be in our best interests to listen to, seek advice from, pay attention to and get to know the NCMs working under us. For the simple reason that as a young 2Lt with 4 years in...we don't really know how things work. Sgts are a wealth of knowledge...use them or ignore them at your own peril we were told. Maybe I just had good course staff but I thought that this point was being driven home to most OCDTs now.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes you are partially correct.  I am getting frustrated, pissed off, etc. when I see so many lazy, self-centered, egos with humongous senses of entitlement come onto the site and use illiterate means to communicate that they want to become our future leaders.  On the other hand, I wanted to temper that frustration and try to ask a balanced question: "Are you _para 1_ or are you _para 2_ and have you bothered to do some research as to what may be expected of you?  There are just as many who come onto the site, and have used their initiative to do some research, or at the very least admit to their lack of knowledge, and ask questions pertaining to answers they have discovered on the site.  I look at these people as showing more potential and probably more likely to have people give them constructive answers.   Perhaps I need a vacation.



To be fair...this isn't your average site and these aren't your average forums. Sure, people are _supposed_ to read the rules before they post their first response but I dare say that that doesn't always happen. Today's tech savy kids (35 and under....myself included) have clicked "I Agree" to so many online legal documents that internet rules don't mean much if anything except being one step closer to where you wanted to be 10 clicks ago. They (we) have been to numerous different sites and forums, have sought advice on everything from acne to changing a tie rod end to how to hack a cell phone. 
This site...where they (we) are chastised for repeating an already answered question is an anomaly, a total black sheep. Most forums don't instruct users to search first and certainly don't include hostile "get it together...you want a job...learn to search" responses. 
I'm not saying that new users shouldn't search (God knows I've used the line on other forums) I'm simply saying that newbies aren't used to having to search and aren't used to getting online attitude. I cringe when I think of how many potentially excellent members have been turned off of the military by the attitude they have received here (although we aren't associated with the DND).
In the end...my point is this...once in the military, this type of behaviour (repeating questions, using shorthand or textalk) isn't tolerated, which is a good thing (I think). I think its very bold if not a little unreasonable to expect the same of non CF members who are unfamiliar with how things work in "our" real world but are intimately familiar with usual online etiquette and use. Site rules can be posted until you are blue in the face but in this day and age you will never get rid of the repeated questions or the shorthand completely, it is simply too prevalent online. So, do we learn to accept it? Do we continue to chastise posters in the hope that we can teach them a thing or two about the military before they even apply or is there another answer?
I think a vacation is in order.


----------



## Blackadder1916

George Wallace said:
			
		

> . . .  I am getting frustrated, pissed off, etc. when I see so many lazy, self-centered, egos with humongous senses of entitlement come onto the site and use illiterate means to communicate that they want to become our future leaders.



Thank you, thank you, thank you!  Great minds think alike . . . (_I'll leave the second part of that saying to whomever wishes to apply it to me._)



> ...this isn't your average site and these aren't your average forums.
> 
> . . . I cringe when I think of how many potentially excellent members have been turned off of the military by the attitude . . .



But then, the CF shouldn't really be looking for "average" people, especially to be its leaders.  If someone is turned off a career in the CF by the (comparatively mild) upbraiding to follow the rules/customs of this site, then I would question how serious they were or how suitable.

-------------------------------------------------------------

However, a discussion of "officership" could be useful for those contemplating a commission (or what seems more likely from a number of recent threads - contemplating the subsidized education, certain specific exciting jobs or cool sounding titles that come along with it).  

While the principles and practices of leadership can be applied to those both commissioned and non-commissioned, there is a specific difference that officers "should" have at the onset - a conscious desire to lead.  Not all do, I've known far too many who didn't; they were really just highly credentialed technician-managers (and sometimes not very competent managers).  Of course, these (IMHO) often based their worth on their "superior" knowledge and credentials and expected others to accept their authority on the same basis.

While NCOs and WOs are (or should be) skilled leaders, they've come to their positions in a more gradual fashion. Though they may have a "conscious desire to lead", it would not be requirement at the lowest rank levels. Their leadership aptitude and skills would have been evaluated (formally and informally) as their careers progressed - and "no-duff", not just (like potential officers) in the artificial environment of BOTC/BMOQ/RMC/Phase trg (or whatever they're called these days).


----------



## Gunner98

RubberTree said:
			
		

> So, do we learn to accept it? Do we continue to chastise posters in the hope that we can teach them a thing or two about the military before they even apply or is there another answer?



I would suggest that people who change their mind about joining the military based on a poor impression from time spent on this site are either: not that committed in the first place or received the necessary wake up call that the military is inflexible to individual quirks and ignorance toward rules and guidelines.  Therefore as stated in the Guidelines: "First and foremost, we're all representatives of the CF. We may not want to be, but ultimately, we don't have the luxury of choice. The truth is when you post a message even on an unofficial site like this, your comments reflect upon the CF."

The guidelines also state (http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.st /topic,24937.0.html): You will not use excessive webspeak, or other shorthand styles of typing. Please use English or French to the best of your ability; this makes it easier for those who are not posting in their native language.

In the same manner, experienced users will minimize the use acronyms and abbreviations without showing them out in full on first use.

Ignorance of the guidelines of the site or in the military is no excuse and you will be judged accordingly.  I see no need for change. As The RCR on this site and in real life kindly remind us of their slogan regularly, "Never pass a fault."


----------



## PMedMoe

RubberTree said:
			
		

> I cringe when I think of how many potentially excellent members have been turned off of the military by the attitude they have received here



I have to agree with Frostnipped Elf.  How "excellent" do these people have the potential to be if they get so quickly turned off the military _solely_ from a response on this website?


----------



## The Bread Guy

While there's merit in the aim of "what should a leader be able to do?" thrust of the thread....


			
				Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> Likewise without a leadership role you can provide support to your team/sub-unt/unit through:
> - enthusiasm
> - commitment
> - honesty and
> - the calm ability to say I don't understand at the appropriate time, rather than asking why continually?


.... thanks also for this mention of the other side of the coin - not everybody necessarily _wants_ to be (or _needs_ to be) the boss.


----------



## Greymatters

RubberTree said:
			
		

> To be fair...this isn't your average site and these aren't your average forums. Sure, people are _supposed_ to read the rules before they post their first response but I dare say that that doesn't always happen. Today's tech savy kids (35 and under....myself included) have clicked "I Agree" to so many online legal documents that internet rules don't mean much if anything except being one step closer to where you wanted to be 10 clicks ago. They (we) have been to numerous different sites and forums, have sought advice on everything from acne to changing a tie rod end to how to hack a cell phone.
> This site...where they (we) are chastised for repeating an already answered question is an anomaly, a total black sheep. Most forums don't instruct users to search first and certainly don't include hostile "get it together...you want a job...learn to search" responses.



This site should act a key source of information for visitors in two ways:

1) What you read and how content is controlled tells any visitor a lot about past and current CF members and how they think.  if you want to join the CF, regardless of trade or desired rank, get used to the idea of dealing with this mindset on a daily basis.

2) This site is highly critical of visitors (or anyone really) who cant obey rules, cant abide by a moral code, act wishy-washy, or think they can use excuses to get out of trouble.  If they cant handle it here without getting offended, how will they be able to do it for real once they join?    

And for a 'PS' kinda third: "this isn't your average site and these aren't your average forums"; this should be a clue that the CF isnt an average job!


----------



## Michael OLeary

Greymatters said:
			
		

> This site should act a key source of information for visitors in two ways:
> 
> 1) What you read and how content is controlled tells any visitor a lot about past and current CF members and how they think.  if you want to join the CF, regardless of trade or desired rank, get used to the idea of dealing with this mindset on a daily basis.
> 
> 2) This site is highly critical of visitors (or anyone really) who cant obey rules, cant abide by a moral code, act wishy-washy, or think they can use excuses to get out of trouble.  If they cant handle it here without getting offended, how will they be able to do it for real once they join?
> 
> And for a 'PS' kinda third: "this isn't your average site and these aren't your average forums"; this should be a clue that the CF isnt an average job!



And how long and how much guidance should be allow before we condemn someone to abuse and say "good riddance" when they leave?  If we want to compare this to a CF environment, when was the last time someone was ridiculed and driven out of the CF on their first day because they asked a "dumb question"?


----------



## Kat Stevens

Not driven out, but ridden like a rented mule for a few hours.


----------



## Greymatters

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And how long and how much guidance should be allow before we condemn someone to abuse and say "good riddance" when they leave?  If we want to compare this to a CF environment, when was the last time someone was ridiculed and driven out of the CF on their first day because they asked a "dumb question"?



Hmmm... perhaps not a such a good example when put that way...


----------



## mariomike

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Not driven out, but ridden like a rented mule for a few hours.



That's a good way of putting it. With "Progressive Discipline":
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/labour/publications/employment_standards/discipline.shtml


----------



## Michael OLeary

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Hmmm... perhaps not a such a good example when put that way...



Or would any of them be dogpiled and chased out of the Recruiting Centre because they didn't come from a military family and no-one told them they shouldn't ask about sniper training, pay or when they will get promoted next before establishing their reasons for joining as pure enough for a Templar knighthood?

If any new member's knowledge of the CF, the infantry or any other trade has come from the History and Discovery channels - because where else is there mainstream info on the military - who are we to fault them for misunderstanding something that has been virtually invisible to them in Canadian society?

Leadership also implies offering understanding, guidance and teaching, just like the CF does in the CF in individual training.  If we don't offer that here to every new member, we are not offering an introduction to life in the CF, no matter what any of us want to think we are achieving.


----------



## Gunner98

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And how long and how much guidance should be allow before we condemn someone to abuse and say "good riddance" when they leave?  If we want to compare this to a CF environment, when was the last time someone was ridiculed and driven out of the CF on their first day because they asked a "dumb question"?



In my case the first time would be early July 1983 in a CFB Cornwallis parking lot just before sunrise.  We all know there are no dumb questions, but only a fool logs on to an unofficial army/military web site with thousands of members who have made hundreds of thousands of posts and immediately thinks they have a new, important, unique question that will be best asked using all small letters, a little profanity and a wise-cracking tone.  Try that approach at the local Legion/ANAF/Kinsmen/Rotary/YMCA/Civitan/Lion's/Elk's/Shriner's/your choice club and see what kind of response you get.  It would probably result in the outside door handle hitting you in the behind before you knew what happened.

As for the last time a new arrival was ridiculed for an important, unique, untimely question...since it is Friday afternoon, I would have to say last Monday in a Saint Jean sur Richelieu parking lot just before sunrise.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> In my case the first time would be early July 1983 in a CFB Cornwallis parking lot just before sunrise.  We all know there are no dumb questions, but only a fool logs on to an unofficial army/military web site with thousands of members who have made hundreds of thousands of posts and immediately thinks they have a new, important, unique question that will be best asked using all small letters, a little profanity and a wise-cracking tone.  Try that approach at the local Legion/ANAF/Kinsmen/Rotary/YMCA/Civitan/Lion's/Elk's/Shriner's/your choice club and see what kind of response you get.  It would probably result in the outside door handle hitting you in the behind before you knew what happened.
> 
> As for the last time a new arrival was ridiculed for an important, unique, untimely question...since it is Friday afternoon, I would have to say last Monday in a Saint Jean sur Richelieu parking lot just before sunrise.



How easily we forget that adage that "there are no dumb questions".

New members of the CF or any forum don't necessarily have the context to know when something, once asked, will invite ridicule.  What test do you propose to make sure people have searched before asking?  What method will you use to ensure they understand the right vocabulary so they know what to search for?  How will you coach them in using the search page so that they can realistically narrow the responses to an answer, and not just the last 50 times the question was asked and slammed without proving any useful information?

The bottom line is that the forum has developed a nasty edge that doesn't want to give some new posters even a first chance, let a lone a second.

And can I take it from your response that those members were both "ridiculed and driven out of the CF on their first day", because that was the point being made.


----------



## Gunner98

I read what was written and stand by my statements -  in some cases recruits including officer cadets were/are ridiculed on the first day and not long after some will leave or have left because, of among other things, their hurt feelings.  I did not forget the adage in fact I included it in second sentence of my post.

I do agree that the nasty edge is spreading and perhaps more of the rebukes could be done by PM.  I think it might be appropriate to create a "newbie wading pool without sharks" with perhaps a thread topic title - * Please post your first posts/questions here*.  The first post in the thread could state -  Be forewarned there are grouchy, sharks in all other regions of the park - swim beyond the ropes with caution.


----------



## Engineer79

Michael O'Leary, you have officially become my idol on these forums. Always a voice of reason and justice!


----------



## Engineer79

One thing I've noticed on this forum is how much pride CF members have (which is usually a good thing). Once you offend anyone (knowingly or unknowing) on this forum, you will never earn back their respect back (clearly noticeable through my negative MP points), even after your apologize through a PM.

As for new members coming here and asking question, I agree that there are a few posts that are very redundant. However, there are a few posts that can be contradicting – which leads to more searching and possibly more contradictions. It is essentially a good thing that once in a while there are redundant question to clear up any such confusion and to get an updated answer.

As for this thread, Wallace did many people a great favor by bringing out the question MANY of the experienced CF members on here would like to ask every new member that comes on here and asks “I want to be an officer…blah blah…”. Are you fit to lead? This thread will help new members (myself included) understand the meaning of being an officer (or anyone in a leadership position).

My grandpa always used to say “Education makes the wise wiser and the fool more foolish.” – was a quote by someone who I can’t recall. 

I don’t believe there are any “Easy” routes through life, there are always consequences and challenges that will result because of your choices. If a member wishes to lead and made a choice to go through DEO/ROTP, I wouldn’t necessarily call that the “easy way” out.


----------



## mariomike

Engineer79 said:
			
		

> My grandpa always used to say “Education makes the wise wiser and the fool more foolish.” – was a quote by someone who I can’t recall.



Your grandfather sounds like a wise man. That comes with experience. Unfortunately, so does age.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Engineer79 said:
			
		

> As for this thread, Wallace did many people a great favor by bringing out the question MANY of the experienced CF members on here would like to ask every new member that comes on here and asks “I want to be an officer…blah blah…”. Are you fit to lead? This thread will help new members (myself included) understand the meaning of being an officer (or anyone in a leadership position).



The problem is that most have neither the knowledge or context, at that point, to properly understand the question.  No more than the prospective infantry soldier asking about joining to be a sniper understands how out of place his question is.  And yet, they get damned for not understanding what they don't know, and what most of us did not know at that point in our initial inquiries either.  

Very few can say that the basic attraction of joining the CF that first brought them in the door of the Recruiting Centre is the same as their motivation for serving 10 or 20 or 25 years later.  Most who found that their initial desires weren't met, and who who couldn't evolve with changing career expectations slowly disappeared - but too many who remain forget about them and form their expectations on who they want around them (i.e., from new members) based on those around them now (i.e., those with that similar experience).

No-one is born an officer or NCO, we all grow and learn and develop to become what we are.  And we all started out as that recruit who had to be shown how to lace our boots to meet the CF requirement, iron our shirts and got told to get a haircut every once in a while.  If we aren't ready to accept that everyone else needs guidance to find and get on that learning curve too, we are doing a disservice to those who brought us up through the system.


----------



## tabernac

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> However, after you have been to RMC, for the full term, I want you to come here and validate this post.
> 
> I am not busting your balls, but I will say this.  You will not be taught that in RMC, trust me.
> 
> And if you go against the grain, you will be a pariah...



Well, I'll start now by saying that while I've only been at the Charm School College for a year, I joined the CF with the mindset that Sr NCOs and WOs are just as important as officers in that jigsaw puzzle we call leadership. 

And I can only hope that when I graduate, that concept is still fresh in my mind.

I think one of the reasons I see leadership slightly differently from other people at RMC is that I had years of abbreviated leadership formation before joining the CF. Through years in the scouting and cadet communities, along with having a part time job with a defined CoC that almost paralleled the military, I like to believe I developed a decent notion of what leadership is. This experience of mine is in contrast with my classmates who joined straight off of Civvie street, who had never heard of the "Principles of Leadership" before.

One person in particular had a significant impact on my view of "leadership." I met him long before I knew I would be in the Navy, and before I knew of his career in the military. He was a former Cdr, and NAVRES CO. One thing he ALWAYS impressed upon me was the importance of the guys under one's command, especially the Sr NCM - Jr Officer (Div PO - Div O) relationship.

For the Navy MOC/MOSID weekend, RMC had several Sr Officers and CPOs come up from Ottawa and Halifax. I had the chance to speak to, IIRC, the CMS Command Chief. His take on the Sr NCM - Jr Officer relationship mirrored what my mentor, the NAVRES CO, had said to me. That is to say, they were reading from the same playbook.

It's all in the attitude of the OCdts at RMC to DESIRE and STRIVE to be better officers, to learn as much as they can about leading, while they can. If you go to the College with your nose held high, chances are your troops, once\if you get any, won't be too receptive to you.

Your mileage may vary.

Edit for clarity.


----------



## X-mo-1979

I keep seeing the same thing around here.A 17-19 year old who have probably never seen a Canadian soldier asking the same questions about recruiting etc.

I have ZERO background in computer related things but here is a solution (maybe) to try and curb the same questions asked by members joining.

Upon signing up a part of the joining is filling out a brief survey on what the are interested in knowing.I.E Joining as officer and NCM, how long will it take before basic etc.

Put new members on a 2 week no post probation period,as well if it can be set up automatically have the questions in the survey send all the links pertaining to related questions they want to know.2 weeks without posting would allow the member time to take a good look at all the related info,then after 2 weeks of reading they have a better understanding how the board works.As well have a better idea on their main questions.

Let's face it most 18 year olds are not going to look through FAQ's.Before someone dogpiles me and says that doesnt make a good officer etc...look around...it isnt happening.They are going to try and ask real people,as it is dealing with their careers.Maybe it will also direct people more towards their recruiters if they are armed with basic information that they can find here during their read only period...if there is anything left to be answered.

I dunno if it will work,just a suggestion.


----------



## Marshall

Nice post George  Too bad it was not around last year. 

I'm going to try and make myself in the first column of Officers if I make it through


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dilanger said:
			
		

> I think everyone just needs to respect each other more, For example the 2Lt fresh out of the RMC, though higher in rank then the sgt should still show a great amount of respect. sr nco's have years up on a lot of jr officer's and have alot they can teach though technically a lower rank, however it is how you said it works both ways, just because someone is a new officer doesn't mean they should be respected less.
> I'm of to the RMC in two days and if it's one thing that I've learned for talking with many people in the forces, it's that even thou when you graduate and receive commission you should still respect and listen to your senior NCO's for they have years of experience that you can use and learn from, not only that but with the amount of time some have being serving they deserve and have earned the respect.
> As to George's post about people trying to take the easy way. Thinking it was directed to me, It's not that I'm wanting to take the easy way out nor am i going too, I'm just someone new to the military world asking a question. I don't feel it was necessary to criticize someone who just wanted to know how something worked.



I know when you say Snr NCOs  you also mean mbrs of the Warrant Officer\Petty Officer ranks (WO, MWO, CWO Army/Air Force and PO1, CP02 and CP01 for Navy) but technically, WO/POs are not Snr NCOs.  Only Sgts and Petty Officer 2nd Class are Snr NCOs.  

The Officer/NCO relationship is an important one.  Huge.  Personally, when I was army, I always liked new Jr Officer who said things like "ok here is what we are going to do" vice "what you guys are going to do is...".  Big difference to me.  If you are the type of leader that people follow only because of the rank structure, you aren't a true leader IMO.  We've all seen an examples of those.  True leaders are followed because of the respect they earn as a leader, whatever the rank they may be.  Up, down and across their CoC.  As a Jnr NCO years ago, I was taught "the 3 M's" by a former RSM of mine.  The MISSION, the MEN, then MYSELF.  I've served under people who had that concept all messed up and backasswards.

If you notice, all the way thru our Command structure, there is always a NCO/WO paired off with Officer.  CDS/CF CWO.  CO/RSM.  Tp Leader/Tp WO.  I suspect, and hope, that will never change.


----------



## Pointer

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If you notice, all the way thru our Command structure, there is always a NCO/WO paired off with Officer.  CDS/CF CWO.  CO/RSM.  Tp Leader/Tp WO.  I suspect, and hope, that will never change.



The "good idea people" are dangerous if they're not moderated by the "common sense people". 



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> And, in this day and age, you believe there is room for a separation of leadership, within the Canadian public, based on not scholastic acceptance but how they apply for the military?
> 
> Is that not an insult to our military, on how we train our leaders?
> 
> A kid, at 17, can apply to be a leader, go to school and be "respected" with an archaic method of recognition, however a cpl. who took the same course has to bow down to him?
> 
> Is this modern Canada?
> 
> And, if anyone makes a critical remark about this, a reverse discrimination Psychology is applied......pffft.
> 
> 
> dileas
> 
> 
> tess



Maybe I'm a little slow - I'm not sure exactly what you're taking issue with: the officer corps in general, how officers are selected, the educational requirement, or all three. 

As for the latter 2 issues, I'm not sure who said it first, but my OC explained to me once that the only reason we have young junior officers (particularly in command roles such as pl comding) is so that we can have generals later (or Cols/LCols, what have you).  It's only a grooming stage to provide a basic level of experience and establish if you're a complete *** when it comes to commanding. Snr NCOs are more than capable, and usually better-equipped, to lead a sub-sub-unit at the tactical level (witness: the Austrian military, where infantry platoons are led by NCOs [I'm sure there are other militaries, but that's the only one I'm sure of]). If you made everyone go from Pte - Gen, your senior officers would be broken, bitter geezers (an inaccurate description of many senior officers, but not most).  It's just not practical to make everyone go through the ranks to become an officer. 

That being said, I think the education component is necessary to be an officer due to their role as administrators/analysts/strategists /quasi-politicians/theorists etc.  It doesn't make them any "better" - consider university to be an officer's equivalent of an NCO's SA course.  Well... it's probably not quite as useful as that but... meh.  Making officers (most anyway) have degrees just ensures that your officer corps is capable of a certain basic standard of administrative/academic/linguistic ability.  I don't see an issue with that.


----------



## ajp

The example I saw in my past was while teaching on a course for Officers and Sgts.  The Lts had to show the POTENTIAL to Lead and the Sgt's had to show the skills.  It truly is a grooming for young officers to develop when they are placed in positions where there are WO's in place to ensure they see what is there. I know I learned a lot of interesting lessons from Sgts and WOs along the way.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Pointer said:
			
		

> The "good idea people" are dangerous if they're not moderated by the "common sense people".
> 
> Maybe I'm a little slow - I'm not sure exactly what you're taking issue with: the officer corps in general, how officers are selected, the educational requirement, or all three.
> 
> As for the latter 2 issues, I'm not sure who said it first, but my OC explained to me once that the only reason we have young junior officers (particularly in command roles such as pl comding) is so that we can have generals later (or Cols/LCols, what have you).  It's only a grooming stage to provide a basic level of experience and establish if you're a complete *** when it comes to commanding. Snr NCOs are more than capable, and usually better-equipped, to lead a sub-sub-unit at the tactical level (witness: the Austrian military, where infantry platoons are led by NCOs [I'm sure there are other militaries, but that's the only one I'm sure of]). If you made everyone go from Pte - Gen, your senior officers would be broken, bitter geezers (an inaccurate description of many senior officers, but not most).  It's just not practical to make everyone go through the ranks to become an officer.
> 
> That being said, I think the education component is necessary to be an officer due to their role as administrators/analysts/strategists /quasi-politicians/theorists etc.  It doesn't make them any "better" - consider university to be an officer's equivalent of an NCO's SA course.  Well... it's probably not quite as useful as that but... meh.  Making officers (most anyway) have degrees just ensures that your officer corps is capable of a certain basic standard of administrative/academic/linguistic ability.  I don't see an issue with that.



Is it fair to say, you glossed over my post, and did not understand what I said?

How does your post answer my question, with the comparison of the Young officer and Cpl.

dileas

tess


----------



## Park

To the original post.  I can't say I totally fit paragraph 1, I would like to think I have some of those qualities, and that I aspire to the rest.  I can honestly say paragraph b doesn't apply to me: My choice to enter via the DEO stream was part my local CFRC advice in conjunction with my own personal goals.  

On the comment on young tech-savvy kids who click their way through agreements and such, I can as one of those "kids" empathize.  I would say after a couple stern warnings, someone not adhering to the rules should not be spared community reproach.  Different playground, different rules, eh?

48th: Even though I am applying as an officer, I can see your consternation. A degree is one of a few filtering criteria for choosing a job, just like in the corporate world.  Just like in the corporate world you can start at the bottom and work your way up the ranks, or get a degree (not 
even necessarily related to the job) and fast-track to an extent.

It's part of a well-meaning, but inherently flawed system that rewards academic achievement, while discounting those with a wealth of experience but no formal education.  So, under that system, in 3 to 4 years the 17 year old will probably have a head-up on the Cpl in becoming an Officer (I assume that 17yr old would still need to exhibit qualities required in an Officer).  

I personally don't think that is totally fair either, but it is the system our society largely works with, not just the CF. Besides, Officer duty is, what?, 65% garrison, 35% field? Perhaps the degree is also sought due the the extra amount of administrative tasks given to officers.  Officers need to be skilled paper-pushers too 

Which leaves me with a couple questions for you 48th.  This is NOT a rhetorical question, but how many NCMs join with the primary goal of becoming an Officer one day?  and if Pointer glossed over your issue, what exactly was your issue? To me it seems centered around something like credentials vs. experience, the definition of meritocracy, our overdependence on traditional forms of education....but i'm not entirely sure.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Pointer said:
			
		

> *If you made everyone go from Pte - Gen, your senior officers would be broken, bitter geezers (an inaccurate description of many senior officers, but not most).*[/color]


That's a mighty broad brush you're painting with, bud.
1)  I've known (and worked for) several senior officers (Regular and Reserve) who did just that, and they'd be some p*ssed to hear anyone consider them "broken, bitter geezers). 
2)  I'll leave your assessment of "many senior officers" in general to other senior officers to critique.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> And, in this day and age, you believe there is room for a separation of leadership, within the Canadian public, based on not scholastic acceptance but how they apply for the military?
> 
> Is that not an insult to our military, on how we train our leaders?
> 
> A kid, at 17, can apply to be a leader, go to school and be "respected" with an archaic method of recognition, however a cpl. who took the same course has to bow down to him?


Interesting point made, 48th.  Do officers, in general, do "bigger picture" things than NCMs?  Yes.  Do they NEED university to prepare them for this?  Not necessarily.  

Park:  I don't know if you're exactly correct here in why the CF uses university education as a prerequisite for officer-ness:


			
				Park said:
			
		

> *A degree is one of a few filtering criteria for choosing a job, just like in the corporate world. * Just like in the corporate world you can start at the bottom and work your way up the ranks, or get a degree (not even necessarily related to the job) and fast-track to an extent.


you're bang on about this being the case in the private sector.


----------



## Park

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Park:  I don't know if you're exactly correct here in why the CF uses university education as a prerequisite for officer-ness:you're bang on about this being the case in the private sector.



You are quite possibly true.  I am not certain as to the why, but I coudln't discern a clear different reason as to why the would CF prefer university educated applicants as opposed to any other employer.  If I had to guess (the paper-pushing was just in jest) I'd say its because there is a certain favourable preconception about the kind of traits a degree holder has, warranted or not.


----------



## gcclarke

It also very much so depends upon the trade. Any of the trades that have a specific degree (or pick one from a range of degrees), is so for a reason. A Pharmacy Officer needs the proper credentials because otherwise it would be illegal for him to dispense prescription medication. Same idea follows for nurses, doctors, lawyers.

I'm an engineer. The degree that is "preferred" for my trade is Electrical Engineering, but I have a Mechanical Engineering degree. Fortunately, Mech Eng is on the list of acceptable degrees, along with a few non engineering degrees, like computer science, and physics. What is (mostly) common between these degrees, is that successfully graduating with one of them should be proof enough that you have an adequate grasp of Math and Physics to be able to not fail your trades training, or at least not fail due to the fact that you're bad at Math and Physics.

As for the issue of real-world experience versus academics, that would be why there are a few other entry plans, such as CFR and CEOTP.


----------



## the 48th regulator

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> And, in this day and age, you believe there is room for a separation of leadership, within the Canadian public, based on not scholastic acceptance but how they apply for the military?
> 
> Is that not an insult to our military, on how we train our leaders?
> 
> A kid, at 17, can apply to be a leader, go to school and be "respected" with an archaic method of recognition, however a cpl. who took the same University course has to bow down to him?
> 
> Is this modern Canada?
> 
> And, if anyone makes a critical remark about this, a reverse discrimination Psychology is applied......pffft.
> 
> 
> dileas
> 
> 
> tess



Okay,

I have added a word, which may have caused some confusion without it.....




			
				Park said:
			
		

> To the original post.  I can't say I totally fit paragraph 1, I would like to think I have some of those qualities, and that I aspire to the rest.  I can honestly say paragraph b doesn't apply to me: My choice to enter via the DEO stream was part my local CFRC advice in conjunction with my own personal goals.
> 
> On the comment on young tech-savvy kids who click their way through agreements and such, I can as one of those "kids" empathize.  I would say after a couple stern warnings, someone not adhering to the rules should not be spared community reproach.  Different playground, different rules, eh?
> 
> 48th: Even though I am applying as an officer, I can see your consternation. A degree is one of a few filtering criteria for choosing a job, just like in the corporate world.  Just like in the corporate world you can start at the bottom and work your way up the ranks, or get a degree (not
> even necessarily related to the job) and fast-track to an extent.
> 
> It's part of a well-meaning, but inherently flawed system that rewards academic achievement, while discounting those with a wealth of experience but no formal education.  So, under that system, in 3 to 4 years the 17 year old will probably have a head-up on the Cpl in becoming an Officer (I assume that 17yr old would still need to exhibit qualities required in an Officer).
> 
> I personally don't think that is totally fair either, but it is the system our society largely works with, not just the CF. Besides, Officer duty is, what?, 65% garrison, 35% field? Perhaps the degree is also sought due the the extra amount of administrative tasks given to officers.  Officers need to be skilled paper-pushers too





			
				Park said:
			
		

> Which leaves me with a couple questions for you 48th.



Neat



			
				Park said:
			
		

> This is NOT a rhetorical question, but how many NCMs join with the primary goal of becoming an Officer one day?



Not being facetious, you are correct, as the question has no persuasive effect on me….  So why don't you look up the stats, and come back and let us know.  Put some of your book learning to work, and help us here.  Otherwise, I must leave your question as a conundrum.



			
				Park said:
			
		

> and if Pointer glossed over your issue, what exactly was your issue?



Lemme guess, you did too.  I corrected my error; by adding a word in yellow (See above) does this help?



			
				Park said:
			
		

> To me it seems centred around something like credentials vs. experience, the definition of meritocracy, our overdependence on traditional forms of education....but i'm not entirely sure.



No no.  It is based on a lost concept of buying your commission.  Only the rich could afford schooling (Seems like that is the case today....but I digress) so, those that could prove they were educated, became leaders.  Now, you would get the occasional battlefield commission, without the education....

So tell me, why do we cling on to archaic values of the commission?  A Cpl can sit in the seat next to a young officer Cadet, at say University of Toronto, taking all of the same courses.  However, because the two applied in different manners they are separate?


----------



## Antoine

Life experiences, what you make of it and common senses that should grow from it worth gold.

I try as much as I can to listen, take in account and acknowledge advices, suggestions and information, from someone that is "below" me or "above" according to administration/social rules. However, if the decision is mine, I'll take the responsibility, as any adult should. I plan to keep it that way if I get in the trade and success at it, which I don't take for granted.

I have decided on the trade based on the information I've found from the CF web site, the information given to me at the CFRC, during the interview and in the present forum.

However, I should have (but didn't) read "The Principles of Leadership". Thus, Thanks Mr Wallace for posting it (no sarcasm intended here), this forum is great, keep it that way!

BTW, many people that I have worked for and who are supposed to be part of the "elite' in the civil world should have a better look at "the principle of leadership".

Cheers


----------



## Park

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I corrected my error; by adding a word in yellow (See above) does this help?


That makes it crystal clear now.  If that is the case, then I totally agree with you. Not only would the corporal have an equivalent education, but also have a significant amount of practical experience ahead of the sole student.  



> No no.  It is based on a lost concept of buying your commission.  Only the rich could afford schooling (Seems like that is the case today....but I digress) so, those that could prove they were educated, became leaders.  Now, you would get the occasional battlefield commission, without the education....



I would say that most of the population can afford (by afford I mean go into debt) to be educated in Canada today. I consider myself positive proof....but I digress   



> It also very much so depends upon the trade. Any of the trades that have a specific degree (or pick one from a range of degrees), is so for a reason.


gcclarke: that totally slipped my mind.  For some reason, I was only thinking of infantry for some reason...


----------



## Park

> why don't you look up the stats, and come back and let us know.  Put some of your book learning to work, and help us here.



Darm you 48th!!! You stuck this in my head, and I couldn't get it out, so I had to find somewhat of an answer to this.  

This is *-at best- a rough estimate.*

The Long-Range Planning Model, provides an estimated officer intake mix percentage and total intake. The LRPM uses assumptions based on long-term historical trends in enlistment, attrition, promotion, etc. 
It assumes that under a 60,000 strong force, 150 people join the Officer Corps. Scaling up to a 90,000 its 225.
Excluding DEO, ROTP, and OCTP streams 23% of that intake come from UTPNCM, and CFR streams, or 52 out of 225.  
http://pubs.drdc.gc.ca/PDFS/zbb72/p510728.pdf

So, The CF is ~90,000 strong (RegF and ResF), with 20.1% being officers (got it off statcan somewhere...can't find the link) about 4145 were NCM at one point.

The only problem with this (other than accuracy) is that there is no way to tell how many NCMs _want_ to become Officers, just how many NCMs end up becoming officers.


----------



## Greymatters

Thansk for the post, didnt know there were actually numbers compiled on it...


----------



## daftandbarmy

People like to use the phrase 'Mission First, People Always' etc to characterize officer level leadership. 

Unfortuantely, it's the reality is a little more fuzzy than that. I kind of like this discussion of a 'Principled Approach to Officership,' which is potentially achieveable by anyone, even a 'callow youth' of 18 years of age:

A Principled Approach to Officership

Thus we offer the following set of principles from which
all officers, and particularly those at pre-commissioning
levels, should draw both their vision and their motivation :

1. The officer’s duty is to serve society as a whole, to
provide that which they cannot provide for
themselves—security. Thus a moral obligation exists
between the officer and the society he or she serves, a moral
obligation embodied in the officer’s “commission.”

Officers act as agents of society, both individually
accountable to them and, as well, serving to strengthen the
claim of the service on the affections of the American people.

2. Professional officers always do their duty,
subordinating their personal interests to the
requirements of the professional function. They serve with
unlimited liability, including life itself. When assigned a
mission or task and particularly in combat, its successful
execution is first priority, above all else, with officers
accepting full responsibility for their actions and
orders in accomplishing it.

3. Officers, based on their military expertise,
determine the standards of the profession, e.g., for
tactical competence, for equipment specifications, for
standards of conduct for all soldiers. Within a
professional self-policing role, officers set/change the
profession’s standards, personally adhere to the standards,
make the standards known to all soldiers, and enforce the
standards.

4. The officer’s motivations are noble and
intrinsic, a love for his or her craft—the technical
and human aspects of providing the nation’s
security—and the sense of moral obligation to use
this craft for the benefit of society. These motivations
lead to the officer’s attainment and maintenance of the
highest possible level of professional skill and
knowledge.

5. Called to their profession and motivated by their
pursuit of its expertise, officers are committed to a
career of continuous study and learning.

6. Because of both the moral obligation accepted and the
mortal means employed to carry out his or her duty, the
officer emphasizes the importance of the group over
that of the individual. Success in war requires the
subordination of the will of the individual to the task of the
group—the military ethic is cooperative and cohesive in
spirit, meritocratic, and fundamentally anti-individualistic
and anti-careerist.

7. Officers strictly observe the principle that the military
is subject to civilian authority and do not involve themselves
or their subordinates in domestic politics or policy beyond
the exercise of the basic rights of citizenship. Senior military
officers render candid and forthright professional
judgments when representing the profession and advising
civilian authorities (there is no public or political advocacy
role).

8. The officer’s honor is of paramount importance,
derived through history from demonstrated courage
in combat—the professional soldier always fights when
called on—and it includes the virtues of honesty and
integrity. In peace, the officer’s honor is reflected in
consistent acts of moral courage.

9. The officer’s loyalty is legally and professionally
to an office, rather than individual incumbents, and in
every case is subordinate to their allegiance to the
ideals codified in the Constitution.

10. The officer’s loyalty also extends downward to
those soldiers entrusted to their command and to their
welfare, as persons as well as soldiers, and that of their
families during both peace and war.

11. Officers are gentle-men and -women—persons of
character, courtesy and cultivation, possessing the qualities
requisite for military leadership.

12. Officers lead by example, always maintaining the
personal attributes of spiritual, physical and mental fitness
requisite to the demands of their chosen profession.

Through leadership, officers invest in their
subordinates, both as soldiers and as persons—and
particularly in the vital noncommissioned officer corps—to
the end that they grow in character, maturity and skill.

Further, we believe that the vocation of officership
should be understood and executed, indeed lived, in a
consistent and principled manner. Given the importance of
the ethical component of American military
professionalism, the connection between the Army’s
professional military ethic and the principles of officership
is very relevant. If a principle cannot logically be derived
from elements of the professional military ethic, then it
should not be part of the self-concept as an officer!

Conversely, however, if the principles of officership are
correctly consistent with the professional military ethic and
supportive of it, then all officers regardless of rank should
reflect seriously on how many of these principles they have
inculcated—are these principles imbedded in their own
self-concept? 

Those commissioned by society must
remember that only to the extent that an officer corps is,
each one, loyal to its professional military ethic, can it be
considered professional.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB282.pdf
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/Pubs/display.cfm?PubID=282


----------



## Loachman

Park said:
			
		

> I am not certain as to the why, but I coudln't discern a clear different reason as to why the would CF prefer university educated applicants as opposed to any other employer.



The requirement for all officer applicants to have or get a degree occurred at about the same time that two military colleges were cut.

My theory is that the new requirement was simply a way to justify keeping RMC alive.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Loachman said:
			
		

> The requirement for all officer applicants to have or get a degree occurred at about the same time that two military colleges were cut.
> 
> My theory is that the new requirement was simply a way to justify keeping RMC alive.



I have to agree with that one. I've seen many 'non-graduate' officers, in several armies, do a better job of being an Officer than graduates, except for Loachman of course  ;D. But I may be just a bit biased there having spent alot of time as a commissioned non-graduate.

As an aside, does anyone know why the only candidates who made it through Phase III (or whatever we're calling it these days) in Gagetown last summer were Mil Col? Just sayin'....


----------



## prima6

Loachman said:
			
		

> The requirement for all officer applicants to have or get a degree occurred at about the same time that two military colleges were cut.
> 
> My theory is that the new requirement was simply a way to justify keeping RMC alive.



No, it's actually because it was one of 100 recommendations in then-MND Douglas Young's "Report to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management of the Canadian Forces" following the "Somalia Affair" (released 25 May 1997).  The PM accepted all of the recommendations.


----------



## gcclarke

prima6 said:
			
		

> No, it's actually because it was one of 100 recommendations in then-MND Douglas Young's "Report to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management of the Canadian Forces" following the "Somalia Affair" (released 25 May 1997).  The PM accepted all of the recommendations.



Ahhh I was wondering about that. Do you happen to know if there was any legislation changed, or merely policy amendments?


----------



## Loachman

prima6 said:
			
		

> No, it's actually because it was one of 100 recommendations in then-MND Douglas Young's "Report to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management of the Canadian Forces" following the "Somalia Affair" (released 25 May 1997).



And that particular recommendation had exactly what to do with Somalia, and methods of preventing future occurrences?


----------



## gcclarke

Loachman said:
			
		

> And that particular recommendation had exactly what to do with Somalia, and methods of preventing future occurrences?



Well, I cannot seem to be able to find a copy of the actual report, as it appears that every single link on the internet to it is pointing to a 404 Error on DND.ca. That having been said, Dr David Bercuson, O.C. wrote what appears to be a rather decent summary of the rationale behind the decision for the Canadian Military Journal. It is entitled "_Up From the Ashes: The Re-Professionalization of the Canadian Forces After the Somalia Affair_" and can be found here: http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo9/no3/06-bercuson-eng.asp. Here is what I consider to be they key few paragraphs.



> The Cold War Canadian Forces – and the army in particular – was losing touch with an increasingly vibrant, educated, and sophisticated society. And there were other problems. The system of military justice was out of line with an evolving rights-based Canadian criminal justice system. There was no recognition of the importance of military families in a military that increasingly consisted of married members, which is almost always an outgrowth of a long-standing volunteer force. Physical fitness standards fell. There was widespread drinking, alcoholism, and spousal abuse. A number of efforts to initiate reform of officer professional development, officer education, the general officer specification, and the Canadian military ethos were launched from within the military, and suggestions were made to begin the teaching of international law and ethics. However, virtually every suggestion for change was met by apathy and hostility, or was spurned as being unnecessary and time- consuming.10 Very little consideration was given to the basic question of what sort of person would seek a career, or would stay with a career, in a hide-bound, restricted military that discouraged self-advancement, undercut family life, paid very poorly, and offered virtually no intellectual nourishment – where the ultimate in professional achievement appeared to be drinking beer on the sandy beaches of Cyprus, or plowing up farmer’s fields in tracked vehicles in north-central Germany.
> 
> Certainly, the Canadian military continued throughout the Cold War to attract some very good people. Some of them were determined to raise the standards of education and professionalism. A few even put themselves through graduate school while still in uniform. A number of these individuals eventually helped to carry through some of the reforms of the post- 1997 era, or distinguished themselves in the very tough operational environment of the 1990s in Bosnia and elsewhere. But the military also attracted the type of officers and troopers who beat Shidane Arone to death, who stood around while it was happening, or who tried to cover it all up.
> 
> The Canadian military’s anti-intellectual conservatism, its rejection of reform, its failure to engage in challenging thinking – even of the basic strategic norms that disappeared as the Cold War ended – flew in the face of rapid change in Canadian society itself. In the 20-year period from, roughly, 1960 to 1980, a wave of immigration from non-European countries accelerated demands for a written charter of rights and freedoms. Feminism, student unrest, the increasingly progressive politics of the ‘baby boomers’ who were now reaching university age, and a rapidly growing percentage of Canadians attending post-secondary educational institutions, brought rapid societal change. One prominent Canadian journalist and social critic summarized this 20-year period in Canada as a move from deference to authority to defiance of authority.11 The inauguration of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, with its catalogue of guaranteed rights and its entrenched freedoms, both epitomized and drove social and political change. But the military itself resisted the change. Degree-holding officers sank to less than 40 percent of the total establishment. Court judgments that soldiers enjoyed the same rights and protections as all other citizens under the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms were often bitterly resented in military circles. After all, many officers asked, how could discipline be maintained if soldiers actually had exactly the same rights as all other citizens?



So, to sum up, the idea of a degreed officer corps was instituted to liberalise the officers, and help bring their thinking more in line with the attitudes and values of the Canadian populace in general. What better way to do that than a good old liberal arts education, eh? Makes me feel sorry I've only got a B.Sc.


----------



## Gunner98

http://www.ndu.edu/chds/REDES2001/Papers/Block1/Canadian%20Plenary/Barrett.Canadian%20Plenary.rtf.

Mandate for Change
In March 1993, two soldiers of the Canadian Airborne Regiment murdered a Somali teenager while on a mission in Somalia . This tragic event and subsequent cover-up allegations in National Defence Headquarters created a scandal. A resulting Commission of Inquiry in full public view produced a robust program of reform within the Canadian Forces, much of it focussed on officer professional development. In 1995 an Officer Development Review Board noted the lamentable state of education of Canada’s officers, some 53% of whom hold a university degree . This compares unfavorably with many of our allies, notably the United States, virtually all of whose officers hold such a degree, and most of whose senior and general officers hold a postgraduate degree.  

As previously stated the major report on the subject was (although many CFC papers cite it, it does not seem readily accessible on Internet):

Department of National Defence, Report to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management of the Canadian Forces by the Honourable M. Douglas Young, P.C., M.P. Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, 25 March 1997


----------



## bdave

Loachman said:
			
		

> The requirement for all officer applicants to have or get a degree occurred at about the same time that two military colleges were cut.
> 
> My theory is that the new requirement was simply a way to justify keeping RMC alive.



I don't know about that. Don't many countries require officers to have a university degree?
I think a university degree is supposed to prove something. It says "when I am committed to something, I will put the necessary amount of work and time to complete my objective. I have learned to assume responsibility and take care of myself in many matters".
Taking 4 years out of your life to secure a degree, that has to be worth something.

I assume it also works as an incentive. I am going to university to become an engineer and wish to become an infantry officer (then after my service ill go back to engineering). I would probably feel cheated if after getting my degree i had to start as a private at the bottom of the ladder after 4 years of ball busting hard work. Why would i accept such a position and salary when i could just work in the private sector and make much more money and live more comfortably?


Also, while i understand that NCOs could be allowed to be promoted to officer, wouldn't that also be somewhat of a waste?
Officers and NCM/Os are two very different animals.
Why would you want to wait years and years to turn that sergeant or WO into a lieutenant or captain when you could train a young buck from day 1 on how to be an officer? 
Saves time, money and resources. You will then have good officers and you can keep the good sergeants/WO aswell. This also allows officers to behave as officers and NCM/Os to behave as NCM/Os.

Would you rather have a sergeant of 15 years who became a lieutenant just recently commanding over you or an officer of 15 years commanding over you?


My two cents.


----------



## George Wallace

bdave said:
			
		

> I don't know about that. Don't many countries require officers to have a university degree?
> I think a university degree is supposed to prove something. It says "when I am committed to something, I will put the necessary amount of work and time to complete my objective. I have learned to assume responsibility and take care of myself in many matters".
> Taking 4 years out of your life to secure a degree, that has to be worth something.


 :rofl:

Surely you jest.  You don't even have to leave this site to see the product of these "institutes of higher learning".  The value of the paper that they are awarding, to be hung on walls, has been greatly devalued.  



			
				bdave said:
			
		

> I assume it also works as an incentive. I am going to university to become an engineer and wish to become an infantry officer (then after my service ill I'll go back to engineering). I would probably feel cheated if after getting my degree i had to start as a private at the bottom of the ladder after 4 years of ball busting hard work. Why would i accept such a position and salary when i could just work in the private sector and make much more money and live more comfortably?



I didn't have to go far.  I didn't bother with correcting all your spelling without "Capitalization", but you could have at the very least capitalized your "I's".  Will your piece of paper that you hope to hang on the wall some day make you any more intelligent?  Will it mean that you have more imagination and initiative?  Will it even make you a "leader"?   I think the answer to all those questions, we can safely say is: NO.





			
				bdave said:
			
		

> Also, while i understand that NCOs could be allowed to be promoted to officer, wouldn't that also be somewhat of a waste?
> Officers and NCM/Os are two very different animals.
> Why would you want to wait years and years to turn that sergeant or WO into a lieutenant or captain when you could train a young buck from day 1 on how to be an officer?
> Saves time, money and resources. You will then have good officers and you can keep the good sergeants/WO aswell. This also allows officers to behave as officers and NCM/Os to behave as NCM/Os.



I could just as well ask you, what Corporation in the whole wide world hires its CEOs from High School?  What organization in the whole wide world hires its senior people out of High School with no job experience in the field that they are entering?




			
				bdave said:
			
		

> Would you rather have a sergeant of 15 years who became a lieutenant just recently commanding over you or an officer of 15 years commanding over you?




As a matter of fact I would.  I am of the opinion that all our troops should join at the bottom as Combat Arms and then after their first or second Engagement be allowed to choose a Trade.  I am of the opinion that we should make RMC a real Military University by selecting candidates from the CF Leadership Crses.  Pick the most promising candidates from our Leadership Crses and give them the option to choose their own career path; they could stay in the NCO stream or go into the officer stream and be sent to RMC to earn a Degree.  That would do away with the need for OCdts going through St Jean, and BMOQ.  They would still need to do CAP and Phase Crses, but much of the other basic military training that is extracurricular at RMC could be cut.  This would give us proven "leaders" who are being educated and trained to be officers.  They would bring the knowledge and experience so many current officers lack to the officer ranks.

This is not a novel idea.  Many foreign militaries select their officers in this manner.


----------



## gcclarke

Personally, I'd rather have the Lt who just moved up from Sgt than an Lt who's been an officer for the last 15 years, as if the guy is still stuck at Lt after 15 years, he is clearly hopelessly incompetent.


----------



## Michael OLeary

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As a matter of fact I would.  I am of the opinion that all our troops should join at the bottom as Combat Arms and then after their first or second Engagement be allowed to choose a Trade.  I am of the opinion that we should make RMC a real Military University by selecting candidates from the CF Leadership Crses.  Pick the most promising candidates from our Leadership Crses and give them the option to choose their own career path; they could stay in the NCO stream or go into the officer stream and be sent to RMC to earn a Degree.  That would do away with the need for OCdts going through St Jean, and BMOQ.  They would still need to do CAP and Phase Crses, but much of the other basic military training that is extracurricular at RMC could be cut.  This would give us proven "leaders" who are being educated and trained to be officers.  They would bring the knowledge and experience so many current officers lack to the officer ranks.
> 
> This is not a novel idea.  Many foreign militaries select their officers in this manner.



That's one theory, except that the average success rates of NCOs turned officer vice those recruited as officers does not appear to support out any suggestion that it's a guaranteed better plan.

If you have statistics to substantiate your opinion, I'd like to see them posted.


----------



## Michael OLeary

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Personally, I'd rather have the Lt who just moved up from Sgt than an Lt who's been an officer for the last 15 years, as if the guy is still stuck at Lt after 15 years, he is clearly hopelessly incompetent.



And do you have a number of years for each other rank (officer and NCO) at which you would also declare them "hopelessly incompetent"?


----------



## George Wallace

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That's one theory, except that the average success rates of NCOs turned officer vice those recruited as officers does not appear to support out any suggestion that it's a guaranteed better plan.
> 
> If you have statistics to substantiate your opinion, I'd like to see them posted.



Of course I have no statistics to substantiate it.  I also realize that this would not be a solution that the current "Mcdonalds Generation" could impliment at the snap of a finger.  It would be a lengthy evolution.


----------



## mariomike

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am of the opinion that all our troops should join at the bottom as Combat Arms and then after their first or second Engagement be allowed to choose a Trade.



Of course I agree, but I do have a question. How many applicants could/would handle Combat Arms? Would not the medical, eyesight for example, disqualify many?


----------



## George Wallace

mariomike said:
			
		

> Of course I agree, but I do have a question. How many applicants could/would handle Combat Arms? Would not the medical, eyesight for example, disqualify many?



Yes.  That makes this an imperfect solution under any form of Human Rights Challenge.  

For more information on this discussion, a Search will turn up many of these same questions, proposed solutions and comments, as well replies that show their strengths and weaknesses.  My comments and those of Michael O'Leary have been made before, as well as some very enlightening views on their pros and cons by other well informed members.


----------



## bdave

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> Surely you jest.  You don't even have to leave this site to see the product of these "institutes of higher learning".  The value of the paper that they are awarding, to be hung on walls, has been greatly devalued.



That's quite insulting. I like the way you paint university students and graduates with such a large brush.
If you are referring to certain degrees and fields, then i would partially agree. If you are referring to any and all degree/field of study, then i strongly disagree.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I didn't have to go far.  I didn't bother with correcting all your spelling without "Capitalization", but you could have at the very least capitalized your "I's".



Oh my lord, stop the presses! I made a few mistakes hence my argument is completely invalid.
Very mature.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Will your piece of paper that you hope to hang on the wall some day make you any more intelligent?  Will it mean that you have more imagination and initiative?  Will it even make you a "leader"?   I think the answer to all those questions, we can safely say is: NO.



Yes, it will, actually. Are you arguing that having an education does not make you more intelligent? Might as well abolish high school while we're at it. 
Maybe university does not make you *WISE* but that is something that comes with time, regardless of whether you go to university or not. 
How do you measure imagination and initiative? This is a straw-man.
Will it make you a leader? Depends on what you graduate in. 
An engineer has the same responsibilities as an officer. (S)He must overlook and approve designs and procedures. (S)He must adhere to laws, rules and regulations. (S)He is responsible for their "team" that will be working on whatever project. If anyone gets hurt or dies due to work accidents or faulty design, which can and does happen, (s)he is *directly responsible*.
They must use their knowledge and creativity to design something that solves a problem while abiding to laws, regulations and standards and satisfying the customer's needs.
Engineers are problem solvers. Officers, in my opinion, are also problem solvers.

Regardless, officers, like engineers, are made. 




			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I could just as well ask you, what Corporation in the whole wide world hires its CEOs from High School?  What organization in the whole wide world hires its senior people out of High School with no job experience in the field that they are entering?


I am talking about university, not high school. I fail to see the relevance. What a company, interested in maximizing profits, does in terms of hiring people should not matter.
For the record, university gives you specific work experience. Especially as you approach the end of your studies. Many universities assign their engineering students with projects with budgets and goals while being sponsored by actual companies. This helps in developing many skills: learning to work as a team, to manage legal affairs, to manage monetary affairs, how to plan, how to execute said plan, etc..

Regardless, whether someone walks out of university or high school, you cannot expect them to be able to be a superb soldier right off the bat.
You can, however, expect someone who just walked out of a university, with a respectable degree, to have many advantages over someone who just walked out of high school.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> As a matter of fact I would.  I am of the opinion that all our troops should join at the bottom as Combat Arms and then after their first or second Engagement be allowed to choose a Trade.  I am of the opinion that we should make RMC a real Military University by selecting candidates from the CF Leadership Crses.  Pick the most promising candidates from our Leadership Crses and give them the option to choose their own career path; they could stay in the NCO stream or go into the officer stream and be sent to RMC to earn a Degree.  That would do away with the need for OCdts going through St Jean, and BMOQ.  They would still need to do CAP and Phase Crses, but much of the other basic military training that is extracurricular at RMC could be cut.  This would give us proven "leaders" who are being educated and trained to be officers.  They would bring the knowledge and experience so many current officers lack to the officer ranks.
> 
> This is not a novel idea.  Many foreign militaries select their officers in this manner.



How would this work for those who are unsure what path they wish to choose? How would this work for the reserves? You'd be turning away many potentially excellent officer-worthy people. You would basically force someone to either go military all the way or not at all.

Other than that, i think it would be a good idea. Maybe you could have both? You could have RETP, DEO and this method you described.




I am aware that many foreign militaries select their officers in this manner. However, many foreign militaries also require their officers to have degrees. By saying that you prove nothing.



I will admit that i probably do not know as much on this subject as you do, seeing as I'm only 21 years old and just recently became interested in the army. I am also seeking higher education, which amounts to nothing, according to you.
Regardless, I am getting the impression, and strongly so, that you have a strong dislike for officers and those who attend or have attended university.
That is your opinion, you are entitled to it, and i can respect that. 
I just think it's a little unfair.



			
				gcclarke said:
			
		

> Personally, I'd rather have the Lt who just moved up from Sgt than an Lt who's been an officer for the last 15 years, as if the guy is still stuck at Lt after 15 years, he is clearly hopelessly incompetent.



Isn't one permitted to refuse a promotion? I have heard that officer positions beyond captain are more administrative (less field work). If that were the case i would gladly stay as lieutenant or captain.
If i am wrong, someone correct me.


----------



## PMedMoe

bdave said:
			
		

> Are you arguing that having an education does not make you more intelligent?



Actually, I will argue that having an education does not make you _more_ intelligent.  It may mean you know more or are aware of more, but not more intelligent.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Although George is a lot more over the top with his arguement than I would be I think what is unfair is you telling this forum about what an Officer is.........................




			
				bdave said:
			
		

> Will it make you a leader? Depends on what you graduate in.



..and this one stuck in my craw, lets see, I graduated in longhairedpunkgoingtojailat16 yet somehow have managed quite well at any leadership projects I have tried over the 30+ years since then.  
[sorry Folks if this sounds like self back patting, just wanted to show the lad something]


----------



## bdave

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Although George is a lot more over the top with his arguement than I would be I think what is unfair is you telling this forum about what an Officer is.........................
> 
> 
> ..and this one stuck in my craw, lets see, I graduated in longhairedpunkgoingtojailat16 yet somehow have managed quite well at any leadership projects I have tried over the 30+ years since then.
> [sorry Folks if this sounds like self back patting, just wanted to show the lad something]



What? Where did i say anywhere what an officer is? If you are referring to the part where i wrote I BELIEVE (hence, stating an opinion) that officers are similar to engineers, then i am unable to see what is wrong with what i wrote.
What i meant by depends on what you graduate in is that if you graduate as an arts major, it will not be something that could be directly applied to being a leader. 



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Actually, I will argue that having an education does not make you _more_ intelligent.  It may mean you know more or are aware of more, but not more intelligent.



How do you define intelligence then? Doesn't knowing more mean you have a high level of intelligence?


----------



## Loachman

bdave said:
			
		

> I made a few mistakes hence my argument is completely invalid.



It does indicate a certain degree of sloppiness and carelessness, and a tendency for that in one area generally carries over into another.



			
				bdave said:
			
		

> Yes, it will, actually. Are you arguing that having an education does not make you more intelligent?



I'll make that argument.

A formal education will impart knowledge and skill (which can be gained through other means as well), but it will not make anybody more intelligent. I've seen plenty of twits with degrees.

And the inverse of your claim, that lack of a formal education makes one stupider, is no less false.



			
				bdave said:
			
		

> An engineer has the same responsibilities as an officer.



Hardly.

Engineers are thing-oriented. Leaders are people-oriented.

Very few engineers have to order people to undertake activities of great, and even life-threatening, risk.

When I went through basic officer and flying training, most officer candidates were either DEO or OCTP, the latter having no degree. Far more DEOs did not complete flying training than their OCTP counterparts, on my courses. A degree is no predictor of success as a Combat Arms Officer, or Pilot, or many other classifications.


----------



## Kat Stevens

I've served under some Engineer Officers who couldn't lead their way out of a wet paper bag.  Knowing a lot of stuff is not intelligence, it's education.


----------



## Larkvall

The current system seems very bizarre to me. For example, it seems strange that just because someone has a degree they get inserted into the rank structure above people who have done tours.


----------



## bdave

Loachman said:
			
		

> It does indicate a certain degree of sloppiness and carelessness, and a tendency for that in one area generally carries over into another.


Point taken.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> I'll make that argument.
> 
> A formal education will impart knowledge and skill (which can be gained through other means as well), but it will not make anybody more intelligent. I've seen plenty of twits with degrees.
> 
> And the inverse of your claim, that lack of a formal education makes one stupider, is no less false.


Maybe i should have used the word "smart" as opposed to intelligent. I personally believe one can be intelligent and a twit. I guess it sort of depends on how you define it.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Hardly.
> 
> Engineers are thing-oriented. Leaders are people-oriented.
> 
> Very few engineers have to order people to undertake activities of great, and even life-threatening, risk.


This is simply incorrect. Engineers are very much so people oriented. While their focus is finding a solution to the "thing", they must design it with regards to people. They must also supervise, advise and work with people.
My analogy was to basically claim that both are leaders and have tremendous responsibilities.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> When I went through basic officer and flying training, most officer candidates were either DEO or OCTP, the latter having no degree. Far more DEOs did not complete flying training than their OCTP counterparts, on my courses. *A degree is no predictor of success as a Combat Arms Officer, or Pilot, or many other classifications*.



I never said it was.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Larkvall said:
			
		

> The current system seems very bizarre to me. For example, it seems strange that just because someone has a degree they get inserted into the rank structure above people who have done tours.



Neither education nor experience at lower ranks are guaranteed sole indicators of who will be a successful leader at higher ranks levels.


----------



## PMedMoe

bdave said:
			
		

> How do you define intelligence then? Doesn't knowing more mean you have a high level of intelligence?



Realistically, true intelligence cannot be measured.  What I perceive as "intelligence" is the ability to understand something (anything).  I know many people (with and without degrees) who can spew out some quote, fact or statement, but have no idea _what it means_.


----------



## Monsoon

Loachman said:
			
		

> A formal education will impart knowledge and skill (which can be gained through other means as well), but it will not make anybody more intelligent. I've seen plenty of twits with degrees.
> 
> And the inverse of your claim, that lack of a formal education makes one stupider, is no less false.


Argh! This argument has circled the drain enough times that I can no longer restrain myself.

Studying at university makes someone more intelligent and - yes - even a better person _than that person would otherwise have been_. Obviously it imputes no specific absolute value on them as compared to anyone else.

It is, however, a handy way of dividing the world when dealing with a group of raw recruits about whom the recruiting system frankly knows very little. Looking at university transcripts is also a handy way to determine how well one performs when working independent of close supervision on a long-term project - a metric that is obviously important to measure when selecting officers. Hence, the CF requires off-the-street applicants to officer positions to have university degrees.

In cases where the CF has had the luxury of long-term observation of officer candidates who have served as NCMs, this requirement is waived - as many members of this forum can attest to.

So, to summarize: if you're coming in off the street you'd better have a degree. If you have exemplary prior service, you may not need one.

Would it be nice if we could tack a couple of years of NCM experience onto the profile of every officer candidate? Sure. Is that manageable from an HR standpoint? Apparently that is thought not to be the case.


----------



## George Wallace

bdave said:
			
		

> That's quite insulting. I like the way you paint university students and graduates with such a large brush.
> If you are referring to certain degrees and fields, then i would partially agree. If you are referring to any and all degree/field of study, then i strongly disagree.



We have discussed in other topics the products of our Education System.   




			
				bdave said:
			
		

> Oh my lord, stop the presses! I made a few mistakes hence my argument is completely invalid.
> Very mature.



Get over it.  I have.  There are many more on the site who have claims of a higher education, who have posted much worse.  Some were so poorly constructed as to be nearly unintelligible.  Yours were relatively minor; but a hasty example.




			
				bdave said:
			
		

> Yes, it will, actually. Are you arguing that having an education does not make you more intelligent? Might as well abolish high school while we're at it.
> Maybe university does not make you *WISE* but that is something that comes with time, regardless of whether you go to university or not. .............................................
> ......................Depends on what you graduate in.
> An engineer has the same responsibilities as an officer. (S)He must overlook and approve designs and procedures. (S)He must adhere to laws, rules and regulations. (S)He is responsible for their "team" that will be working on whatever project. If anyone gets hurt or dies due to work accidents or faulty design, which can and does happen, (s)he is *directly responsible*.
> They must use their knowledge and creativity to design something that solves a problem while abiding to laws, regulations and standards and satisfying the customer's needs.
> Engineers are problem solvers. Officers, in my opinion, are also problem solvers.



I disagree.  Schooling doesn't make one intelligent.  It does develop ones thought processes, but it doesn't make one intelligent.  There are many intelligent people who don't have that much schooling, as there are just as many, perhaps more, people who have schooling, but have never been able to develop their intelligence.....but have a piece of paper that says that they spent some time in a school program.  With "Zero Failure" policies in many education systems, one really can not defend them.  That does venture into the curriculum's that you have held high as well.




			
				bdave said:
			
		

> How do you measure imagination and initiative? This is a straw-man.
> Will it make you a leader?



Lack of imagination makes you a dullard.  It stops progress.  Development stops.  Society stagnates.  Lack of initiative combined with lack of imagination halts everything.  A good leader will have both.  




			
				bdave said:
			
		

> Regardless, officers, like engineers, are made.



Wearing the rank or the white helmet doesn't qualify them as leaders.



			
				bdave said:
			
		

> I am talking about university, not high school. I fail to see the relevance. What a company, interested in maximizing profits, does in terms of hiring people should not matter.



What is RMC, and where did these officer candidates come from?




			
				bdave said:
			
		

> For the record, university gives you specific work experience. Especially as you approach the end of your studies. Many universities assign their engineering students with projects with budgets and goals while being sponsored by actual companies. This helps in developing many skills: learning to work as a team, to manage legal affairs, to manage monetary affairs, how to plan, how to execute said plan, etc..



Many courses, outside of university do the same, and often more.  Many offer job placements, that result in full time jobs.  Few universities do this.



			
				bdave said:
			
		

> Regardless, whether someone walks out of university or high school, you cannot expect them to be able to be a superb soldier right off the bat.
> You can, however, expect someone who just walked out of a university, with a respectable degree, to have many advantages over someone who just walked out of high school.



Hogwash.  



			
				bdave said:
			
		

> How would this work for those who are unsure what path they wish to choose?



Does "Career Student" come to mind?



			
				bdave said:
			
		

> How would this work for the reserves?



It would work quite well for the Reserves.  There are many first year students looking to become Reserve Officers.  Many of these first years, will sum up at Christmas.  Does the Reserves need these types?  No.  Many Reservists have one, two and sometimes three degrees, and are NOT officers.  Some with Masters Degrees, and PLQ, perhaps 6A could make good candates for CT to the Regular Force as an officer.  



			
				bdave said:
			
		

> You'd be turning away many potentially excellent officer-worthy people.



This isn't news.  It has been happening for over a century.



			
				bdave said:
			
		

> You would basically force someone to either go military all the way or not at all.



You lost me on that one. 





			
				bdave said:
			
		

> Regardless, I am getting the impression, and strongly so, that you have a strong dislike for officers and those who attend or have attended university.
> That is your opinion, you are entitled to it, and i can respect that.
> I just think it's a little unfair.



It isn't unfair.  I do not have a strong dislike for officers and those who attend or have attended university.  I dislike incompetence, no matter the rank or position.  90% of the people I work with have a minimum of one Degree, as do I.  I am pressing for many of them to take "Leadership Crses" and for a couple to become officers.  These are people with education, and the ones that show potential having strong leadership qualities are being selected to advance.  I also have some with Degrees, who wouldn't be able to lead you to the toilet after one of your Engineer Kegger's.   ;D


----------



## bdave

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Realistically, true intelligence cannot be measured.  What I perceive as "intelligence" is the ability to understand something (anything).  I know many people (with and without degrees) who can spew out some quote, fact or statement, but have no idea _what it means_.


Are you talking about the quote under my name   :threat:




			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Hogwash.


Hamiltongs put it more eloquently than i ever could:



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Studying at university makes someone more intelligent and - yes - even a better person _than that person would otherwise have been_. Obviously it imputes no specific absolute value on them as compared to anyone else.
> 
> It is, however, a handy way of dividing the world when dealing with a group of raw recruits about whom the recruiting system frankly knows very little. Looking at university transcripts is also a handy way to determine how well one performs when working independent of close supervision on a long-term project - a metric that is obviously important to measure when selecting officers. Hence, the CF requires off-the-street applicants to officer positions to have university degrees.
> 
> In cases where the CF has had the luxury of long-term observation of officer candidates who have served as NCMs, this requirement is waived - as many members of this forum can attest to.
> 
> So, to summarize: if you're coming in off the street you'd better have a degree. If you have exemplary prior service, you may not need one.
> 
> Would it be nice if we could tack a couple of years of NCM experience onto the profile of every officer candidate? Sure. Is that manageable from an HR standpoint? Apparently that is thought not to be the case.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Many countries encourage 'non-graduates' to become officers, as well as promoting CFRs. The reason? Leadership strength through diversification.

A great man once said 'When everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking'. It's therefore important to draw people from a wide range of backgrounds to staff an officer corps IMHO.


----------



## Antoine

Lets say that a significant amount of university graduates are more intelligent than the average citizen with strong leadership skills.
For fun, let say that they are going to end up as project managers, directors, CEO, administrators of high level in the private as well as public sectors, lets include the medical doctors, lawyers, journalists and other liberal jobs that required university degrees.

Thus we are expecting a minimal amount of (exception of accidents and Murphy law):

Wrong prognostic on economical outcome.
Wrong planning on health care, demography, urban planing, immigrations, foreign affairs 
Bridges falling, leaking houses, and so on due to poor engineering design, 
Misuses of money, from government to private sector, from profits to investment.

To vote, to start your company, to invest your money, ....guess what, you need at least a university degree?

In French, we call that a demonstration by absurd.

I worked for, with and managed people with and without degrees, and I didn't find it clearly correlates with intelligence, common sense and leadership. To many engineers, scientists, medical doctors, lawyers, and so on... I give them the intelligence of using the knowledge of others to solve problem that they can't find in their books, and have been lucky enough to pass through.

I have met incredible smart people that saved my a** many times because despite being "technician" with "only" a college degree, they saw problems or errors that I didn't and they were kind enough to point it out to me.

As a graduate, in the civil work force I can assure you that you might work for someone that has a degree in a field you'll think she/he needs to be smart but she/he's not and make your life a misery because you're gonna have to save his/her b*** many times if you want to keep your job and get a good reference letter.

Sorry for my rants, but I am surrounded by PhD++++ that think in their ivory towers that they are the smartest people on earth and they are educating the leaders of tomorrow. Yes, many are intelligent and smart in their own speciality but even not always.

Graduate from university = future leader having an intelligence above the average is not an hypothesis that I was able to confirm until now in my short life experience, but who I am to judge.

Conclusion: No black and white clear cut, again, the reality of a grey zone.

Regards,


----------



## dimsum

Loachman said:
			
		

> A formal education will impart knowledge and skill (which can be gained through other means as well), but it will not make anybody more intelligent. I've seen plenty of twits with degrees.
> 
> And the inverse of your claim, that lack of a formal education makes one stupider, is no less false.



Quoted for truth.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So You Want to be an officer, eh!
> 
> So?  What makes you so special?  Are you articulate and a dedicated Administrator?  Are you a good leader and mentor to your peers and subordinates?  Do you accept criticism?  Are you going to work for the betterment of your men and the CF?  Are you loyal to those below you, as much if not more than those above you?  Do you take responsibility for your own actions, and not try to shift the blame to others?



I'm tracking most of what you are saying, but I have a few points/questions.

I can train somebody to become a dedicated Administrator, and I would not put that in the front of my requirements to become an officer. I do expect an aspiring officer to show leadership potential, although some demonstration of leadership attributes is going to help. The CF will train and develop leadership in that person: I don't expect a perfect young Troop Leader to burst forth fully-formed from the brow of Zeus. Prospective officer applicants should be ready to demonstrate that they have leadership potential and understand that they will enter a rigorous training system which holds them to a high standard. If they are able to attain the standard and are entrusted with soldiers then they should also understand that they will have only begun their development and that they need to be reliant on Canada's professional non-commissioned officer corps that sets up apart from 99% of the world's militaries. If they don't it is my experience that they won't get very far.

I also have a question about the criterion of "being loyal to those below you, as much if not more than those above you." This may be sematics, but what do you mean by loyalty? I expect officers to be loyal to those above them and ultimately to the legal civilian authority. Now, I fully expect/demand that officers promote the welfare of their subordinates and to put the welfare/interests of their subordinates ahead of their own. Is this what you meant by loyalty? If so then I am with you 100%. An officer should be looking after the career of his subordinates and not his own. 

Still, at the end of the day as a professional officer my loyalty must be to the chain of command. If I let personal or unit loyalties trump my loyalty upwards to the Crown then I feel that I would be abrogating my duties as laid forth in my commissioning scroll. 

 "Mission, men, self" in terms of setting priorities in life fits the bill for an officer (or any leader) as far as I am concerned.

Cheers,

T2B


----------



## bdave

Antoine said:
			
		

> Lets say that a significant amount of university graduates are more intelligent than the average citizen with strong leadership skills.
> For fun, let say that they are going to end up as project managers, directors, CEO, administrators of high level in the private as well as public sectors, lets include the medical doctors, lawyers, journalists and other liberal jobs that required university degrees.
> 
> Thus we are expecting a minimal amount of (exception of accidents and Murphy law):
> 
> Wrong prognostic on economical outcome.
> Wrong planning on health care, demography, urban planing, immigrations, foreign affairs
> Bridges falling, leaking houses, and so on due to poor engineering design,
> Misuses of money, from government to private sector, from profits to investment.
> 
> To vote, to start your company, to invest your money, ....guess what, you need at least a university degree?
> 
> In French, we call that a demonstration by absurd.
> 
> I worked for, with and managed people with and without degrees, and I didn't find it clearly correlates with intelligence, common sense and leadership. To many engineers, scientists, medical doctors, lawyers, and so on... I give them the intelligence of using the knowledge of others to solve problem that they can't find in their books, and have been lucky enough to pass through.
> 
> I have met incredible smart people that saved my a** many times because despite being "technician" with "only" a college degree, they saw problems or errors that I didn't and they were kind enough to point it out to me.
> 
> As a graduate, in the civil work force I can assure you that you might work for someone that has a degree in a field you'll think she/he needs to be smart but she/he's not and make your life a misery because you're gonna have to save his/her b*** many times if you want to keep your job and get a good reference letter.
> 
> Sorry for my rants, but I am surrounded by PhD++++ that think in their ivory towers that they are the smartest people on earth and they are educating the leaders of tomorrow. Yes, many are intelligent and smart in their own speciality but even not always.
> 
> Graduate from university = future leader having an intelligence above the average is not an hypothesis that I was able to confirm until now in my short life experience, but who I am to judge.
> 
> Conclusion: No black and white clear cut, again, the reality of a grey zone.
> 
> Regards,



I am not saying that a degree is the end-all-be-all.
I am just saying that people who have a PhD have an advantage and have shown that they offer skills that can be directly measured by the CF.
A man who is a PhD and is a surgeon might not be the nicest guy on earth, he might be a totally twat too but he definitely knows how to deal with large responsibility, laws and paper work. He has subordinates he has to deal with and utilize skillfully. He also has someone's life on his hands. I would assume he'd be a better officer than some guy who was taken from the ranks because he has experience. It goes both ways.

Those who are saying bridges are falling down and all that, i ask you: where?
The viaduc/overpass in Montreal broke down. This is true. However, how many of the buildings in your city collapse? How many bridges have fallen down? A handful, *at most*. The confederate bridge in PEI still stands. The Olympic stadium in Montreal, while a waste of money, still stands. Many other buildings, bridges, overpasses/viaducs and tunnels...still stand!
These people with PhDs and degrees have tremendous responsibility. It is very easy to point the finger and say "they suck" when they have a million things to take care of. They are human, some of them will make mistakes. To take the few and say it is all, is something that is not right.
I think many of you are undermining the achievement that is a degree.

Again, in the end,a degree is something you can show to the CF. Something that is tangible.


----------



## Larkvall

bdave said:
			
		

> I am not saying that a degree is the end-all-be-all.
> I am just saying that people who have a PhD have an advantage and have shown that they offer skills that can be directly measured by the CF.
> A man who is a PhD and is a surgeon might not be the nicest guy on earth, he might be a totally twat too but he definitely knows how to deal with large responsibility, laws and paper work. He has subordinates he has to deal with and utilize skillfully. He also has someone's life on his hands. I would assume he'd be a better officer than some guy who was taken from the ranks because he has experience. It goes both ways.



Whoa. I don't know about this. I for a fact some people get a Phd so they can delay 'having to deal with the real world'.

What I find puzzling is somebody with no experience is inserted into the rank structure above those with considerable experience automatically.
I hear that people entering Int Op almost always enter at the bottom or close to it and they prefer to recruit people from the combat arms (at least in the reserves). It sounds close to what George is proposing. This concept has a certain logic to it.


----------



## Antoine

bdave, I hear you and I can see that you are an enthusiastic student, you are proud of your work, education and you would like to contribute to CF and that is great.

My English is not great, so not easy to being clear for me. I might have misunderstood you, but I just warn you that you should not cut the world in two, with on one side the Engineers, Doctors in sciences (PhD) or health care (MD,..) and the others. Many people have a lot of responsibilities, and as an engineer, your boss might even not be one of yours, but will carry on his shoulder your responsibility and his own. You'll find that for example the electrician or any technician below you might have also huge responsibility, and also have to work with finance, administration and so on if he has his own company.

If all the buildings stay in place, it is not only due to engineer but all the team behind, from the carpenter to the architect and so on. 

Don't cut the world in two, because again by doing so you might piss off some of your subalterns that from your book are not "intelligent" and are out of their lane outside as soon as they give you suggestion if it is what your were suggesting by your post, but I might have misinterpret it.

In conclusion, I respect all professions, they have all their own challenges and we need all of them, what I don't like is the incompetent that hide behind his degree and claim that is never his fault and is in the know, that I can't stand it and I witness this situation many times a year. Having a degree assess that you are qualify in this field, period and they is manyways to be a successful incompetent professional, and they are not an exception, not an anecdote.

However, keep your enthusiasm, and I wish you the best in your career, and hope that you'll get in the trade of your choice in the CF, after all it is who you are and not necessary what you know that is going to make you a great leader. What you know or don't that is workable, who you are that is more difficult to change.

Regards,


----------



## Roy Harding

bdave said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> How do you define intelligence then? Doesn't knowing more mean you have a high level of intelligence?



Um, no.  It just means that you know more.  How you APPLY that knowledge is a measure of intelligence.

There are many valid arguments to be made on both sides of the degreed officer corps debate - personally, I like George's idea outlined earlier in this thread.  But what I like is hardly germane to how the CF is going to recruit its' officers.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

bdave said:
			
		

> I am not saying that a degree is the end-all-be-all.
> I am just saying that people who have a PhD have an advantage and have shown that they offer skills that can be directly measured by the CF.
> A man who is a PhD and is a surgeon might not be the nicest guy on earth, he might be a totally twat too but he definitely knows how to deal with large responsibility, laws and paper work. He has subordinates he has to deal with and utilize skillfully. He also has someone's life on his hands. I would assume he'd be a better officer than some guy who was taken from the ranks because he has experience. It goes both ways.



The surgeon with a PhD (can you be a surgeon without one?) has also had practical experience to go with his education (his long education includes experience). In any case, his awesomeness at surgery may or may not have any bearing on his ability to be a leader. I would not assume that he would be a better officer than an individual promoted from the ranks. Without knowing anything about the two if I had to bet I would probably put my money on the former Sgt. Now, if the surgeon was a head surgeon or something like that it might change but then we are getting into experience vice education.

While it is hard to see a direct link between having a degree and the ability to execute the tasks required of junior combat arms officers, a degree in any field can help an officer later on. Obtaining a degree should, hopefully, impart the ability to think critically. This can help protect the officer later on from falling victim to the latest management/leadership fads and the packs of consultants that gather around the campfire. 

I will back up a bit, however, and offer that some of the so-called "soft" degrees such as Political Science and Anthropology can help young officers on today's battlefield. Other Social Sciences can give the officer some perspective with which to look at issues. I still find it odd that we have degrees as a pre-requisite, but since degrees are obtainable I don't see it as a barrier.


----------



## Infanteer

Interesting turn in the discussion.  Somewhat echos a real good one we had here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23230.0.html

As well, if one looks though some of the repositories for Staff Colleges (such as the US Army CAC Library) there is some really good thesis papers on the selection, training and accession of officers; many having some more qualitative data then we've seen here.


----------



## Gunner98

"The surgeon with a PhD (can you be a surgeon without one?)"

Most doctors and surgeons have M.D.  A surgeon with a PhD would be a Dr. Dr.!


----------



## Park

George Wallace makes mention of knowing a lot of twits with degrees.  I don't think anyone would doubt this statement.  Idiots abound in this world, educated or not.  However, I bet an educated idiot was an idiot before being educated, and there is a good chance that he was less of an idiot after being educated.  Someone who is naturally intelligent will probably be even more intelligent after being educated.

Hamiltongs said it best when he said that you cannot compare the intelligence of a formally educated person to one that isn't (sorry I am paraphrasing here).  *You can only compare the intelligence of an individual before and after being educated.  Its purely an individual matter.* Arguing the intelligence of a university grad compared to a high school grad is a moot point.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

There has been a lot of contention of what 'intelligence' really means.  That being educated is not intelligence.  Which is true, but education has an affect on intelligence.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is a incontrovertible fact.  *If anyone here thinks that they would be just as intelligent as they are now without the benefit of being taught by parents as a child, or without an elementary or high school education, please say so now.*  I find the problem is that there are diminishing returns the more advanced the education you get.

I also read a strange comment on people not being promoted to CEO from high school, or something like that. I am assuming that was meant to be an extreme analogy between DEOs and civilian career paths (correct me if I am wrong).  Sure, a high school student wouldn't become a CEO, but then a university grad wouldn't become a General either.  However, a university grad can start at a higher position than a college or high-school grad.  A graduate student will have opportunities to start even higher up the food-chain, even without prior experience (these examples are particularly true for business-related degrees).  

Here is the kicker for me, despite what I said above, despite applying as a DEO myself, *I am more of the persuasion that Officers should come from the ranks, at least as far as the combat arms are concerned*.  If anyone with a degree should get an advantage when becoming an Officer, it should be the NCM with a degree.  For those applying straight to the Officer Corps without prior military experience, I would think having to do a couple years as an NCM would be an excellent idea.  I think that would be a fair compromise between those wanting to join to Regular Officer Corps from university and NCMs wanting to become Officers.      

The CF offers pretty competitive salaries, but obviously less than some civvy jobs.  But i think a big part of joining the CF is a lifestyle choice, and less of a compensation issue.  If you are concerned about what you will be paid joining the CF (especially the combat professions, where a specific education is not required) straight from university then perhaps you should reconsider your career choice. Or be like me and join the ResF, where you can earn your desired salary in your civvy job and still be part of the CF. 

The jury is out on the topic of leadership for me.  Very few educations prepare you to be a leader. Knowing how something works in theory doesn't really prepare you for practical application.  Experience as a subordinate does not translate into leadership ability either.  Some of the worst managers are ones promoted from the ranks.  Just because you are good at your job, doesn't mean you will be able to lead people in doing that job.


----------



## George Wallace

T2B

I think we are on the same Net.


----------



## George Wallace

Park said:
			
		

> Here is the kicker for me, despite what I said above, despite applying as a DEO myself, *I am more of the persuasion that Officers should come from the ranks, at least as far as the combat arms are concerned*.  If anyone with a degree should get an advantage when becoming an Officer, it should be the NCM with a degree.  For those applying straight to the Officer Corps without prior military experience, I would think having to do a couple years as an NCM would be an excellent idea.  I think that would be a fair compromise between those wanting to join to Regular Officer Corps from university and NCMs wanting to become Officers.




Park

This is not a black and white proposal.  There are many shades of gray.  I don't propose that a NCM with a Degree be an excellent candidate.  Often they may not be.  I have known Cpls who would never have passed their CLC/JLC/PLQ and then decided that the officer route was the route for them.  They made poor officers.  I would like to see NCOs who have successfully passed a Leadership Crse (PLQ, 6A, 6B, or 7 Crse) offered the opportunity to change their career path.  The offer would not be to all who passed, but those who showed the most potential.  



			
				Park said:
			
		

> The jury is out on the topic of leadership for me.  Very few educations prepare you to be a leader. Knowing how something works in theory doesn't really prepare you for practical application.  Experience as a subordinate does not translate into leadership ability either.  Some of the worst managers are ones promoted from the ranks.  Just because you are good at your job, doesn't mean you will be able to lead people in doing that job.



That is where the CF Battle Schools and Leadership Schools come in.  The CF teaches "leadership" in steps.  The young NCO and young officer start with PLQ and Phase Trg respectively.  They then progress onto 6A, 6B, and 7s Crses, ILQ, Staff Schools, Staff Colleges, etc.  Leadership isn't taught as "an all in one wonder course".  It is taught in several progressive courses, and of course through a lot of practical experience and mentoring.


----------



## bdave

Antoine said:
			
		

> bdave, I hear you and I can see that you are an enthusiastic student, you are proud of your work, education and you would like to contribute to CF and that is great.


 ;D





			
				Antoine said:
			
		

> My English is not great, so not easy to being clear for me. I might have misunderstood you, but I just warn you that you should not cut the world in two, with on one side the Engineers, Doctors in sciences (PhD) or health care (MD,..) and the others. Many people have a lot of responsibilities, and as an engineer, your boss might even not be one of yours, but will carry on his shoulder your responsibility and his own. You'll find that for example the electrician or any technician below you might have also huge responsibility, and also have to work with finance, administration and so on if he has his own company.
> 
> If all the buildings stay in place, it is not only due to engineer but all the team behind, from the carpenter to the architect and so on.
> 
> Don't cut the world in two, because again by doing so you might piss off some of your subalterns that from your book are not "intelligent" and are out of their lane outside as soon as they give you suggestion if it is what your were suggesting by your post, but I might have misinterpret it.
> 
> In conclusion, I respect all professions, they have all their own challenges and we need all of them, what I don't like is the incompetent that hide behind his degree and claim that is never his fault and is in the know, that I can't stand it and I witness this situation many times a year. Having a degree assess that you are qualify in this field, period and they is manyways to be a successful incompetent professional, and they are not an exception, not an anecdote.
> 
> However, keep your enthusiasm, and I wish you the best in your career, and hope that you'll get in the trade of your choice in the CF, after all it is who you are and not necessary what you know that is going to make you a great leader. What you know or don't that is workable, who you are that is more difficult to change.
> 
> Regards,



I know all that and i understand what you are saying.
I just said what i said because i got the impression that certain posters were riding the "degrees are useless" bandwagon too hard. I felt as though i had to "take the other side".

A degree is a piece of paper saying you've achieved something. Does it mean you'll make a great officer or leader? No, absolutely not.
What I'm saying is: To the CF, having a university degree gives them an indication that you are able to set goals and accomplish them. 
It gives no guarantee but it does give them something to work with
If it was up to me, I would keep the fact that you can begin as an officer if you have a degree AND allow certain NCO to become officers when they have done the time and shown the proper skills.
I think that would be best of both worlds.


----------



## George Wallace

;D

So with all the debate, we can see that there are many challenges ahead of someone who wants to become an officer candidate.  It is a very serious step to take in one's life; not a casual or whimsical fling.


----------



## Loachman

Park said:
			
		

> George Wallace makes mention of knowing a lot of twits with degrees.



I think that that was me.



			
				Park said:
			
		

> However, I bet



How much?



			
				Park said:
			
		

> an educated idiot was an idiot before being educated,



Of course. While an education will not make him less of an idiot, it won't make him more of one, either.

Maybe more dangerous, but that's another different thing.



			
				Park said:
			
		

> there is a good chance that he was less of an idiot after being educated.



No, there is a much better chance (as close to 100% as one could get) that he would only be an idiot that knew a little more.



			
				Park said:
			
		

> Someone who is naturally intelligent will probably be even more intelligent after being educated.



No, they will be just as intelligent as they were before, but they will know more.

Knowledge and intelligence are not the same thing, as has been pointed out.

Intelligence can be measured, to a certain degree at least. That is what an IQ score is for. IQ does not change with education.



			
				Park said:
			
		

> Hamiltongs said it best when he said that you cannot compare the intelligence of a formally educated person to one that isn't (sorry I am paraphrasing here).



Certainly you can. That is what IQ tests are designed to do.

Aptitude tests, such as the CFAT, are designed to assess aptitude, not trained skill or induced knowledge.

Computers can be compared on the basis of their processor speeds and memory. That's the machine equivalent of intelligence. The programmes installed, and information stored, on the computer is the machine equivalent of education. See the difference?



			
				Park said:
			
		

> You can only compare the intelligence of an individual before and after being educated.



That would be a complete waste of time, because the difference would be zero. That individual's processor and memory have not been altered. He/she has only had a few programmes and files uploaded. His/her IQ remains unchanged, only their knowledge has been improved. Give the same exam - a test of knowledge - to an uneducated man and one educated in whatever subjects were covered in that education, and a difference will obviously be noticed.



			
				Park said:
			
		

> Arguing the intelligence of a university grad compared to a high school grad is a moot point.



Of course it is, because comparing education and intelligence is



			
				Park said:
			
		

> comparing apples to oranges.



I shall not be asking you to purchase fruit on my behalf.



			
				Park said:
			
		

> There has been a lot of contention of what 'intelligence' really means.  That being educated is not intelligence.  Which is true,



But that is not what you have been saying. If one can add education to intelligence (or idiocy) and get increased intelligence (or reduced idiocy), as you have in effect said, then they must be the same, nein?



			
				Park said:
			
		

> but education has an affect on intelligence.



No, it doesn't. It only affects knowledge and, depending upon the nature of the education, skill. Neither of those are "intelligence".

One is an inherent characteristic, or design and manufacturing characteristic in the case of a computer, and the other is the knowledge and skill, or files and programmes.



			
				Park said:
			
		

> If anyone here thinks that they would be just as intelligent as they are now without the benefit of being taught by parents as a child, or without an elementary or high school education, please say so now.



I believe that I have said that already, in this post and my previous one, several times, but I am perfectly willing to say it again.

An intelligent person will absorb information and learn skills with or without formal education/training. Obviously, they will do so through trial and error and observing others and reading books on their own initiative, but they will do it. And they will do so better than a stupid person no matter how long that stupid person sits in a classroom.



			
				Park said:
			
		

> Here is the kicker for me, despite what I said above, despite applying as a DEO myself, *I am more of the persuasion that Officers should come from the ranks, at least as far as the combat arms are concerned*.  If anyone with a degree should get an advantage when becoming an Officer, it should be the NCM with a degree.  For those applying straight to the Officer Corps without prior military experience, I would think having to do a couple years as an NCM would be an excellent idea.  I think that would be a fair compromise between those wanting to join to Regular Officer Corps from university and NCMs wanting to become Officers.



That was said, of course, with no military experience whatsoever, at any rank level.

Some of the best officers that I've known have spent time in the ranks. Some of the best officers that I have known have spent absolutely no time in the ranks. Spending time in the ranks does not necessarily make any particular person any better at doing a somewhat similar yet different job at a higher level. It should give that person a much better understanding of their subordinates' lives, but a few even manage to forget that with varying degrees of instantaneity. There is no need or benefit to institutionalize that.



			
				Park said:
			
		

> The jury is out on the topic of leadership for me.  Very few educations prepare you to be a leader. Knowing how something works in theory doesn't really prepare you for practical application.  Experience as a subordinate does not translate into leadership ability either.  Some of the worst managers are ones promoted from the ranks.  Just because you are good at your job, doesn't mean you will be able to lead people in doing that job.



You just shot your earlier all-officers-from-the-ranks argument full of holes.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Loachman said:
			
		

> Computers can be compared on the basis of their processor speeds and memory. That's the machine equivalent of intelligence. The programmes installed, and information stored, on the computer is the machine equivalent of education. See the difference?



Agree 100%.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> That would be a complete waste of time, because the difference would be zero. That individual's processor and memory have not been altered. He/she has only had a few programmes and files uploaded. His/her IQ remains unchanged, only their knowledge has been improved. Give the same exam - a test of knowledge - to an uneducated man and one educated in whatever subjects were covered in that education, and a difference will obviously be noticed.



This is where I do not totally agree.  Depending on the individual, education will enable a person to develop techniques to improve the speed at which problem solving is performed as well as increase his memory (short, medium and long term).


----------



## Loachman

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Depending on the individual, education will enable a person to develop techniques to improve the speed at which problem solving is performed.



"Developing techniques" is a software/knowledge/skill upgrade, not a hardware/intelligence upgrade.



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> as well as increase his memory (short, medium and long term).



I am unsure that actual memory is increased, as opposed to learning to better use what one has, which would also be a software upgrade. I lack education in that area (but that makes me no less intelligent than somebody who has an education in that area, just as my flying training/education makes me no more intelligent than somebody who cannot fly - we just have different programmes).

I know that Moose Jaw, to use something common to you and me, _*altered*_ my memory. I found that numbers, no matter how relevant or long, stuck in my head, yet I had difficulty remembering what I had done the day before. My guess is that overall capacity had not altered, only how it was being used. I was somewhat relieved when I began to realize, some time later (can't remember exactly when), my memory began to revert to "normal".

Regardless, my analogy, like most, is not 100% perfect - it's the closest illustration that I could paint, however.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Formal educational qualifications are critical for leaders. After all, look at this guy  :

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=harvard&emb=0#


----------



## bdave

A quick question since i am curious.
We have established (or rather you folks told me   ) that intelligence and education/knowledge are not necessarily one and the same.
My question to you would be: How does one increase intelligence? 

I will do some pre-emptive striking here:

-If one cannot increase intelligence, then the point is moot and doesn't need to be brought up.
-If intelligence comes with experience, then that is something that no one can have initially. While you might be a great leader, it does not mean you would be a great officer. The skill set is different (i would assume). To be a great/good officer, you'd have to first start off as an officer and with time you'd improve. We have established that a great NCO does not necessarily a great officer make.
I would argue that experience doesn't bring intelligence, but knowledge. Knowing what to do from experience = knowledge, not intelligence.

I honestly believe that intelligence can be increased to some degree with knowledge.

Anxiously awaiting the replies (knowledgeable or intelligent?). 

edit: Bill Gates, the exception...not the rule.


----------



## Antoine

I am out of my lane about the present thread so I might digress a bit from the original subject and I apologize, but I would like to add my  :2c: from my own "long" experience about university. 

if someone use at his/her advantage the tools given by the education system, this student is already intelligent, he/she will probably be successful and be a leader in several environments other than academia. 
It is possible that for various environmental/personal/social reasons, a student wasn't aware of his/her potential, and/or wasn't put in an environment forcing him/her to use his neuronal connections and thus didn't seem to have much intellectual skills before starting university. He/she appears to start the year at the bottom but when the "neuronal engine" start, then you can witness it taking over pretty fast.

Other students start the year with a lot of knowledge learn by heart but are totally lost in the university environment, they can't think outside the box and can't adapt or use the tools offer by the academia (the institution and prof could be blamed to some extend also, I have failed sometime to push a student to develop those skills).

Other (include me) are average but are hardworkers. It makes success possible but more painfull to reach  , if you don't learn to be realistic about your goal.

Knowledge is easier to evaluate than intelligence. Thus, often the exams are not about thinking outside the box but more about how much knowledge can you process and write down in a small amount of time. Yes it creates an environment that improves your speed for problem solving (if you don't use the by heart system), memory, organizational skills but for me it could be learn from outside academia in a competitive environment. On another hand, you can graduate from university without a significant amelioration in critical thinking, teamwork skills, analytical skills outside your specialisation, development of tools and use of acquired knowledge to adapt to new situations, common sense ...

From my own experience I don't think that holding an university degree is a guarantee for a candidate to fit the requirements listed previously in the present thread, and hopfully the selection process, the BMOQ and the following trainings will sort that out sooner than later.

Maybe it is possible to use knowledge and life experience to improve intelligence, but I am still looking for a convincing and complete definition of intelligence (Wikipedia and related) despite I am using this word all over my posts!


----------



## George Wallace

bdave said:
			
		

> ...........To be a great/good officer, you'd have to first start off as an officer and with time you'd improve. We have established that a great NCO does not necessarily a great officer make.



I disagree that to become a great/good officer, you have to first start off as an officer.  Throughout our military history there have been many who have started out as NCOs and moved on to become very senior officers, and great ones at that.

We have also established that some, perhaps many, depending on how you look at them, have started out as officers and been complete disasters as such.  There is no monopoly on either extreme (good or bad).


----------



## Jammer

One Gen Jean (John...or whatever) Boyle springs to mind as an example of what not to be.


----------



## Michael OLeary

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I disagree that to become a great/good officer, you have to first start off as an officer.



I think what he meant was that "to become a great/good officer, you first have to be _commissioned_."

Without that first step it doesn't matter how good an officer you may have been in your own mind, since for many participants in this thread the concept of being a great/good officer is merely a thought experiment.


----------



## McG

bdave said:
			
		

> We have established (or rather you folks told me   ) that intelligence and education/knowledge are not necessarily one and the same.
> My question to you would be: How does one increase intelligence?


Yes.  Knowledge is not intelligence, but intelligence does exploit knowledge in order to make better decisions.  I think we can all agree that knowledge and skill can be improved through relevant training, education and experience.

Intelligence is your ability to think effectively and logically.  If we really have to use the computer analogy, then it is your hardware + your operating system (your brain + how you use it).  

Intelligence can be improved.  Like skills & knowledge, it is improved through training and experience.  Good education includeds "training" for the brain.  A proper education exposes the student to conflicting arguments & evidence, and then forces the student to discern what is right/wrong, true/false, or the closest thing to.  Surprisingly, I find that it is the Arts, not the sciences, which seem to do a better job of developing critical thinking skills.

In another thread, I made the following comments on this idea:


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> arctic_front said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... a degree in ... liberal arts sure doesn't sound to me like something very 'useful' to be a officer or a pilot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arctic_front said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sea king Taco....  please enlighten me as to how a liberal arts, or any other degree, is necessary  to flying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't speak for the piloting side, but the demonstrated ability to think critically does have a significant value for being an officer.  It is true that having a degree is not proof of intelligence, and the absence of a degree is not even suggestive of an intellectual deficiency.  However, in general, a degree indicates some formal effort has been made toward the betterment of an individual's critical thinking capability.  This first step is of great value, and it is built-upon thought an officer's career.
Click to expand...


----------



## Journeyman

Loachman said:
			
		

> I know that Moose Jaw, .....something...._*altered*_ my memory......I had difficulty remembering what I had done the day before.



That happens in Moose Jaw too, eh?   :cheers:



...I now return you to your substantive discussion  ;D


----------



## Park

Loachman said:
			
		

> Intelligence can be measured, to a certain degree at least. That is what an IQ score is for. IQ does not change with education.


In fact, it does. Significantly.  Environment and knowledge (of which education and experiences are subsets of) affect intelligence. It has been proven that certain types of training have been known to affect improve one's IQ. 

I am going to have to agree with MCG. An education is more than the acquisition of facts.  Education (even if it's from the school of hard knocks) will teach you how to use what you've got between your ears more effectively.



> Computers can be compared on the basis of their processor speeds and memory. That's the machine equivalent of intelligence. The programmes installed, and information stored, on the computer is the machine equivalent of education. See the difference?


You seem to think that IQ is determined by sheer genetics.  In that context, your arguments would be correct. But this is simply not true.  You will be hard pressed to find much (if any) current researcher that states that intelligence is 100% determined by genetics. 
People aren't computers. We are not strictly defined by our specifications. We can't upgrade ourselves by swapping components, computers can't 'exercise' a computer to make it more powerful. When we exercise our minds and bodies, they become stronger.  



> An intelligent person will absorb information and learn skills with or without formal education/training. Obviously, they will do so through trial and error and observing others and reading books on their own initiative, but they will do it. And they will do so better than a stupid person no matter how long that stupid person sits in a classroom.


No argument there.



> It should give that person a much better understanding of their subordinates' lives, but a few even manage to forget that with varying degrees of instantaneity. There is no need or benefit to institutionalize that.





> You just shot your earlier all-officers-from-the-ranks argument full of holes.


Its not I think all NCMs would make great Officers, but I think having hands-on NCM experience would be of enormous benefit for would-be Officers.  Its not for the leadership qualities they would have acquired, but for the increased understanding they will have.  And there might be merit in institutionalizing it.  Large corporations often have rotational programs for MBA grads, where they spend 12 to 24 months in various functions to get experience in non-managerial areas before becoming a manager.  Heck, in Air Canada's management programme they put you right on the tarmac handling baggage (probably not the best corporate example)

[quote author=George Wallace]This is not a black and white proposal.  There are many shades of gray.  I don't propose that a NCM with a Degree be an excellent candidate.  Often they may not be.  I have known Cpls who would never have passed their CLC/JLC/PLQ and then decided that the officer route was the route for them.  They made poor officers.  I would like to see NCOs who have successfully passed a Leadership Crse (PLQ, 6A, 6B, or 7 Crse) offered the opportunity to change their career path.  The offer would not be to all who passed, but those who showed the most potential.  
[/quote]
I agree, potential is very important.  My remark of officers coming from the ranks is more of a sentiment than an argument. As a person, I just have an admiration for those who busted their chops to get where they are.  Not to say that those who went through university didn't, but its not the same to me.

[quote author=George Wallace]
There are many shades of gray.    
[/quote]
Amen...way too many


----------



## gcclarke

Park said:
			
		

> In fact, it does. Significantly.  Environment and knowledge (of which education and experiences are subsets of) affect intelligence. It has been proven that certain types of training have been known to affect improve one's IQ.
> 
> I am going to have to agree with MCG. An education is more than the acquisition of facts.  Education (even if it's from the school of hard knocks) will teach you how to use what you've got between your ears more effectively.
> You seem to think that IQ is determined by sheer genetics.  In that context, your arguments would be correct. But this is simply not true.  You will be hard pressed to find much (if any) current researcher that states that intelligence is 100% determined by genetics.



The problem here is that you seem to be under the impression that IQ equates 100% with intelligence. But it isn't. A standard IQ test is one of the methods that we use to try and measure intelligence, but they are not one and the same. And while certain training may increase a person's IQ testing scores, it doesn't make the person any smarter. Someone who takes a course entitled "How to do well on an IQ test" is very likely to be rated as "smarter" than the same person in an alternate universe who did not take said test.

I will agree that it isn't 100% genetics, certainly environmental factors such as nutrition and parenting growing up affect things. But by the time someone reaches adulthood, your ability to learn how to do something is pretty much at its maximum. 

And that's what intelligence is. It isn't what you know how to do, it's how capable you are of learning to do something. Education helps, because it typically A) Proves that you're at least smart enough to learn how to do _something_, and B) Hopefully also teaches you something that might be useful on later in life. 

And of course, the idea of using an IQ number to assess how intelligent someone is is flawed in other ways. Two people may have the same IQ, when one of them is good at math and science, and the other is good at english and sculpture. Is any one of them smarter? Maybe, but their capabilities really need to be assessed with a bias towards how they want to use them. This would be why the CF uses the CFAT instead of a standard IQ test. Because some of the factors that a standard IQ test might be assessing, aren't something that the CF cares about, and some factors that the CF does care about might not be tested by the standard IQ test.


----------



## mariomike

Park said:
			
		

> You seem to think that IQ is determined by sheer genetics.



Reminds me of the story where Marilyn Monroe suggests to Einstein: What do you say, professor, shouldn't we marry and have a little baby together: what a baby it would be - my looks and your intelligence!
Einstein: I'm afraid, dear lady, it might be the other way around...


----------



## McG

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I will agree that it isn't 100% genetics, certainly environmental factors such as nutrition and parenting growing up affect things. But by the time someone reaches adulthood, your ability to learn how to do something is pretty much at its maximum.


It's a good thing we train all our medical doctors when they are still children then. :clown:

I call BS.  You've made a baseless assumption & expect us to just accept it as fact.


----------



## Quag

MCG said:
			
		

> It's a good thing we train all our medical doctors when they are still children then. :clown:
> 
> I call BS.  You've made a baseless assumption & expect us to just accept it as fact.



MCG,

Ummmm....I hope your post was a joke, right?!?!

If not then I'm sorry to inform you, but Gcclarke is right.  Genetics, nutrition (breast feeding etc...), parenting, and environment all play huge factors, to name a few.

Edited to Add...I read a little further in Gcclarke's post and realized that his last sentence was completely wrong.  Adult learning is indeed alive and well.  No more comment required there.  Further, Gcclarke seems to have lifted most of his last post from Wikipedia (search intelligence).


----------



## gcclarke

MCG said:
			
		

> It's a good thing we train all our medical doctors when they are still children then. :clown:
> 
> I call BS.  You've made a baseless assumption & expect us to just accept it as fact.





			
				Quag said:
			
		

> MCG,
> Edited to Add...I read a little further in Gcclarke's post and realized that his last sentence was completely wrong.  Adult learning is indeed alive and well.  No more comment required there.  Further, Gcclarke seems to have lifted most of his last post from Wikipedia (search intelligence).


I don't really see where in my post I indicated that learning as an adult is impossible. I certainly stated that one's capacity to learn doesn't increase much past adulthood. People don't get better at learning than they were. But they certainly still retain their capabilities to learn for pretty much their entire lives, until old age starts messing with things.

But there mere fact that someone is still able to continue learning how to do something doesn't mean that someone's capacity of learning increases. They're just using the current capacity they've got. No we don't train doctors when they are children, Neil Patrick Harris notwithstanding, because to become a doctor requires an immense amount of knowledge and training to work off of. But the mere fact that someone is able to become a medical doctor past adulthood, doesn't mean that they become smarter in the process. It just means that they know more about a certain subject. They have learned, not gotten better at learning. 

I will admit that I did indeed make certain assumptions in my post, mostly based upon what I remember reading about studies on people's capability to learn languages, and how that drops off after a certain age. Although I didn't steal it from the wiki page, although I'll have to go there and edit any sections that disagree with my post


----------



## chrisf

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I will admit that I did indeed make certain assumptions in my post, mostly based upon what I remember reading about studies on people's capability to learn languages, and how that drops off after a certain age. Although I didn't steal it from the wiki page, although I'll have to go there and edit any sections that disagree with my post



There's your problem... the ability to learn languages in adulthood DOES strongly drop off... it's much easier to learn a language earlier in life then later in life, just the way our brains are wired... and much easier to learn more languages once you're bi-lingual then going from uni-lingual to bi-lingual...

That being said, don't equate that to adult learning... while it's true that adult brains and child brains interpret information differently, and learn differently, adults are just as capable of learning... they just learn differently, hence why there's different styles of learning... adults are self-motivated learners, and as such, they need to be motivated to learn, look up the term "androgogy" (I'll even save you the trouble http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgogy )

Ever wonder why every military class you attend (should anyway) start off the same way? With a review of previous material, and then an explanation of where you'll use the material and why you'll need to know it as well as a structured break down of the class? It's because the military has teaching adults down to a science (Well, science has teaching adults down to a science as well) unfortunately, and this is why some adults have trouble learning, most institutes of higher learning (universities, colleges etc) are not overly good at teaching (Somone who's university educated is going to take offence to that, but quite frankly, most university profs, while experts in their field, are lousy teachers)... so it generally requires aself-motivated individual to learn (A geology class I was attended as a case-in-point, where the prof spent the class mumbling to himself, and clicking through a confusing power point slide)...

Adult learning is all about motivation.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Park said:
			
		

> Its not I think all NCMs would make great Officers, but I think having hands-on NCM experience would be of enormous benefit for would-be Officers.  Its not for the leadership qualities they would have acquired, but for the increased understanding they will have.  And there might be merit in institutionalizing it.  Large corporations often have rotational programs for MBA grads, where they spend 12 to 24 months in various functions to get experience in non-managerial areas before becoming a manager.  Heck, in Air Canada's management programme they put you right on the tarmac handling baggage (probably not the best corporate example)



It is wonderful that Air Canada makes it managers handle baggage. Just remember that we train officers: we are not running a management program.

The first developmental period for an officer is quite rigorous and historically has a significant failure rate. This period can last several years during which the young OCdt/2Lt is learning how to be a platoon commander/troop leader etc. They will live in barracks and do station jobs. They will endure inspections of their kit and quarters. They will do PT at O dark stupid in the morning. For combat arms officers they will learn most of the skills that their soldiers learn, albeit not in as much detail for most of those skills (especially driving but some others as well). A successful candiate will come to his Regiment with some field time under his belt and will have been tested under fairly realistic and arduous conditions. He is not just a university graduate who walks off convocation and into his post of Troop Leader.

That being said, with the exception of those that did come from the ranks he does not have the experience of day-in/day-out living as a Private/Trooper in a field unit. He does, however, live and operate with his soldiers in the field. He is not sitting in an Air Canada corporate office while his minions sling baggage. He also has the benefit of his Troop Warrant Officer and his Sergeants who have extensive experience at day to day life in a Regiment. He has to rely on their judgement and advice in order to be successful. 

As a Troop Leader my Warrant Officer was the guiding force behind all personnel decisions. I wasn't just sitting there reading Sentinel, but I would never make a decision about one of our soldiers without first going to the WO. For the record his recommendation was always the course of action selected. In the field, tactics were more my "domain", but I still took my WOs and Sgts aside to get their advice first when I could. When I was suddenly in command of a tank squadron for two days in the field as a Lt (the grown-ups had all been pulled away) I grabbed the Troop WOs and the Sqn Ops Sgt for thirty minutes to come up with a way forward. When a combat team exercise was falling apart with regards to tank-infantry cooperation I turned to my old Germany hand Sergeant in front of the assembled Troop/Platoon and asked him to "please un-**** us." Officers in some other armies don't have that luxury.

As a Squadron Commander I follow the same course today. Soldier matters are the domain of my SSM, although we work on these as a team. For tactical matters I engage the team of long-service professionals that the Crown has entrusted to me. I am responsible for all, but I am not in a fortress of solitude finding the solutions in isolation.

The discussion of intelligence and education has brought us very far from George Wallace's intent to advise prospective officer applicants that they are considering something very serious and that they should be prepared to put their own careers and interests last in the orderm of march. At the risk of being called a Victorian-era anti-intellectual, I note that my commissioning scoll says nothing about my intelligence or intellect. It does mention Loyalty, Integrity and Courage. 
Cheers

T2B


----------



## McG

gcclarke said:
			
		

> ... by the time someone reaches adulthood, your ability to learn how to do something is pretty much at its maximum.





			
				gcclarke said:
			
		

> I don't really see where in my post I indicated that learning as an adult is impossible.


So lets recap.  I stated that there is an element of intelligence which is related to how you think, and this element can be developed through learning and experience.  You rejected this on the argument that an adult has maxed-out the ability to learn.  I called BS, and now you are back peddling.  

Pick a side of the fence!  You can learn as an adult (how to speak another language, how to be a doctor, how to ride a motorcycle, or how to think more effectively), or you cannot learn as an adult.  If you think it is possible to learn as an adult, then maybe retract your complete dismissal of my assertion that intelligence can be improved.

Maybe there is merit to the argument that as an adult it is more difficult to spontaneously learn new things.  (If you want to learn a second language as an adult, you are going to require a deliberate & structured effort as opposed to the child who might just get the gist through semi-frequent exposure)  I would be willing to accept the notion that intellect growth through osmosis peaks at a certain point, and beyond that point a deliberate effort is required.  To me, this would seem to make a good formal education even more important if we desire to increase the critical thinking ability of the officer corps.


----------



## gcclarke

MCG said:
			
		

> So lets recap.  I stated that there is an element of intelligence which is related to how you think, and this element can be developed through learning and experience.  You rejected this on the argument that an adult has maxed-out the ability to learn.  I called BS, and now you are back peddling.
> 
> Pick a side of the fence!  You can learn as an adult (how to speak another language, how to be a doctor, how to ride a motorcycle, or how to think more effectively), or you cannot learn as an adult.  If you think it is possible to learn as an adult, then maybe retract your complete dismissal of my assertion that intelligence can be improved.
> 
> Maybe there is merit to the argument that as an adult it is more difficult to spontaneously learn new things.  (If you want to learn a second language as an adult, you are going to require a deliberate & structured effort as opposed to the child who might just get the gist through semi-frequent exposure)  I would be willing to accept the notion that intellect growth through osmosis peaks at a certain point, and beyond that point a deliberate effort is required.  To me, this would seem to make a good formal education even more important if we desire to increase the critical thinking ability of the officer corps.
> .



I do not think I am back-peddling, although perhaps I simply did not make my thoughts clear, at least apparently not to anyone other than myself. 

I stated that I think that as you reach adulthood, your _ability to learn_ how to do something is pretty much at a maximum. What I meant by that was that, as an adult, you do not get any better at learning. The rate at which you learn something doesn't increase, although you may devise methods that suit you better. The throughput of information that you can process doesn't get any better. This doesn't mean that you suddenly cannot process information. It doesn't mean that you cannot learn something past your 20s. It simply means that you can't do so better at 35 than you would have been able to at 25, all other things considered equal. 

It is that "all things considered equal" that is important. Now, of course, during that decade, you will also likely have learned a great deal that will likely act as a foundation for whatever it is that you're going through, and will likely make the process easier than it would have been at 25. But if we are talking about learning something that was completely and utterly foreign to you, the difficulty should be about the same.

This is what I meant. I still think that you cannot train yourself to become smarter, more intelligent. I think you can train yourself to do better on certain types of tests designed to measure intellect, but that to me simply seems to be a flaw in the testing mechanism rather than a sign of actual growth. But the mere act of learning something does not equate to an increase of intelligence. One can certainly be both smart and ignorant.


----------



## Park

Fantastic post T2B.  

For me, it was excellent insight

Also, you are right, some of us (including me) have taking the sub-topic of a need for a degree and being an officer off on a tangent with the intelligence argument.  Probably deserves a thread of its own on Radio Chatter.

Thank You


----------



## Gunner98

There are 3 field-grade officers - one from each element, currently sponsored on Master of Business Admin and Health Admin programs at Univ of Ottawa, they seem to absorb new info at a much faster rate than their much younger class mates.  Each of these officers completed undergraduate degrees between 10 and 25 years ago and have 20-27 years in uniform. Each has had to adjust to not always being the leader in their small school-group settings and resisting the urge to do everything on their own.  In some ways going back to school is a little easier for them because they have a stable salary/employment and loads of experience in their own environs. 

After 25 years outside of a civilian classroom environment it is certainly an adjustment to watch their class mates multi-task by having 5 or more windows open on their wireless-connected computer in class and constantly texting friends while a 3-hour accounting or statistics lecture is going on around them.

Perhaps older people (old being +35) do not learn better but they have learned important lessons: to concentrate on one thing at a time, commit to non-life threatening decisions after reviewing the options only once, and it is reasonable to expect to produce an action plan with priorities of work in less three hours.  This seems not to be as easy for those under 35.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> As a Troop Leader my Warrant Officer was the guiding force behind all personnel decisions. I wasn't just sitting there reading Sentinel, but I would never make a decision about one of our soldiers without first going to the WO. For the record his recommendation was always the course of action selected. In the field, tactics were more my "domain", but I still took my WOs and Sgts aside to get their advice first when I could. When I was suddenly in command of a tank squadron for two days in the field as a Lt (the grown-ups had all been pulled away) I grabbed the Troop WOs and the Sqn Ops Sgt for thirty minutes to come up with a way forward. When a combat team exercise was falling apart with regards to tank-infantry cooperation I turned to my old Germany hand Sergeant in front of the assembled Troop/Platoon and asked him to "please un-**** us." Officers in some other armies don't have that luxury.



I'm glad to hear that you were graced with high quality SNCOs to work with. 

However, my first tour as a Pl Comd in the regular army was made more interesting by the fact that a) I took over the platoon while they were on operations 2) they had been commanded by the Pl Sgt for about a year and he was universally hated by the troops, who accused him of stealing the platoon fund, beating people up, hitting on their wives/girlfriends  etc etc 3) he basically ignored me from the get go, did nothing to make my job easier and ran an intimidation program to maintain control even though I was 'the boss'.

After about a week of this, it became clear to me that this guy should go, but the OC and CSM were apparently oblivious to his faults and was adamant that he stay. I suspect, to this day, that he 'had something' on them both, but can't prove it. When I first watched the movie 'Platoon' I immediately recognized this guy as the character played by Tom Berenger, 'Sgt Barnes, except that my guy had a large, evil looking herpes lesion on his lip vs. Berenger's facial scar (ewww).

So what to do? Brand new 2Lt, troops in combat in a pretty tough area and they had been IED'd before - no casualties thankfully - but were pretty nervous, Pl 2IC is a card carrying d*ckhead who is apparently covered in teflon, I'm the 'new guy' in the crowd and they hadn't been led by an officer for about a year: all the odds seemed stacked against me. 

Well, I just fell back on doing what I was trained to do - lead. 

And by that I mean 'going first' ..... alot. So, starting with the basics, I went out with almost every patrol, whether I was running the show or not, to find out what made people tick and to build my own confidence. I literally went first through every hedge, fence, doorway and stream crossing. I took my turn on sangar duty. I search hundreds of cars. I developed and issued proper orders. I studiously avoided being 'chummy' with people at all costs, apart from sharing the occasional brew up or mess tin of scoff. I inspected everything, but not always in the 'stand by your beds' style, more like poking my nose in and asking questions. I led area cleaning patrols to pick up the garbage around our static locations ("It might be booby trapped sir so we don't touch it" - yeah, right). I issued orders directly to the secion/brick commanders and avoided the 'filtering' of information through the Pl Sgt. I'm afraid that I didn't ask for much advice, but what we were doing wasn't really rocket science, and I was able to convey pretty good direction from the top to the frontline. I developed a good working relationship with the CQMS, he had my 'Sgt Barnes' figured out, who looked after our guys when the Pl Sgt wasn't.

After about a month, people just started to accept me as a neutral third party and started aligning with me and what I was doing. No one got killed or injured, we worked hard, people got happier, Sgt D*ckhead was marginalized and spent most of his time in base, life went on...

So what helped?

1) I didn't care what anyone thought of me, or ask much advice or permission. I just saw what I thought needed to be done and did it in a 'follow me' kind of way. Call it 'the courage of my convictions' mixed in with a pinch of sheer bloody mindedness and a dash of blissful ignorance. 

2) I was the platoon's 'Energizer Bunny'. I'd had a solid grounding in the 'principles' of being an Officer during my training, which were really quite simple, as well as in some basic leadership and technical skills - like reading a map, basic tactics and weapons handling, and the orders process. I was one of the fittest guys in the platoon. I poked around in everything and was active doing all sorts of wierd things, like combat garbage patrols. People were confident that I had the right values, I guess, and I gained more confidence in every little task I took on.

3) I was seen as different from my soldiers in some key areas e.g., I'd had a couple of years of college, was not from the ranks and didn't have any of that kind of baggage (and I saw some Officers, who were from the ranks, struggling), and was more 'mission focused' and didn't need to hang around and be 'one of the boys' or swing the lamp to influence people to get things done.

4) The resiliency of the rifle company. It's like a human body: if one part starts to fail another steps in to take over; like the senior Cpl who started to take on more Pl Sgt level responsibilities, or the CQ who spent a little more time helping my platoon. Everyone was well trained and experienced in their jobs too, so there was no need to be worried about Pte. Bloggins because he didn't know how to do an ambush etc.

Would it have helped if I had had spent time in the ranks or held a Masters degree? Thinking back, I seriously doubt it, but this is a very subjective experience and what worked for me might not for another person.

IMHO, whatever you need, apart from your rank, position and basic values, to have the courage of your convictions and the energy and personal confidence to lead from the front when required, are the basic skills required of a commissioned Officer.


----------



## McG

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I do not think I am back-peddling, although perhaps I simply did not make my thoughts clear, at least apparently not to anyone other than myself.
> 
> I stated that I think that as you reach adulthood, your _ability to learn_ how to do something is pretty much at a maximum.


Clearly, you were only clear to you ... and maybe still are.  However, I'm not going to bother with your argument that an individual's ability to learn hits a peak on entering adulthood and plateaus from there on out.  I will also not question how you reach this conclusion through your premise that children are better learners (I would think this premise would lead you in a different direction).  It all doesn't really matter, as that argument is not tied to your real opinion on the matter:





			
				gcclarke said:
			
		

> This is what I meant. I still think that you cannot train yourself to become smarter, more intelligent.


I disagree.  This is my opinion.  It is based on observations which lack a little rigorour of the scientific process but which I feel fairly comfortable non the less.  My sample is a mix of WO, MWO, Capt & Maj.  The ages are clustered in the late twenties and in the mid-late forties with a few outside these groups.

I have seen people go through challenging academic training & come out of it more intelligent.  As I alluded to earlier, there was a deliberate focus made on learning to think, learning to form arguments, learning to recognize fallacious arguments, learning to recognize cognitive biases, learning to organize thoughts, and learning to solve problems.  For the vast majority of what I observed, the guys come out smarter.  They could think faster, handle more information at once, solve more complicated problems (and ones outside their comfort areas & experience), etc.  I even watched an old infantry MWO deflate the position of a team of mechanical engineers in a subject that would have been their strength.



			
				Park said:
			
		

> Also, you are right, some of us (including me) have taking the sub-topic of a need for a degree and being an officer off on a tangent with the intelligence argument.  Probably deserves a thread of its own on Radio Chatter.


I don't think it needs to be.  The subject is too interwoven to this thread as it was a focus of attack near to the start.  It can't be neatly split, so we may as well have it out here.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'm glad to hear that you were graced with high quality SNCOs to work with.



Which Army were you serving in? As I noted, not every officer in the world will have the luxury of truly professional long serving non-commissioned officers.

You were clearly in a bad spot, and it raises a good point. At the end of the day the officer must be ready to chart the course that he knows is right, even if it is difficult and he has no support. Perhaps that is why Courage is one of the three traits mentioned on the Commissioning Scroll.

As an aside, I find that the informal duality we have in our command gives us great strength. The young, keen and perhaps idealistic junior officer is balanced by the experienced NCO. This duality also means that our command structure is resilient.


----------



## PMedMoe

MCG said:
			
		

> I have seen people go through challenging academic training & come out of it more intelligent.



I'm not pointing fingers here, but I think people are mixing up _intelligence_ and learning (or education or knowledge, whatever you want to call it).

Simple analogy (at least to me):  If you have a 100 litre barrel, it can hold anywhere from 1 cc to 100 litres, however, it can never _exceed_ the 100 litre capacity.  So if a person's intelligence is a fixed point, that point will never be exceeded.  That's not to say they cannot learn new things or even new ways of doing things (or thinking or problem solving or what have you).  That makes them more _educated_, _knowledgeable_ or _learned_, not more _intelligent_.

Now, don't use my simple barrel analogy to say there's a limit on what one person can _learn_.


----------



## mariomike

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Simple analogy (at least to me):  If you have a 100 litre barrel, it can hold anywhere from 1 cc to 100 litres, however, it can never _exceed_ the 100 litre capacity.  So if a person's intelligence is a fixed point, that point will never be exceeded.  That's not to say they cannot learn new things or even new ways of doing things (or thinking or problem solving or what have you).  That makes them more _educated_, _knowledgeable_ or _learned_, not more _intelligent_.
> Now, don't use my simple barrel analogy to say there's a limit on what one person can _learn_.



So that's what my mother meant when she used to tell me I was two pickles short of a barrel!


----------



## George Wallace

I hope you were holding a 'hockey sock full' of pickles.   >









If not; it would be a fairly small barrel.


----------



## Infanteer

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> long serving non-commissioned officers.



We still have those?


----------



## McG

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I'm not pointing fingers here, but I think people are mixing up _intelligence_ and learning (or education or knowledge, whatever you want to call it).


You are pointing fingers, and I am not making this confusion  ... but you know that as you've read reply #112 and seen how I've described those as different.

Intelligence is not a genetically fixed constant.  Intelligence is not just a measure of potential capability, it is a measure of the actual capability.  Much like athletic prowess, intellectual prowess can be improved through training, practice and application of skill.  A good education provides the training & develops the skills.


----------



## PMedMoe

Okey-dokey, then.  I'm outta here, this thread is over my head.


----------



## ballz

I've followed this thread since it started and still feel like I probably shouldn't post quite yet because I'm still so on the fence about a lot of this stuff. But there are opinions I've had before this thread started that still haven't changed so I guess I'll start with them.

First off, let me say I hate you all because you've caused me to open up my Psychology textbook which I swore I was going to burn soon. I was trying to find their definition of intelligence, that I argued with the prof about until I was blue in the face. Still can't find it, but it basically divides intelligence into categories.... Some bogus ones at that. Basically anything that you can be talented in, means you are intelligent. They broaden the boundaries of intelligence by making categories such as "musical" intelligence and "athletic" intelligence. Pure BS in my opinion but it's things like this that have caused me to not hold much weight with psychology.

Anywho, my opinion, and what I've told people that asked me "How will having a Business degree help you be an Infantry officer? How does any of it apply to Infantry?" And to be honest, I don't think it really does or will help. My reponse is that the military wants us to have bachelor degrees to prove that we're at least competant enough to obtain one. Does that level of competance mean you have the level of competance required to do the job of an Infantry officer? Curse words no. But at least it means you don't have people that are seriously so incompetant that they couldn't get a BA leading troops.

This is why you can CFR. You've already proven that level of competance, they don't need you to get a degree to prove your smart enough to get a degree, you've already proven it with your other accomplishments and experience that they have been able to moniter. Let's be serious, of all (and that's a very limited number) the SNCOs and WOs that I've met, it becomes pretty damn clear pretty damn fast that they've got their wits about them, and I don't doubt for a second that they could obtain a Bachelor's degree.

But taking a guy off the street with no experience, wouldn't you want to know that he's at least competant enough to get a fricken Bachelor's degree?

So onto the topic of WOs and Sgts being more fit to lead a platoon than a young Lt.... That's probably true 99% of the time. I know that if I were put in comd of a platoon and had guys like WO Janek as a 2IC and Sgt Harpelle as a section comd, I wouldn't have much to worry about in terms of the platoon functioning. I 'd be ecstatic to be teamed up with these guys to consult with and guide me through whatever decisions I needed to make.

And that's what it is at the end of the day. It's a team, not a boss and subordinates. No single person could bear all the trials and responsibilities and make all the decisions on his own. Just like the President of the US that has his team of consultants that he uses to make decisions. By God there's no way I'd be making any decisions without getting the input of those much more knowledgeable and experienced in the area than me, and I doubt any competant President would be making decisions on healthcare without talking to the top doctors in the country, or making a military decision without talking to a team of Generals.

What exactly is wrong with this system? It seems to be working quite well. It's no secret that these Sgts and WOs are the backbone of success. I think the only flaw comes when a young officer thinks he holds more merit because of his rank than these Sgts and WOs, but also when these Sgts and WOs, who know they know more from their experience than this young chap with his commission, and instead of contributing to this team effort, undermine the young officer's efforts. I've come across an attitude so far in this thread, and I won't mention who's, but it makes me worry that I might be teamed up with a team of leaders that act the way he does. But these are flaws with the people, not with the system. Unfortunately people aren't perfect, so whatever system you choose, it won't be either.


----------



## Another Mom

Global intelligence in adults is generally accepted to be the degree to which one can problem solve and reason abstractly (as opposed to thinking magically or concretely). There are many domains or skills, which can comprise "intelligence" (verbal/ math/ interpersonal/ visual perceptual/ spatial, etc.). All people have their own personal patterns of strengths and weaknesses and other factors (ability to pay attention, remember, plan, organize, control their emotions, memory, delay reward, etc.) also figure in. Measuring these attributes has pretty good predictive value, within limits and although the brain is plastic, intelligence, as measured by an IQ test, is fairly stable over the life span.   Scores are more affected by cultural factors than education. When people get older, they lose the ability to learn new material as quickly as they did when they were younger and their memory degrades.  This may be balanced by developing wisdom. A certain degree of intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for wisdom, which requires experience (of which education can be one part) and the awareness of relativistic, uncertain and paradoxical nature of human problems.  I have no idea what kind of attributes make a good officer, but I would guess, good organization, verbal ability, interpersonal skills, calmness under pressure and  knowledge of and ability to solve problems in their domain of work.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Which Army were you serving in? As I noted, not every officer in the world will have the luxury of truly professional long serving non-commissioned officers.
> 
> You were clearly in a bad spot, and it raises a good point. At the end of the day the officer must be ready to chart the course that he knows is right, even if it is difficult and he has no support. Perhaps that is why Courage is one of the three traits mentioned on the Commissioning Scroll.
> 
> As an aside, I find that the informal duality we have in our command gives us great strength. The young, keen and perhaps idealistic junior officer is balanced by the experienced NCO. This duality also means that our command structure is resilient.



British Army, the Parachute Regiment: "Every man a whimperer!". And, though an 'elite' formation, not immune from their fair share of thuds, as I have noted above.


----------



## SeanNewman

+1 to most of Ballz's post.

I fully agree with the "Team" aspect of the officer / NCM relationship, particularly at platoon level since the Lt has essentially nil real-time experience (talking about a fresh-to-arrive one, not one that has done a tour and is about to be promoted to Capt).

I would strongly advise the attitude that when you show up, you have the mind set (and even say it aloud for others to hear) that you are there to adapt to that platoon's SOPs, not the other way around.

You will usually have a WO that you can trust your life with, one superstar experienced Sgt, one newly promoted keen Sgt, and one old and crusty Sgt* who may do everything he can to add poison to the team loyalty atmosphere.

*Not knocking the rank of Sgt, it's probably that same balance for every environment with three subordinates.


----------



## Greymatters

Petamocto said:
			
		

> *Not knocking the rank of Sgt, it's probably that same balance for every environment with three subordinates.



Unfortunately, if you have three Sergeants, one of them has to finish last - but not all of them are poisonous wrecks...


----------



## SeanNewman

Greymatters said:
			
		

> ...but not all of them are poisonous wrecks...



Absolutely!  This is by no means a scientific study, but if I were to take the 20 or so Sgts I have had to honour to command, approx 10 of them were ideal and super checked out, 5 of them may not have been perfect but were still professional and great to work with, a few were just okay, one was bad, and one was genuine poison.

So yes, overall a young Lt has the deck stacked in his favour in terms of support.  Which in my opinion is all the more reason to be a team player when you get there.  Not that I'm suggesting anyone above had the attitude that they were going to reinvent the wheel upon arrival, but they will all know you're the boss...any efforts you make to push it home that you wear the Daddy Pants it almost assuredly going to win the battle at the cost of the war.


----------



## helpup

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Absolutely!  This is by no means a scientific study, but if I were to take the 20 or so Sgts I have had to honour to command, approx 10 of them were ideal and super checked out, 5 of them may not have been perfect but were still professional and great to work with, a few were just okay, one was bad, and one was genuine poison.
> 
> So yes, overall a young Lt has the deck stacked in his favour in terms of support.  Which in my opinion is all the more reason to be a team player when you get there.  Not that I'm suggesting anyone above had the attitude that they were going to reinvent the wheel upon arrival, but they will all know you're the boss...any efforts you make to push it home that you wear the Daddy Pants it almost assuredly going to win the battle at the cost of the war.



I think I know some of the plus and minus people you are refering to....... Yet that type of persona tends to be cyclical in nature for a large percentage of the minuses.  ( stars tend to always shine thank God)  Sometimes it just takes the right personality mix to bring out the best in all, and for that matter I could say the same about the Coys Pl Comd.  As you put it someone is going to have to come out on the bottom.  Extrapolating further you can say the same about Coy's themselves in a Bn and Bn in a Regt, Regt in the army...........  That is amusing really as the personalities you mentioned are readily transferable.


----------



## SeanNewman

And that's exactly what I wrote on my previous post.

It's not just Sgts, that same ratio is probably the same other than right at the very top where people are chosen by selection.

But yeah, any rank that is chosen just by people passing the minimum standard and a few courses will get you that ratio (from Pte to Capt).

I think you're wrong about any higher than that though, probably at Coy level and above is gets very different because you have to be chosen to fill the position.  Even if you make MWO or Major, you won't get to be an OC or CSM unless people above you think you deserve it.

I'm not saying you don't get bad people in higher ranks (either NCM or Officer), but the higher you go, the higher the probability that they deserve it.


----------



## Dilanger

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Dilanger,
> 
> This is a phenomenal post.
> 
> However, after you have been to RMC, for the full term, I want you to come here and validate this post.
> 
> I am not busting your balls, but I will say this.  You will not be taught that in RMC, trust me.
> 
> And if you go against the grain, you will be a pariah...
> 
> Trust me,
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



So here you go man, I've done one full term at RMC, revieced my mosid pilot and my opions havent changed....


----------



## Franko

Dilanger said:
			
		

> So here you go man, I've done one full term at RMC, revieced my mosid pilot and my opions havent changed....



Your grammar hasn't either.       :

Regards


----------



## lvanveen

Hi, i'm hoping this is the right forum for this but here it goes

I'm a 17 year old female from Ontario and RMC is 100% where I want to go. I'd like to either major in history or political science. I have a 92% average and i'm a strong student. I'm the student council president at my highschool and i'm also on LINK crew which is a program where older students help grade nines to transition to highschool. I have had 3 part-time jobs and I also volunteer. I love sports and I will be one of the captains of my school's rugby team this year. I'm also on the cross-country running team, badminton and curling teams. I play rep soccer as well. I weight-train and run often. 

What are my chances of getting in to RMC and also do I have any chance of becoming a pilot? (great eyesight)?

Any feedback on this would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks


----------



## Nauticus

lvanveen said:
			
		

> Hi, i'm hoping this is the right forum for this but here it goes
> 
> I'm a 17 year old female from Ontario and RMC is 100% where I want to go. I'd like to either major in history or political science. I have a 92% average and i'm a strong student. I'm the student council president at my highschool and i'm also on LINK crew which is a program where older students help grade nines to transition to highschool. I have had 3 part-time jobs and I also volunteer. I love sports and I will be one of the captains of my school's rugby team this year. I'm also on the cross-country running team, badminton and curling teams. I play rep soccer as well. I weight-train and run often.
> 
> What are my chances of getting in to RMC and also do I have any chance of becoming a pilot? (great eyesight)?
> 
> Any feedback on this would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks



Well, obviously it SOUNDS like you might be a solid candidate. Nobody here knows you, though, so none of us can give a realistic opinion on whether you have a good chance or not. You've done good things, but obviously there's a lot more to being an officer than that.


----------



## Loachman

lvanveen said:
			
		

> do I have any chance of becoming a pilot?



Yes.

About 1 in 800.


----------



## MSEng314

As the old saying goes, you don't have any chance until you apply...

You might want to talk to your local CFRC, as a bunch of people on my platoon applied to be a pilot, but they had to choose another trade because pilot was "closed."

Also: Welcome to Milnet.ca!


----------



## derael

Apply and see what happens. No one here can predict whether you get in or not.

Chase your goals down; stop looking for odds. When it comes to life there are no safe routes, and if there is they certainly don't lead anywhere special.


----------



## lvanveen

thanks for the advice. i'm definitely going for it and i know i can do it.


----------



## tsokman

I qualified for DEO but I chose to go LCIS tech NCM and possibly request intel officer as a senior NCO.  Do you think former-NCO's make better officers...


----------



## vonGarvin

tsokman said:
			
		

> I qualified for DEO but I chose to go LCIS tech NCM and *possibly request intel officer as a senior NCO*.  Do you think former-NCO's make better officers...


Takes a loooong time to make it to Sr NCO.

As for who make better officers: as a former NCM now Officer, I've seen good and bad from both sides of the fence.  Some former NCOs still think that they are NCOs, others think that they are now "the chosen ones", others are ok.  As for the RMC officer (eg: no NCM time), I've seen some that are junk, some that are good, and others who are outstanding.  So, in short, I feel it is up to the individual.


----------



## Michael OLeary

tsokman said:
			
		

> I qualified for DEO but I chose to go LCIS tech NCM and possibly request intel officer as a senior NCO.  Do you think former-NCO's make better officers...



Now there's a horse that hasn't been beaten ridden in a while.  Anyone thinking about taking it for a ride should start with this thread: UP FROM THE RANKS!


----------



## tsokman

I read in a military history of the Vietnam War that the best small unit officers were former-NCO's..platoon to company or even batallion CO's...

How long do you have to wait to apply for officer as an NCM if you have all the educational requirements for it already...thanks...


----------



## George Wallace

You have been given the link to what you are asking..........Please READ it.


----------



## 40below

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Takes a loooong time to make it to Sr NCO.
> 
> As for who make better officers: as a former NCM now Officer, I've seen good and bad from both sides of the fence.  Some former NCOs still think that they are NCOs, others think that they are now "the chosen ones", others are ok.



That's funny because I spent some time with Otter Squadron last year, and one of the biggest hurdles for those individuals early on, particularly those from the combat arms, was reigning in what the staff called 'NCO moments' - the ingrained habit of jumping in to correct something personally rather than delegating and letting the current crop of NCOs do the hands-on stuff.


----------



## Occam

40below said:
			
		

> Technoviking said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Takes a loooong time to make it to Sr NCO.
> 
> As for who make better officers: as a former NCM now Officer, I've seen good and bad from both sides of the fence.  *Some former NCOs still think that they are NCOs,* others think that they are now "the chosen ones", others are ok.  As for the RMC officer (eg: no NCM time), I've seen some that are junk, some that are good, and others who are outstanding.  So, in short, I feel it is up to the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny because I spent some time with Otter Squadron last year, and one of the biggest hurdles for those individuals early on, particularly those from the combat arms, was reigning in what the staff called 'NCO moments' - the ingrained habit of jumping in to correct something personally rather than delegating and letting the current crop of NCOs do the hands-on stuff.
Click to expand...


 ???

Why is that funny? Isn't that what Technoviking alluded to in the bolded part above?


----------



## Dilanger

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> Your grammar hasn't either.       :
> 
> Regards



sorry that i can't spell the best in my second language.....i'll try harder.


----------



## PrairieBoy

This is more of a question about RMC than about becoming an officer, but I thought this would be the appropriate thread rather than the ROTP thread, correct me if I'm wrong. 

I've been watching videos of RMC FYOP obstacle courses from previous years. Do the challenges change every year or are they always the same? Because in one year's videos, members of a flight crawl through a shallow trench that's been filled with water. In another, the flight seems to be crawling through a similar trench, but just muddy rather than filled with water. So do the obstacles change? Or can I get an idea of what to expect by watching videos?


----------



## SeanNewman

RMC has a bad stereotype but in my experience it has been almost entirely false.

Call it what you want, the culture of entitlement, the silver spoon...whatever...perhaps less than 10% of the ones I have served with were deserving (which pretty much mirrors DEO, CEOTP, or NCMs).

As for the obstacle course, from what I hear it's not the trench you need to worry about; it's the firehose on the hill.


----------



## Wiskers_MLD

Some obstacle change, some don't, its different every year. check out the other posts, I'm sure there plenty said about it all.
As for the people here, the majority are gonna have to learn quick after graduation, including myself. but its not just the students, some of the officers here never really learned leadership,  which is probably why they were sent here in the first place.
Either way, its your own experience. and the videos wont do you justice.
Best of luck to ya.


----------



## muadib02

In my limited, yet rather meaningful experience with RMC, the Forces in General and a thesis devoted to the education of officers as leaders....I have learend one thing....that is that Leadership (the quality) is not learned, taught, or otherwise imparted to people.  They either have it in them or they dont. On that note some people are just better at it, like everything else.  As such RMC produces the same % of quality officers as any other programme, but they benefit from a slight advantage in the long run.....they know people. RMC is less an education in something which can't be taught and more an experience in networking and joining a long standing culture of mutual support.


----------



## capt_afg

i read most of the posts on this thread they are very informative, yes the NCOs have years of experience through out the time of their service. as i want to get in RMC (which i know i will) i will get to learn to lead and be a better leader, also it does not mean when i am a leader i will forget about the NCOs or fellow soldiers that have many years of combat experience more than me. it will be an opportunity for me to lead and also learn from my subordinates, some one said "you are as strong as your weakest link" a leader is not some one who will bark orders at everyone lower than him, a leader will collect all the information and see how is it processed through this subordinates actions, and if there is a better way can be done efficiently and safely, 

also it is a natural skill either you have it or dont have it to be a leader. either you are a Shepard or a sheep.


----------



## MJP

future_captain said:
			
		

> also it is a natural skill either you have it or dont have it to be a leader. either you are a Shepard or a sheep.



I think you need to read more and post less.

 I am glad you have enthusiasm for the job and career ahead but you are totally wrong.  There are many people that yes people follow because they just naturally have it in them.  Others we follow just out of morbid curiosity of what they are going to do next.  But the skillsets of a leader can be taught, reinforced, mentored and developed in individuals.  There are a great many people on this board who could tell you about the dude they got who could direct or lead his Pl/Troop out of a paperbag when he or she first arrived in the unit.  But by the time they left had gained the trust, respect and loyalty of their subordinates.


----------



## jwtg

future_captain said:
			
		

> .... as i want to get in RMC (which i know i will) ...



And how do you know this?  Have you been accepted already?  That would be quite the accomplishment.


----------



## capt_afg

jwtg said:
			
		

> And how do you know this?  Have you been accepted already?  That would be quite the accomplishment.



i am sorry i can not say anything more than what i have said regarding my application, or process and the skills i have brought to the table to be a member of the CF.


----------



## medicineman

I gather writing skills weren't one of those things...

MM


----------



## jwtg

future_captain said:
			
		

> i am sorry i can not say anything more than what i have said regarding my application, or process and the skills i have brought to the table to be a member of the CF.


Well, my advice is make sure the essay portion of your RMC application is well written- including proper capitalization!


----------



## capt_afg

WOW! I do not know what to say because all the posts i am seeing here, they are all about bashing new cadet officers and folks who wants to join the ROTP program. My first language is not English so pardon me if I made any mistakes.


----------



## medicineman

I've learned to communicate in a few languages that use the same alphabet and generally the same systems of grammar as English - none  condone the use of run on sentences, poor use of punctuation or lack of captialization.  If you read the guidelines when you signed up for this site, you'd have realized we actually expect people to write like they're expected to for school or at work, not like they're texting their friends.  And believe me, I'm being polite...if you wrote a paper like that at RMC or wrote a memo like that at BMOQ or anywhere else in your career for that matter, and in either official language, you'd get something back that looked like someone sacrificed their goat all over it.  Consider it a favour.

MM


----------



## jwtg

future_captain said:
			
		

> WOW! I do not know what to say because all the posts i am seeing here, they are all about bashing new cadet officers and folks who wants to join the ROTP program.


No one's bashing anyone.  This forum expects proper spelling, grammar and punctuation.  Consider our comments to be constructive advice.  Also, coming in here saying 'I know I'll get in' is a slap in the face to everyone patiently awaiting their answers RIGHT NOW from RMC.  There are no guarantees.  Maybe you'll be a great applicant- maybe you won't.   Best of luck, but coming in with such certainty walks a fine line between confidence and arrogance.  



> My first language is not English so pardon me if I made any mistakes.


 Pardoned.  You make an effort- that's all we ask.  Use spell check and capitalize your 'I's.  That will reduce your errors.

EDIT: Typo.


----------



## capt_afg

Again i would like to apologize to the ones that feels it is a slap to their face when i said "I know i am getting in".  Now I will not boast on my skills or my background to justify my application and attitude. It is my self confidence and experience that will help me get in.


----------



## Dissident

I have used the excuse that english is my second language on occasion, but it does not excuse lack of proper capitalization and ponctuation. Compris?


----------



## Dissident

future_captain said:
			
		

> Again i would like to apologize to the ones that feels it is a slap to their face when i said "I know i am getting in".  Now I will not boast on my skills or my background to justify my application and attitude. It is my self confidence and experience that will help me get in.



Et ton arrogance vas etre ton talon d'Achille.


----------



## capt_afg

Dissident said:
			
		

> I have used the excuse that english is my second language on occasion, but it does not excuse lack of proper capitalization and ponctuation. Compris?



Excuse is not an option sir. It is what it is. I understand French have studied it too but nor English or French is my mother tongue, I do okay, I am not an English major or anything,


----------



## jwtg

future_captain said:
			
		

> Again i would like to apologize to the ones that feels it is a slap to their face when i said "I know i am getting in".  Now I will not boast on my skills or my background to justify my application and attitude. It is my self confidence and experience that will help me get in.


Help is the operative word here.  Your confidence and experience, while valuable, will be meaningless with regards to your CF application if your CFAT score isn't high enough.  You also need to perform well on your interview, research your trades of interest thoroughly, write an impressive application, have competitive marks and a range of different athletic, leadership and volunteer experience example to draw from in order to make your application competitive.

It doesn't matter how good you are- it matters how good you are compared to the other applicants- and there are some very high caliber ROTP applicants.  Not to discourage you- in fact my intention is the opposite.  Work hard to make yourself competitive, but be prepared to face the reality of the sheer volume of ROTP applicants VS. available positions.  Some ROTP applicants even have previous CF experience or other equally impressive resumes.


Further, your profile lists your preferred language as English.  Perhaps change that.

EDIT: I realize, after reading your post in another thread, that you have apparently already been merit listed.  Welcome to the big, happy family.


----------



## OldSolduer

future_captain said:
			
		

> WOW! I do not know what to say because all the posts i am seeing here, they are all about bashing new cadet officers and folks who wants to join the ROTP program. My first language is not English so pardon me if I made any mistakes.



No one should be bashing any officer cadets on here. That's my job.... ;D


----------



## yoman

future_captain said:
			
		

> Excuse is not an option sir. It is what it is. I understand French have studied it too but nor English or French is my mother tongue, I do okay, I am not an English major or anything,



You must be able to express yourself clearly and concisely as a member of the Canadian Forces and especially as an officer. That's all their trying to say.

Good luck with your application. If accepted, you will have four years at one of the finest educational institutions in the country to hone your communication skills.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

future_captain said:
			
		

> i read most of the posts on this thread they are very informative, yes the NCOs have years of experience through out the time of their service. as i want to get in RMC (which i know i will) i will get to learn to lead and be a better leader, also it does not mean when i am a leader i will forget about the NCOs or fellow soldiers that have many years of combat experience more than me. it will be an opportunity for me to lead and also learn from my subordinates, some one said "you are as strong as your weakest link" a leader is not some one who will bark orders at everyone lower than him, a leader will collect all the information and see how is it processed through this subordinates actions, and if there is a better way can be done efficiently and safely,
> 
> also it is a natural skill either you have it or dont have it to be a leader. either you are a Shepard or a sheep.



The first paragraph of your post, while hard to follow at times, did have a generally positive theme. Your second line, though, strikes me as a bit odd. Everyone in uniform has a boss. To be a good leader you also have to be a good follower.

None of us are sheep. If anything we are sheepdogs - what makes us different than the wolves out there is our willing obedience and willingness to protect the flock against all dangers.

The nature vs nurture debate on leadership is ongoing. My own thoughts are that some are more suited for leadership positions than others, but that it also takes training and experience to develop leadership potential into leadership ability. I have also found that people can surprise me and themselves regarding their leadership potential.

Cheers

T2B


----------



## medicineman

It's one thing to think you'll get in, but wandering around blathering to everyone here that you're a shoe in is bad form.  SHOULD you make it to RMC and SHOULD you make it to BMOQ, with an attitude like that, you'll find yourself very quickly without any kind of the support you'll need to get through training.  Quite simply, to use your words, the "sheep" will follow the alpha ram instead of the "shepherd" and you'll fail.  

Jim - is that with or without the help of a pace stick?

MM


----------



## OldSolduer

No pace stick required here, mate!! It is a good thing to carry around an Air Wing.  >


----------



## PPCLI Guy

yoman said:
			
		

> You must be able to express yourself clearly and concisely as a member of the Canadian Forces and especially as an officer. That's all their *they're* trying to say.
> 
> Good luck with your application. If accepted, you will have four years at one of the finest educational institutions in the country to hone your communication skills.



I fixed that for you.  I can only assume that you have yet to complete your four years.....


----------



## yoman

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I fixed that for you.  I can only assume that you have yet to complete your four years.....



Thank you. and ya I hve yet to comlpet my fuor yaers. won mre to go.


----------



## daftandbarmy

future_captain said:
			
		

> Again i would like to apologize to the ones that feels it is a slap to their face when i said "I know i am getting in".  Now I will not boast on my skills or my background to justify my application and attitude. It is my self confidence and experience that will help me get in.



Here's some timeless advice for a potential subaltern:

http://regimentalrogue.com/srsub/seccessful_subaltern.htm


----------



## jemcgrg

I just read this post start to finish and I must say that I quite enjoyed it. 

Being someone that has been waiting to get into the military for the last two years as an officer and now I'm waiting another, I found the post full of insight and advice from it's senior members. What made it even more interesting is my major being Psychology. 

So... I thank you!


----------



## daftandbarmy

jemcgrg said:
			
		

> I just read this post start to finish and I must say that I quite enjoyed it.
> 
> Being someone that has been waiting to get into the military for the last two years as an officer and now I'm waiting another, I found the post full of insight and advice from it's senior members. What made it even more interesting is *my major being Psychology*.
> 
> So... I thank you!



Interesting.... turn up anything 'Freudian' you'd care to share with us? 

And remember, there are no jokes in Vienna.  ;D


----------



## jemcgrg

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Interesting.... turn up anything 'Freudian' you'd care to share with us?
> 
> And remember, there are no jokes in Vienna.  ;D



Haha, Based on the 'passion' with which people have expressed their opinions and some of the rebuttals I think it best if I keep mine to myself. :nod:


----------



## stretch

Does anyone have a clue if NCM PLQ qualified CT's to RMC need to do the FYOP? 

As it mainly consists of BMQ/BMOQ material it seems completely unnecessary outside of the RMC history and tradition info.

Any thoughts?

*BMOQ and FYOP searches took me to this thread and I don't think this question alone is worth starting a new one*


----------



## PPCLI Guy

stretch said:
			
		

> Does anyone have a clue if NCM PLQ qualified CT's to RMC need to do the FYOP?
> 
> As it mainly consists of BMQ/BMOQ material it seems completely unnecessary outside of the RMC history and tradition info.
> 
> Any thoughts?



Dude - you are not qualified to determine if something is necessary or not.  Embrace your new life and do whatever is asked of you


----------



## Greymatters

Quote from: future_captain on April 12, 2011, 13:39:51
also it is a natural skill either you have it or dont have it to be a leader. either you are a Shepard or a sheep.


Following on from T2B, many persons have natural leadership skills, but that doesnt automatically make them good leaders.  There are also persons who appear to lack leadership skills that end up making good leaders based on experience and training, as you will find once you get in and have a few years under your belt.


----------



## jeffb

stretch said:
			
		

> Does anyone have a clue if NCM PLQ qualified CT's to RMC need to do the FYOP?
> 
> As it mainly consists of BMQ/BMOQ material it seems completely unnecessary outside of the RMC history and tradition info.



As someone with some experience you should already know about the importance of team work built through shared adversity and hardship. The last thing you want to be doing is showing up and looking to get OUT of stuff. If for no other reason then your classmates are doing it, you should want to do it to.


----------



## stretch

I intend to completely embrace and appreciate what ever is asked of me. I have always been that way and I wouldn't be as successful if I didn't.

PPCLI Guy, you're right, I shall now pry the foot from my mouth. 

Just to be clear I do not intend to ask to get OUT of anything, I'm just scouring the boards for information so that I can prepare myself for a Day 1 mentality if I need to. I'm sure you gentlemen can at least empathize with the necessary shift in attitude that would be required of me if I must go back to the basics strictly for bureaucracy sake.


----------



## uniqnik

The pay scale for office from NCM to CFR or UTP-NCM is quite extensive.  I was wondering if a NCM was to CFR, what would be the approximate time frame until becoming a captain lets say?


----------



## Blackadder1916

uniqnik said:
			
		

> . . . . .  I was wondering if a NCM was to CFR, what would be the approximate time frame until becoming a captain lets say?



Are you wondering about the time from enrolment (as an NCM) until promotion to captain?  You do realize that there are criteria to be met before someone is recommended for CFR.  Anyway, (from my rather dated experience) it would take on average 13 to 30 years to reach the rank of captain through CFR.


----------



## uniqnik

Yeah i'm asking because looking at the pay scale here on the forces.ca website, the pay increments are confusing me.  It goes from basic and then 1 - 10, I was just wondering if it would take one year to get from one number on the pay scale to the next.


----------



## dimsum

uniqnik said:
			
		

> Yeah i'm asking because looking at the pay scale here on the forces.ca website, the pay increments are confusing me.  It goes from basic and then 1 - 10, I was just wondering if it would take one year to get from one number on the pay scale to the next.



Yes, each number represents a year that you are in that rank.  However, just because there are 10 IPC levels doesn't mean that everyone gets promoted (or let go) after 10 years as a Captain; you just stay at that pay level.


----------



## gcclarke

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Yes, each number represents a year that you are in that rank.  However, just because there are 10 IPC levels doesn't mean that everyone gets promoted (or let go) after 10 years as a Captain; you just stay at that pay level.



And conversely, plenty of folk get promoted before they hit the maximum pay incentive for that rank.


----------



## jwtg

stretch said:
			
		

> Does anyone have a clue if NCM PLQ qualified CT's to RMC need to do the FYOP?


If you're a CT then you will be doing FYOP.  There are people who have done tours in Afghanistan and have their PLQ who still had to do FYOP.

The only people who go to class in uniform that get to bypass FYOP are those coming from CMR St. Jean as 2nd years or those coming in as part of the UTPNCM program.


----------



## Jon_John

Hello, 

Can someone please advise on the deadline for RMC applications for the 2013-2014 school year? I've searched the net and found some conflicting info, 15 Jan 13 is what I've found? 

Additionally, is this the deadline for applications to make it to RMC or the deadline for them to be submitted to CFRC?

Thank you in advance.

John


----------



## jasph

Yes, the 15th of this month. 

...not quite sure about the last question but I suggest you to hand-in your application form NOW; or wait another year (ask your recruiting officer too, for a more legitimate input about the matter).


----------



## Noctis

Submitted to the CFRC.  For certain trades (i.e.: Pilot) you'd likely want to have your application submitted before the deadline, as the whole process is pretty long.  If you want to get in for 2013-2014, go apply ASAP. No applications (should) be accepted after January 15th at your CFRC.


----------



## SIROEW

I've already completed the application process, but I was just wondering if anyone knows if January fifteenth is the deadline to get your application into the CFRCs or is it the deadline to get the entire process completed, as in the CFAT, interview, and medical.

Thanks!


----------



## Jon_John

SIROEW said:
			
		

> I've already completed the application process, but I was just wondering if anyone knows if January fifteenth is the deadline to get your application into the CFRCs or is it the deadline to get the entire process completed, as in the CFAT, interview, and medical.
> 
> Thanks!



Spoke to a recruiter today, according to him, the application (along with all supplementary docs) needs to be submitted by 15 Jan; the CFAT, medical, etc. does not need to be completed by this day. He also informed me that once you receive your file number for your application, you should promptly begin your additional paperwork online with RMC. 

Lastly, I was informed that if for whatever reason you submit your application after the 15 Jan deadline, this does not mean you will not be considered for the 2013-2014 school year, it's just that they cannot guarantee that they will be able to process you (CFAT, medical, etc.) in time for the school year.

Best of luck. 

John


----------



## Big Bad Bear

I've got the interview coming up soon. I've got a list of things to know going into the center, just to be prepared for any kind of question that could be asked. If you would like to help me and add some things, that'd be great!

- Descriptions, training, environment of chosen occupations
- Principles of leadership (problem solving, task delegation, mutual respect, etc.)
- Volunteer experiences and their impact on me/community
- Academic effort
- Personal strengths/weaknesses (to be improved on) 
- Personal morals/ideals/philosophies
- Canadian values
- Why I want to join and why I think I'd be chosen
(*It doesn't hurt to know the interviewer first (if you know who it is). I've had a few conversations with him already and I have a feeling the interview will go smoothly).

Thank you.

Regards,

B


----------



## Alex.Landry

Go on Forces.ca and MEMORIZE your trade choice sheets. 

I promise that will come in handy.


----------



## Noctis

Alex.Landry said:
			
		

> Go on Forces.ca and MEMORIZE your trade choice sheets.
> 
> I promise that will come in handy.



Quoted for truth.
My interviewer was extremely impressed by my knowledge about the role of an officer in general as well as my knowledge of my choice of trades. He actually told me to stop at one point, as I obviously knew what I was going into and he needed no more proof of this.
One more thing: don't stress too much about the interview.  The interviewer, from my experience and the experiences of others, is trained to make you feel very comfortable around him.  Be very honest. Dress well. Be professionnal in attitude and spirit.
You'll do good, don't worry


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Noctis said:
			
		

> You'll do good, don't worry



You might even do well...


----------



## DAA

Jon_John said:
			
		

> Can someone please advise on the deadline for RMC applications for the 2013-2014 school year? I've searched the net and found some conflicting info, 15 Jan 13 is what I've found?
> Additionally, is this the deadline for applications to make it to RMC or the deadline for them to be submitted to CFRC?



I believe that 15 Jan 13 is the application "deadline" to ensure that your file is "fully" processed in time for the future selection boards.  You can still apply after this date but there will be NO guarantee that your file will be completed on time for selections.


----------



## Big Bad Bear

Noctis said:
			
		

> Quoted for truth.
> My interviewer was extremely impressed by my knowledge about the role of an officer in general as well as my knowledge of my choice of trades. He actually told me to stop at one point, as I obviously knew what I was going into and he needed no more proof of this.
> One more thing: don't stress too much about the interview.  The interviewer, from my experience and the experiences of others, is trained to make you feel very comfortable around him.  Be very honest. Dress well. Be professionnal in attitude and spirit.
> You'll do good, don't worry



Thank you very much. That will help tremendously. Is there anything else I should "study"? 

Regards,

B


----------



## Willing To Learn

I stumbled over this website a few hours ago. I quickly made an account and am now doing what so many others have asked for help. Acknowledge that my grammar is poor and is something I am working on improving. I still request that you please ignore it and help me the best you can or are willing too. I'm 16 right now and aspire to be an infantry officer possibly close-quarters protection, or JTF2. I'm getting ahead of myself and apologize. I would like to go to RMC and would like to know any tips, suggestion, and/or any information that can help me not only be a better soldier and officer but also as a leader and as a person. I do know that I have awhile before I will apply. I may even wait a year to make sure that my grades are above 80% but also so that I am mentally and physically ready to face the challenges set before me. 

 I do not have any delusions that an officer is a dashing or anything Hollywood makes them out to be. I grew up listening to my father tell me stories about his time in the army and what they can be like. From these stories and from what history has told me good leaders never give orders that they themselves would be unwilling to follow. (Reason why I'm not joining bomb squad. No offence I have great respect for the soldiers who do that.) I spent some time reading the first page of the forum and would like to know from NCO what makes a good officer? I have talk to a Major who went to RMC (He went when they first let girls in too) and a Captain mainly they both said grades. I would like to know what can I do to help distinguish myself from the others who are applying. 

Also I have a great amount of respect for every soldier who has and/or is serving our country. Lastly I do have great respect sergeants and corporals I simply hope that if I make it in and become an infantry officer that I have NCOs who are willing to help mentor me in being a good officer. 



I've just looked at the RMC page It sounds like people who go there are very full of themselves. I still want to go because its a university and I'd like to get a degree and I know it add a political edge. I do realize that politics plays a role in all parts of life that being said would it affect my chances of getting in if three genrations of my family have served as NCOs?


----------



## jeffb

Consider joining your local reserve unit for a few years especially if you are considering civilian university. The experience you get as a NCM will be invaluable to you if you choose to join as an officer later on.


----------



## ballz

Willing To Learn said:
			
		

> I spent some time reading the first page of the forum and would like to know from NCO what makes a good officer? I have talk to a Major who went to RMC (He went when they first let girls in too) and a Captain mainly they both said grades.



I hope you mean they thought that grades is the most important thing for making you a good applicant, not a good officer.



			
				Willing To Learn said:
			
		

> I've just looked at the RMC page It sounds like people who go there are very full of themselves.



Well, you're a fast learner I'll give ya that much.


----------



## Cui

Well, grades are important, and do your best to get the best grades possible. That being said, having good grades don't necessarily make you a good officer. You are still young, so focus on school, volunteer, and take up leadership positions in clubs and stuff, the experience that you gain there will be invaluable no matter what you do in life. 

As for people being full of themselves, you will see that no matter what you do in life. Don't let them get to you, and just focus on yourself, be humble, and be eager to listen to others who has been there and done that. Before I was a pretty cocky person as well, but then a chain of events in the last year or so had brought me down a notch or two. I feel that I'm a much better person because of it, so be humble, listen more, and talk less. You will see the world totally different if you do.

My  :2c:


----------



## Willing To Learn

ballz said:
			
		

> I hope you mean they thought that grades is the most important thing for making you a good applicant, not a good officer.
> 
> Well, you're a fast learner I'll give ya that much.



Thank you I try to pick up on as much as possible that gives me a better view. Yes they did also that school life is a change from the norm but I figured it would be its the only Goverment building that can give degrees.



			
				Cui said:
			
		

> As for people being full of themselves, you will see that no matter what you do in life. Don't let them get to you, and just focus on yourself, be humble, and be eager to listen to others who has been there and done that. Before I was a pretty cocky person as well, but then a chain of events in the last year or so had brought me down a notch or two. I feel that I'm a much better person because of it, so be humble, listen more, and talk less. You will see the world totally different if you do.



I had the illusion that I wouldn't run into them at RMC but I'm glad that I found out. I'll keep it in mind that in mind thank you.



			
				jeffb said:
			
		

> Consider joining your local reserve unit for a few years especially if you are considering civilian university. The experience you get as a NCM will be invaluable to you if you choose to join as an officer later on.



Can't I orignally planned on it but I found out that I would be a reserves officer and have to pay for school as well as if I wanted to be a Reg officer I'd have to go through a process. Plus my little sister can use the tuition money when she goes to school. Thank you for the advice though I'll double check incase I'm wrong.

Please keep commenting I'm very thank full for the advice and tips.


----------



## jwtg

Willing To Learn said:
			
		

> I've just looked at the RMC page It sounds like people who go there are very full of themselves.


Why not paint everyone with the same brush?  Great approach to take with people. 

See how far it gets you.


----------



## Willing To Learn

jwtg said:
			
		

> Why not paint everyone with the same brush?  Great approach to take with people.
> 
> See how far it gets you.


I don't really understand what you mean but if your saying that I have already made up an idea of people who go to RMC and think that they are all stuck up.  Your wrong I had the illusion that I wound not find that at RMC. I also talk to my dad he explained they spend 4 years as recruits lower then privates. Although they are not in the field all the time but they are staying up till 1 am studying and working hard so it help me understand why they act the way they do. They are indoctrinated to do so just like RCMP or cops. I do not take that approach on life and sure as hell would never do that in the army it would make life and my job impossible. I will give them all the benefit of the doubt like I try to do with everyone.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Willing To Learn said:
			
		

> . . . . . but they are staying up till 1 am studying and working hard . . . . .



Only the mediocre students.  The smart ones don't have to and the stupid ones don't want to. (or vice versa)


----------



## ballz

jwtg said:
			
		

> Why not paint everyone with the same brush?  Great approach to take with people.
> 
> See how far it gets you.



As you can see "Willing to Learn," by both this comment and my milpoints history, they also don't have a very good sense of humour.


----------



## pretentious

Willing To Learn said:
			
		

> I don't really understand what you mean ...


Willing to learn? This:


			
				Cui said:
			
		

> be humble, listen more, and talk less.
> his  :2c:


This applies to reading rather than writing too.


----------



## Willing To Learn

Thank you for the tips and pointers I'll keep them close in mind.


----------



## DAA

Talk about "hijacked" threads .....  go back to the very "first" post on this thread.....so I will start over again....

What ever happened to...

"You are supposed to receive a letter from Pension Services"


----------



## MikeL

Willing To Learn said:
			
		

> I'm 16 right now and aspire to be an infantry officer possibly close-quarters protection, or JTF2. I'm getting ahead of myself and apologize.



For right now,  ditch the fantasy of being a JTF2 Assaulter and _*Close Protection*_.  Focus on getting through high school with good marks,  extra curricular activities, etc.  Also,  read up on the threads about RMC and applying;  there is a lot of good info and advice in this forum.

Also,  unless things have changed,  Close Protection is only open to NCMs.


> 1. THE CP QUALIFICATION IS OPEN TO ALL CF MEMBERS WHO MEET THE FOLLOWING PRE-REQUISITES FOR CP TRG AND EMPLOYMENT:
> A. REG OR RES F MBR OF THE RANK OF CPL TO SGT
> B. MOS ID QUALIFIED





			
				Willing To Learn said:
			
		

> I do not have any delusions that an officer is a dashing or anything Hollywood makes them out to be. I grew up listening to my father tell me stories about his time in the army and what they can be like. From these stories and from what history has told me good leaders never give orders that they themselves would be unwilling to follow. (Reason why I'm not joining bomb squad. No offence I have great respect for the soldiers who do that.)



If you do become a Infantry Officer,  you could be leading troops into harms way and possibly have some troops wounded/killed.  



			
				Willing To Learn said:
			
		

> I've just looked at the RMC page It sounds like people who go there are very full of themselves. I still want to go because its a university and I'd like to get a degree and I know it add a political edge. I do realize that politics plays a role in all parts of life that being said would it affect my chances of getting in if three genrations of my family have served as NCOs?




You believe RMC students/grads are full of themselves?  Yet,  you still want to attend,  and believe it will give you a political edge?  You also believe having some family before you who served as NCMs could hinder you?  Perhaps you are thinking too much about this.


----------



## Willing To Learn

I am, I will, I know, I do and thank you.


----------



## JetMax

(The question that I have is probably very common on the website, and I apologize if this thread is very similar to others. If that is the case, would you please send me to the right location?) 

I am currently attending high school, and I am grade 11. I have been thinking about a career in the military as an officer. I have heard so many mixed things about life in the military, and I am not sure of the best route to take to pursue this goal. The RMC sounds like a really good option for me, but again, I have heard both good and bad opinions. I want the real truth about being an officer in the military, and what it takes to get there. I don't want to make a mistake and end up regretting my actions by doing the wrong thing...but right now, the CF just seems like a perfect opportunity.

Joining the military is a really big decision and I want to know if it is the right one. ANY suggestions would be appreciated, and just ask if I haven't been specific enough.


----------



## Cbbmtt

I'm not in the forces, but have had many careers. 

No one on here or in your life can tell you if you are going to like the job/career in the forces. I've talked to many women and men on these forums who love the forces and I have talked to a lot of friends who have gotten out as soon as their contract was up saying it wasn't right for them.

Look at the job descriptions of what is entailed and ask yourself if you like doing those things. If you don't like the sight of blood would you become a doctor? If you don't want to destroy the enemy would you want to be infantry? If you don't want to be the Officer who possibly could be responsible for the loss of life, do you want to be an Officer?

I don't want to destroy the enemy as much as I want to support the men and women who get the job done, that's why I'm applying. You just have to ask yourself if it's something you want to do. Read all the forum and you will get a clear understanding of peoples opinions on here.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

JetMax said:
			
		

> (The question that I have is probably very common on the website, and I apologize if this thread is very similar to others. If that is the case, would you please send me to the right location?)
> 
> I am currently attending high school, and I am grade 11. I have been thinking about a career in the military as an officer. I have heard so many mixed things about life in the military, and I am not sure of the best route to take to pursue this goal. The RMC sounds like a really good option for me, but again, I have heard both good and bad opinions. I want the real truth about being an officer in the military, and what it takes to get there. I don't want to make a mistake and end up regretting my actions by doing the wrong thing...but right now, the CF just seems like a perfect opportunity.
> 
> Joining the military is a really big decision and I want to know if it is the right one. ANY suggestions would be appreciated, and just ask if I haven't been specific enough.



If your gut is telling you to apply as an officer through RMC then you should go for it. Your gut is a pretty good compass for what you want.


----------



## Navy_Pete

There is no one general description for what an officer 'does' in the military.  It's all very trade/rank based, and even then there is a lot of variety.  The only true general statement you can make is that you will probably be doing a lot of paperwork.


----------



## JetMax

Thanks for the replies.

How about the Royal Military College? Is it better to do the ROTP through RMC or a Canadian University like Queen's? Also, even though it's late for me (I am 16), is it still beneficial to join up with the cadets?


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> The only true general statement you can make is that you will probably be doing a lot of paperwork.



The only true general statement is that, other than pilot trades, you will always be a leader.


----------



## ballz

JetMax said:
			
		

> How about the Royal Military College? Is it better to do the ROTP through RMC or a Canadian University like Queen's? Also, even though it's late for me (I am 16), is it still beneficial to join up with the cadets?



There's a few debates on here about RMC vs Civie U that already if you do a search. You'll probably find a few of my posts arguing that civilian university is better and no I haven't changed my mind since then.

As for cadets, I'll offer (personal bias, of course) that you'd be better off doing other things, especially since in 2 years time you wouldn't end up being in a leadership position in cadets.


----------



## myself.only

JetMax said:
			
		

> Also, even though it's late for me (I am 16), is it still beneficial to join up with the cadets?



While I cannot speak to what is done in every Cadet Corps / Squadron, it is my unit's practice to warn off potential recruits that are 16 or older, ideally steering them towards our Affiliated Reserve unit.  Simply, the cadet program is not designed to readily accommodate those who join late and - at least initially - most of your peers will be 13. 
Ballz is most likely correct that you will not gain any leadership position within 2 years.

However, there are always cadet units out there that will drop you into whatever other 16 year olds are doing and everyone in the program has met a cadet who went on a senior / instructor level course their first summer. So you should probably ask the cadet questions to the CO / adult staff of your local cadet unit. 

In the end, while a mature 16 year old that wants to apply himself in cadets may not earn a lot of shiny badges, he can still gain a lot of personal development from a properly delivered cadet program.  After all, you will end up doing something during the time you have remaining before heading off to uni / RMC, it's just a question of what you invest your time and effort into. Some things look sexy on a resume, other things will round you out as a person, but nothing is a sure-fire guarantee for every person looking at your application / resume.  

That's my :2c:


----------



## FJAG

JetMax said:
			
		

> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> How about the Royal Military College? Is it better to do the ROTP through RMC or a Canadian University like Queen's? Also, even though it's late for me (I am 16), is it still beneficial to join up with the cadets?



Let me qualify my response that I went to neither. When I went through I attended an officer training program that took people straight out of high school. I earned my degree much later in life. On the other hand I have seen both RMC and civilian university graduates and can say it doesn't depend on the program but the individual. That said though, an RMC experience provides a network of contacts and shared experiences that can be quite helpful throughout your career. If you do have an option and the university education you are looking for are available at both places, I would give the nudge to RMC.

I want to caution you. Some of the things which you say makes it sound like you expect that the opportunity to become an officer is simply up there for grabs. Its a competitive process and will depend highly on your academic standing and physical fitness for starters. You will also need to display leadership potential and to an extent, citizenship qualities such as awareness of current events and a history of community activities or team involvement. Cadets can be part of the later but preferable would be service in the reserves. The later would also give you a no-risk chance to experience the military lifestyle.

The truth about being an officer quite simply is that to be a good one you need to be prepared for hard work and long hours and mostly to accept the responsibility for the welfare of those subordinate to you. 

 :cheers:


----------



## Journeyman

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The only true general statement is that, other than pilot trades, you will always be a leader.


    :rofl:


----------



## ModlrMike

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The only true general statement is that, other than pilot trades, you will always be a leader.



I think it's more true that you will always be seen as a leader. Whether you are in fact a leader is a separate issue.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Jetmax,

If you enrol as an officer you will be a leader, with all the responsibilities that entail. If you feel you are up to it then you should apply. The training system will develop your leadership abilities, and you will find out soon enough whether you can make it. If you possess the basic characteristics and are open to learning new ways to motivate people you will get through and then grow as a leader. You won't know if you don't try.

As for RMC etc applying for ROTP is a good idea if you are in high school. Where you actually end up going to university (RMC vs civilian) tends to wash out. RMC and Queens (and the others) are all good schools. Other branches/environments may be different, but in the Army Combat Arms we don't really care what school you went to besides whichever of the Combat Training Centre schoolhouses you go through and then Foxhole U later on.

There are many threads out there on ROTP. Cadets can help, but at 16 you are getting a little old to start. If you are indeed serious about joining the CF as an officer through ROTP then you should focus on your grades and extra-curicular activities that will make you stand out. Things like sports, leadership positions in community groups or summer camps etc can all help. 

Best of luck.


----------



## JetMax

Again, I am grateful to all for your replies...I have decided by what I have heard and what you have told me that cadets is not the way to go. I will focus on developing my physical fitness and leadership abilities. I know that community involvement is also important, so I will start to volunteer for some local organizations. 



> I want to caution you. Some of the things which you say makes it sound like you expect that the opportunity to become an officer is simply up there for grabs.



Thank you for saying this. It helped me to realize that the goal is not easily achievable, and I have taken a new attitude towards being in the military. I am ready to push myself and hopefully increase my chances of being accepted.


----------



## jeffb

I am not sure where you are but there used to be a Co-Op program available in some areas. It would be a great way to earn some credits and to give you a taste of the military. Check with your guidance counselor at school or local recruiting center if this program still exists and is available in your area.


----------



## HeyJhon

Hi everyone,

first of all, sorry for my bad english, I am doing all my possible to be understandable.

So, I actually would like to join Forces as MARS or Pilot. As far as I know,anyone with a Bachelor's degree is eligible for these MOS by direct entry. ( The MARS officer I once spoke to at school told me there was other MARS graduate in letters, history, mathematic, french... )

I really would like to do one of these military job but, only for somes years in active duty, then, I would move to reserve while being medic, which is the civil job that I WANT to do too.

Alors (I am out of synonyme for "So" in english!), with this plan, would I be eligible  to go to CMR of Saint-Jean-Sur-Le-Richelieu, do my CEGEP (pre-university), then do my BACH in medecine in civil university and serve as MARS/Pilot or should I only study in civil before apply to direct entry?

Thank you for your time, have a nice day and again, sorry for my horrible english.


----------



## OldSolduer

That's better English than some so called English speakers.


----------



## Lockwire

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The only true general statement is that, other than pilot trades, you will always be a leader.



This is the most untrue statement ever created.


----------



## JesseWZ

Lockwire said:
			
		

> This is the most untrue statement ever created.



From 5 years ago... said tongue in cheek.


----------



## Jiminito

Is it true that if you have a university degree, the recruiters will try to encourage you to be an officer? 

Which trades can one apply for as an officer that is irrespective of which university degree you have?


----------



## Xylric

HeyJhon said:
			
		

> Hi everyone,
> 
> first of all, sorry for my bad english, I am doing all my possible to be understandable.
> 
> *So, I actually would like to join Forces as MARS or Pilot. As far as I know,anyone with a Bachelor's degree is eligible for these MOS by direct entry. ( The MARS officer I once spoke to at school told me there was other MARS graduate in letters, history, mathematic, french... )*
> 
> I really would like to do one of these military job but, only for somes years in active duty, then, I would move to reserve while being medic, which is the civil job that I WANT to do too.
> 
> Alors (I am out of synonyme for "So" in english!), with this plan, would I be eligible  to go to CMR of Saint-Jean-Sur-Le-Richelieu, do my CEGEP (pre-university), then do my BACH in medecine in civil university and serve as MARS/Pilot or should I only study in civil before apply to direct entry?
> 
> Thank you for your time, have a nice day and again, sorry for my horrible english.



I have a Bachelor of Religious Education (which is, in practice, a degree in the history and anthropology of religion), which was deemed to be suitable (so far as I've been able to determine). I was even asked if it counted as a degree in divinity, which would have made it easier to seek a chaplaincy - not that I would wish to do so.


----------

