# What happened to Recruiting Standards?



## kcdist (6 Nov 2018)

A question for the recruiters - What the heck happened to recruiting standard?

My child (trying to be as ambiguous as possible so as not to identify) has now been in the CF for about five months. When s/he first suggested an interest in the CF, I was thrilled. I explained in great detail how tough the process was, including:

1. Hour long grueling initial interview;
2. The ESSAY;
3. The requirement for 3 strong personal references; 
4. The week long Combat Arms Officer Selection Board (CAOS);
5. The demands of the physical testing during CAOS; 
6. The extremely grueling board interview during CAOS; and
7. The detailed Medical, including the one of the most uncomfortable procedures in my life that included a glove, a finger and Vaseline.

I advised that since I joined, standards had probably tightened, due to all the post 9/11 action. We spent countless hours in mock interviews,  and s/he hit the gym and the track like never before.

Imagine my shock when the process didn't include any of the above points. The interview lasted no more than 10 minutes, and was basically
a confirmation of the file. The medical was very brief, and was not conducted by a Doctor. There was no physical testing. Unbelievably, with all that we now know about PTSD/Suicides, there was no physiological testing. There was no requirement for character references. There was no handwritten essay to prove s/he possessed basic writing and penmanship skills. There was no week long vetting process....

I would suggest the process to be hired as a Roughneck is more taxing than the process for a Combat Arms Officer. It seems all the eggs have been placed in the school transcript and CFAT test.

Predictably, her/his Basic Officer course in St. Jean was a joke. Kids showing up that couldn't complete a single push-up or pull-up. Mental melt downs and frequent crying. Kids unable to complete a 5km march. When s/he was disillusioned during a phone call, I advised to stick with it....promised that it would get tougher and more challenging. It didn't.

Then, shockingly, everyone passed! Unless they purposely quit, everyone continued on to their subsidized university program....even the kids that had to get fitted for special uniforms because they were too fat!!!! And the fatties.....ugh. What happened to the BMI standard? Some of the pictures I saw looked like a fat kids summer camp.

In the end, I hope that Phase Training (or Development Level?!? whatever) will weed out the weak and the mentally unfit, but I'm not holding my breath.

Is the CF that desperate for Officers to have (virtually) non-existent recruiting standards? At what point (if at all) is there a critical look at the candidate and all they have to offer? And how can that even be done if there is no testing, physical or practical, to determine if they possess the basic goods to lead soldiers? As we all know, some basic skills just can't be taught.

Anyhow.... not expecting any answers. Just wanted to register my disgust as a former member and as a Taxpayer. Be Better.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Nov 2018)

I can't answer most of this, but I can tell you the requirement for completing a PT test as part of recruiting was done away with (for Reg Force applicant...Reserve Force applicants must still complete it) around the summer/fall of 2006.  BMI was done away with as a 'single predictor of fitness' years ago, and IMO, rightfully so.  I knew guys who were in perfect shape, spent many hours at the gym and "their BMI" was too high.  BMI is still used today, but not for all trades.  It is one factor assessed during aircrew medicals, for certain, but also combined with other things.

The Basic Military Officer Qualification at St-Jean also has OCts from all trades, not just Combat Arms.  

I've been out of the green DEU over a decade, so haven't had eyes on the CAP (Common Army Phase) and/or other Jnr Officer coursing at CTC for some time, but maybe someone who is involved in that training in Gagetown/Pet/Wainwright can speak to the current standards and hardships our Officer Corps encounter once they leave the soft spaces of CFLRS.


----------



## RocketRichard (6 Nov 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I can't answer most of this, but I can tell you the requirement for completing a PT test as part of recruiting was done away with (for Reg Force applicant...Reserve Force applicants must still complete it) around the summer/fall of 2006.  BMI was done away with as a 'single predictor of fitness' years ago, and IMO, rightfully so.  I knew guys who were in perfect shape, spent many hours at the gym and "their BMI" was too high.  BMI is still used today, but not for all trades.  It is one factor assessed during aircrew medicals, for certain, but also combined with other things.
> 
> The Basic Military Officer Qualification at St-Jean also has OCts from all trades, not just Combat Arms.
> 
> I've been out of the green DEU over a decade, so haven't had eyes on the CAP (Common Army Phase) and/or other Jnr Officer coursing at CTC for some time, but maybe someone who is involved in that training in Gagetown/Pet/Wainwright can speak to the current standards and hardships our Officer Corps encounter once they leave the soft spaces of CFLRS.


Can confirm that BMOQA/CAP mostly sort outs some of the fitness and ‘fit to lead’ issues. There appears to be no issue with failing and/or ‘r ecoursing’candidates. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lumber (6 Nov 2018)

Maybe they realized that your ability to ruck march and do push ups doesn't translate to an ability to lead troops?


----------



## RCDtpr (6 Nov 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Maybe they realized that your ability to ruck march and do push ups doesn't translate to an ability to lead troops?



If you think troops don’t notice when their officer is not physically fit, you are sadly mistaken.


----------



## Lumber (6 Nov 2018)

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> If you think troops don’t notice when their officer is not physically fit, you are sadly mistaken.



You're treating it like black and white. There's unfit, there's "two a days and iron mans", and then there's all the in between of just "regular fit" and able to do their job. I wasn't implying combat arms officers don't need to by physically fit, I'm saying they don't need to be hard as nails and fit as f*** to be able to do their jobs.

I will acknowledge that I'm not in the army and I don't have a good bead on the culture; however, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if you're a Officer, and you are charged with the effective tactical employment of lethal force , you should be able to inspire your troops a lot more ways than how fit you are. If you can't, take a look in the mirror. 

Captain Sobel was fit.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Nov 2018)

Agree with the above points, but will add "you can't lead from the rear" is also valid.

Is there a problem currently with the PT levels of Combat Arms Officers at the Troop/Platoon --> Sqn/Coy level?  

Loved the Capt Sobel finisher.   ;D


----------



## mariomike (6 Nov 2018)

kcdist said:
			
		

> I advised that since I joined, standards had probably tightened, due to all the post 9/11 action.



Standards were a concern prior to, and post, 9/11,

Whither Our Warriors-The Lowering of Standards 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/2228.0.html
3 pages.


----------



## kcdist (6 Nov 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> You're treating it like black and white. There's unfit, there's "two a days and iron mans", and then there's all the in between of just "regular fit" and able to do their job. I wasn't implying combat arms officers don't need to by physically fit, I'm saying they don't need to be hard as nails and fit as f*** to be able to do their jobs.
> 
> I will acknowledge that I'm not in the army and I don't have a good bead on the culture; however, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if you're a Officer, and you are charged with the effective tactical employment of lethal force , you should be able to inspire your troops a lot more ways than how fit you are. If you can't, take a look in the mirror.
> 
> Captain Sobel was fit.



Egads! There's Ironman/JTF levels of fitness, and there's a basic level of fitness that every member in uniform should possess, regardless of occupation.

If your goal is to lead soldiers/sailors/airpeople, and you arrive for your basic training course unable to complete one single push-up, or complete a 5km nature walk without crying, IMO, there is hardly a better indicator that you are unfit for consideration for that honour. You have failed to prepare, mentally and physically, on a most basic level. 

I believe (hope!) that these folks will eventually be weeded out, but at what cost? Should it not be the role of the Recruiting System to vet those that appear wholly unsuited for military service? If you're so fat that you're a candidate for Level 2 Diabetes at 18 years old, shouldn't that be a warning flag? I understand the shortcoming of using the BMI standard, but all that did was got the conversation started. Further testing determined if the high reading was muscle or fat.

As a business owner that routinely transfers obscenely high dollar amounts to the Receiver General of Canada on a quarterly basis, I want to know that my contributions to the nation are wisely spent. To observe the military recruit large amounts of folks that are destined to wash-out, at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars each, isn't my idea of money wisely spent.

A little more vetting would likely save both the CF and the potential officers plenty of grief. 

PS - And the fact that no one failed the 6 week course isn't a feather in the cap of the recruiting system...it seems to be a failure in the system. When I joined in the 80's, despite a far tougher recruiting standard, we had a 40% failure rate in Chilliwack.

Much weaker standards and a zero failure rate? Yikes...... I cringe at what might be the ultimate outcome.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Nov 2018)

I'll counter with:

- Afghanistan.  The Cdn Army (not only, but primarily) conducted operations.  The army wasn't incapable of doing the work for the years we had boots on the ground.

- RCN currently has multiple vessels sailing operationally well away from Canadian waters.

- RCAF.  None of our aircraft fly without a Pilot (CF18, as example), many more of them are operated by crews of Commissioned and Non-Commissioned air and flight crew.  Mali is currently ongoing with the folks from the TacHel fleet.

I know what you mean in the 'times have changed!' aspect...but we're still carrying out operations worldwide.

Back in 2006, the CAF Snr Leadership decided that too many potential good Officer and NCM recruits were being denied because they weren't in good enough shape to pass the CF PT test, or something along that line.  Snr Command assessed the risk, accepted the risk, mitigations were put in place and we've carried on for 12 years now, achieving the things in the Cdn Army, RCN and RCAF I've mentioned above.

Maybe if you go to a grade parade at the Infantry School, etc and see the Officers that come out of that establishment, you'll feel better about the money transfer to the RG.  Or visit a HMCS or any of the operational Squadrons in the RCAF.

Basic level of fitness currently = FORCE test.

 :2c:


----------



## RCDtpr (6 Nov 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> You're treating it like black and white. There's unfit, there's "two a days and iron mans", and then there's all the in between of just "regular fit" and able to do their job. I wasn't implying combat arms officers don't need to by physically fit, I'm saying they don't need to be hard as nails and fit as f*** to be able to do their jobs.
> 
> I will acknowledge that I'm not in the army and I don't have a good bead on the culture; however, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if you're a Officer, and you are charged with the effective tactical employment of lethal force , you should be able to inspire your troops a lot more ways than how fit you are. If you can't, take a look in the mirror.
> 
> Captain Sobel was fit.



When it comes to the combat arms, culture is a HUGE part of it, which you have admitted you aren’t versed in.  The reality of a combat arms regiment, battalion, company, platoon etc. is that it is very much an “alpha (fe)male” world there and weakness or perceived weakness is usually pounced on due to the personality types of a large amount of its members.

A young officer who comes in in their early 20s and isn’t in above average shape likely won’t have the confidence of the people under them for quite a while (if ever).  I don’t care what someone’s leadership style is......if you’re young, in the prime years of your physical abilities, and don’t have the self discipline to maintain a high level of fitness (knowing that fitness is a massive part of the job) then you will never inspire me, or many others.  Is that fair?  Probably not.....but if I’m expected to maintain a level of fitness by higher ups, then my officer best be at least on par with me.

As to your Sobel reference.....I’m not saying physical fitness equates to leadership skills or competence.  I’ve worked for total idiots who were JTF level fit.  I’ve also worked for idiots who were horribly out of shape and if I had to choose.......I’d pick the fit idiot.

Back on topic of the recruiting issue.  What concerns me most is that CAF, by lowering the standards to basically nothing, is teaching this new generation of officers and soldiers that it’s ok to have no self accountability etc. which in my opinion is dangerous.


----------



## kcdist (6 Nov 2018)

Physical Fitness aside, my child might have been really book smart, but also a highly functioning kid with Autism. There's no way the 10 minute chat with the recruiting officer would have been able to determine that.... However, the 5 Officer board interview would have likely figured that out in a hurry.

Additionally, my kid might not have the confidence to order a burger from McDonalds, however, an afternoon of basic leadership task exercises would have been able to easily determine if the basic building blocks of leadership existed.

A sociopath likely would have a difficult time procuring 3 solid character references....especially if they all knew about that time last year she forced Billy to do something he really didn't want to do..... Why eliminate this basic feature of almost any junior level executive job application?

I'm not suggesting the final product of trained Officers is not as good as its always been - and I hope to heck that it is - by why go the expense of recruiting folks clearly unsuitable for military service, only to have them eventually fail out (if we're fortunate).

And as I mentioned previously, especially with the rash of suicides experienced at RMC and throughout the Forces, why isn't there some basic physiological evaluations like is found in any Police Service recruitment process? 

I'm not going to betray my child's experiences, but, without exaggeration, there are likely 15+% of her/his peers that wouldn't have been offered the chance to wear the uniform in my day.... Among other points, there appears to be far too many 'emotional' issues when the training has yet to ramp up to anything approaching difficult.


----------



## BDTyre (6 Nov 2018)

It's like this during BMQ as well...instructors have to do everything possible to NOT fail a candidate. The last one I staffed we definitely had a number of candidates that became emotional (and I'm not just referring to crying) at simple things, or being called out for something. Lots of extra time was spent with more than one candidate outside of course days.


----------



## Xylric (6 Nov 2018)

When I was at Sheridan, the general thought of the professors was that if someone is at risk of failing the course, it was less likely because the student could not grasp the material, and more that the professors had failed to teach that student effectively. To a point, this is likely true, but the reality is the hardest person to teach anything is someone who has no desire to learn - either because they dislike/distrust you, don't care for the subject, or any number of other factors.

That being said, in my experience as a tutor (to students with a surprising variety of conditions which make learning in a traditional classroom a challenge) if you can find a way that works to teach something that your student was convinced was beyond their ability, they're absolutely going to be motivated beyond a level than those who can pick things up easily are ever likely to experience.

Passionate and motivated pupils tend to boost the performance of an entire class, as natural competition tends to result. I don't know enough about the particular differences in military instruction and standard academics to be sure that this remains a constant, but I wouldn't be surprised - the neuroscience of learning is not _that flexible. So wouldn't successfully salvaging a candidate serve to motive the entire class?_


----------



## cld617 (6 Nov 2018)

kcdist said:
			
		

> When I joined in the 80's, despite a far tougher recruiting standard, we had a 40% failure rate in Chilliwack.



Failure in and of itself isn't indicative of a successful screening process unless you look at why people are failing. 

The CF is also presently dealing with cleansing poor attitudes and behaviors that were once found to be acceptable in past generations of mbrs. So while I can agree the physical fitness of current recruits may be lacking, this attitude that yesteryear was better is nonsense.


----------



## Remius (6 Nov 2018)

recruiting became very bloated and took forever.  Sometimes three years in some cases.  

Good candidates were turned off. 

When I joined in the 90s there was no PT test at all.  But the interview took over an hour.  

Later, after 911, security became an issue so screenings took forever. 

Express step test was introduced but it wasn't really a good indicator of success on course. 

So do we want a fast efficient recruiting system that takes forever to process a person or do we want a fast system that let's the training system weed out the person.  

For years it was about the length of time it took to get someone processed, now it's the quality.  pick one or the other but be prepared to deal with the fall out of one or the other. 

You can lament the way things were done in the past but that does not equate better.

Despite the need for boots on the ground, we are more and more going to need the fat computer guy to keep our cyber world safe.  No amount of ruck sack marches or 10K runs is going to help with that.  Sad to say but if we want those types of people, standards have to adapt.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Nov 2018)

A PT test isnt the reason why the recruiting system slowed down. Inefficient processes and under manning in recruiting HQs is why. They even out sourced security clearances to make it go faster, and the process is still incredibly long. Not to mention that St. Jean has built a little kingdom so that to teach a BMQ you have to do their speciality course, reducing availability of CFTPO instructors who would increase recruit volumes.


----------



## kcdist (6 Nov 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> So do we want a fast efficient recruiting system that takes forever to process a person or do we want a fast system that let's the training system weed out the person.


Would it be too much to expect both? My start to finish process, including a week's paid vacation in Gagetown, took 14 weeks from application to acceptance. My point is that it is vastly more cost and resource efficient to weed out the unsuitable application during the *application* process. One would think that with the advent of electronic file sharing technology, the process would become more efficient rather than less so.


----------



## Remius (6 Nov 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> A PT test isnt the reason why the recruiting system slowed down. Inefficient processes and under manning in recruiting HQs is why. They even out sourced security clearances to make it go faster, and the process is still incredibly long. Not to mention that St. Jean has built a little kingdom so that to teach a BMQ you have to do their speciality course, reducing availability of CFTPO instructors who would increase recruit volumes.



It did actually though.  PT tests were all over the map.  When they were back ended, people would fail and be given a time frame to come back and try again.  The system wasted time and energy doing aptitude test, medical interview only to have someone fail the pt test and push back again to allow them to try and pass but then at times come back because docs needed updating or security interviews redone thus clogging the system.  

When they were front ended, if people failed we might never see them again despite them, being good candidates for specific trades in distress.  Plus they were paid for so money lost.  

it wasn't just that but it was part of it.  moving to electronic testing limited how many applicants you could process to tweh amount of stations you had versus having 50-60 people at a drill hall writing it instead.  etc etc


----------



## Remius (6 Nov 2018)

kcdist said:
			
		

> Would it be too much to expect both? My start to finish process, including a week's paid vacation in Gagetown, took 14 weeks from application to acceptance. My point is that it is vastly more cost and resource efficient to weed out the unsuitable application during the *application* process. One would think that with the advent of electronic file sharing technology, the process would become more efficient rather than less so.



Yes it is.  Society is proof of that.  And it isn't just PT.  being away from home, personal devices basically are now appendages to bodies etc etc.


----------



## kcdist (6 Nov 2018)

cld617 said:
			
		

> The CF is also presently dealing with cleansing poor attitudes and behaviors that were once found to be acceptable in past generations of mbrs. So while I can agree the physical fitness of current recruits may be lacking, this attitude that yesteryear was better is nonsense.



This point is rather irrelevant to the point of the thread. The question is why has the process become so easy, with so little pre-screening?

Not sure about your experience, however, during my training, I can't recall a single failure in the various phases that wasn't warranted. The difference between then and now, admittedly based on my and my child's anecdotal experiences, is that there is virtually no vetting of unsuitable candidates based on weak physical, mental or personality factors. It's hard to argue, therefore, that the average quality of the candidates suffer compared to a generation ago.....How can it not? In the 80's, every Combat Arms Officer recruit could at least run a mile or two without throwing up, complete 10-20 pushups without collapsing, perform basic small unit tasks without melting down, and hand-write a full paragraph or two, among other features.


'Poor attitudes and behaviors' of generations past have nothing to do with the ability to meet the standards required of a Combat Arms Officer.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Nov 2018)

cld617 said:
			
		

> Failure in and of itself isn't indicative of a successful screening process unless you look at why people are failing.
> 
> The CF is also presently dealing with cleansing poor attitudes and behaviors that were once found to be acceptable in past generations of mbrs. So while I can agree the physical fitness of current recruits may be lacking, this attitude that yesteryear was better is nonsense.



For the record, if you don't mind, what year did you join?


----------



## cld617 (6 Nov 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> For the record, if you don't mind, what year did you join?



Mid 00's.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Nov 2018)

Not much insight on "yesteryear" then.     The topic the OP introduced and your post aren't really correlated, IMO.


----------



## cld617 (6 Nov 2018)

kcdist said:
			
		

> In the 80's, every Combat Arms Officer recruit could at least run a mile or two without throwing up, complete 10-20 pushups without collapsing, perform basic small unit tasks without melting down, and hand-write a full paragraph or two, among other features.



I'm not sure what partial glimpse into the collective performance of Combat Arms Officers you've had, but it certainly doesn't jive with what I've been exposed to. You're speaking as though the relative few under performers make up the majority, and it's simply untrue. 

It's not a matter of fit idiot vs out of shape idiot. The majority still are fit and intelligent, the outliers are not the norm. 



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not much insight on "yesteryear" then.     The topic the OP introduced and your post aren't really correlated, IMO.



I need to have been around in the 80's to know that the behavior of a Senior NCO is inappropriate? Interesting. I may not have been around back then, but I am around now and aware that we're currently picking up the pieces of many failures in leadership of past and present senior mbrs. So while this may not be directly related to the shortcomings the OP brings up, it is on topic for how tiresome this belief by past generations how much "better" they were is.


----------



## blacktriangle (7 Nov 2018)

From my lowly perspective having joined almost 12 years ago (and no, it wasn't "harder" back then)

I feel like the CAF as a whole has pretty much been on a downward spiral since Afghanistan wound down despite valiant efforts of many in operations such as MOBILE, IMPACT, and REASSURANCE. 

The CAF and GoC had to get their collective asses together to try to minimize the casualties and get us some proper crap & training. I don't think we will see another Afghanistan in my generation's service. So, I guess the CAF at large figures it can manage with relatively low standards for entry for now. 

I still remember an instructor saying "I had 9 years in before anyone tried to kill me, some of you probably have 9 months". He wasn't wrong for some in the platoon, and I just don't think that's the case today in 2018. 

 :2c:

Edited to add: I don't think the standards were much higher when I joined honestly. The stakes were though.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Nov 2018)

cld617 said:
			
		

> I need to have been around in the 80's to know that the behavior of a Senior NCO is inappropriate? Interesting.



That is not what I said, and I don't like the 'put words in my mouth game'.  

* for clarity, when you say Snr NCO, that can only be a Sgt or a PO2.  Just an FYI.



> I may not have been around back then, but I am around now and aware that we're currently picking up the pieces of many failures in leadership of past and present senior mbrs. So while this may not be directly related to the shortcomings the OP brings up, it is on topic for how tiresome this belief by past generations how much "better" they were is.



So, based on your logic, if 5 people in Toronto commit murder this year, everyone who lives in Toronto is likely a murderer too.  And if they lived there 'before' but not any longer, well they could very well be murders too.  Like punishing a group for one persons mistakes, I am also not a fan of the wide brush treatment towards those who 'served yesterday' because of perceptions that are out there today that aren't accurate.  ie "the CAF was full of unprofessional shitpumps before OPERATION HONOUR" or similar perceptions that are/may be out there.

News flash - some of the aspects of the CAF, how the CAF recruited and trained people WAS better before you joined.  :.  Like all of Canadian society, like every university campus in today's society (I could list more examples...) there was some folks in the CAF who didn't perform their duties professionally and WERE a problem.  You'll find the same problem exists today at say, the TD Bank or any other large organization, because all of those organizations recruit from Canadian society, and our society isn't perfect  Not everyone who served in "yesteryear" was a drunken sexual predator who abused their subordinates  .   

Am I making excuses for those who abused their authority, let things slide that should have been dealt with?  Not at all;  I'm pointing out that not 'everyone' was a problem then, just like not everyone is a problem today or going to be a problem tomorrow.  And, because humans are humans, we will continue to have people in the CAF who don't abide by various CAF policies, orders, and regulations.  We have a few systems in place to deal with those people.

To (hopefully!) guide this back towards the intended thread topic, what are we doing *today/tomorrow *in our recruiting processes and procedures to weed out those people who have indicators of behaviours/beliefs that do not conform to the CAF values, ethics and regulations?  I suggest the answer is...nothing.  So, what result can we expect from doing nothing differently?  Is there actually anything that COULD be done differently?

Perhaps the standards expected very early on in the 80s (CAOS) have been ported to later in the Jnr Officers development, like during their time at CTC or something?  (an actual question, as I have no idea how the Green Machine is running things these days).  Are the things detailed in the CAOS program of the 80s still captured somewhere between CFLRS and young Jnr Officers arriving at their first posting?


----------



## kcdist (7 Nov 2018)

cld617 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what partial glimpse into the collective performance of Combat Arms Officers you've had, but it certainly doesn't jive with what I've been exposed to. You're speaking as though the relative few under performers make up the majority, and it's simply untrue.
> 
> It's not a matter of fit idiot vs out of shape idiot. The majority still are fit and intelligent, the outliers are not the norm.



Sigh...... To clarify:

Based on the recent experience of my daughter/son, the recruiting process of today is inefficient and lacks many of the steps that existed 30 years ago. It appears, as a result, that the recruit that arrives for basic training is, on average, of weaker quality. Many of the glaring shortcomings/disqualifiers that might have previously excluded a candidate from enrollment are not identified during the process, as evidenced by large percentage of kids that appeared to be wholly unsuited for military service, based on my kid's experience, compared to mine. Further, it appears that, at least initially, those extremely weak individuals are not immediately released from service.

I didn't once state that the final product of a trained Combat Arms Officer isn't as good as it was a generation ago.....indeed I assume and hope that it's better. However, the challenge appears to be greater for the training system of today, as the initial feedstock entering in to the system is not vetted nearly as completely as it was back in the 80s. This is surprising to me, as I assumed recruiting standards would have been tightened and more comprehensive compared to my experience, not the opposite. 

What I would like to understand, both as a former Combat Arms Officer and concerned Taxpayer, is why?


----------



## Lumber (7 Nov 2018)

kcdist said:
			
		

> Sigh...... To clarify:
> 
> Based on the recent experience of my daughter/son, the recruiting process of today is inefficient and lacks many of the steps that existed 30 years ago. It appears, as a result, that the recruit that arrives for basic training is, on average, of weaker quality. Many of the glaring shortcomings/disqualifiers that might have previously excluded a candidate from enrollment are not identified during the process, as evidenced by large percentage of kids that appeared to be wholly unsuited for military service, based on my kid's experience, compared to mine. Further, it appears that, at least initially, those extremely weak individuals are not immediately released from service.
> 
> ...



Why? Because that's all that Canadian society is giving us. If we weeded them out the way you're describing, we would have hardly any combat arms officers. We're stuck turning snowflakes into depleted uranium.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (7 Nov 2018)

> ...What I would like to understand, both as a former Combat Arms Officer and concerned Taxpayer, is why?



I’m in no way saying this to be condescending or flippant, but I’m surprised you weren’t aware of this issue before your child enrolled, either through various media outlets, former military friends expressing their thoughts about the current state of things, etc. Lack of appropriate physical fitness abilities, combined with lack of mental fortitude (in several areas, not just in being able to handle a military environment) among the ‘millennial’ generation are common discussions practically everywhere. Not just public service, but professions across the board are suffering in many ways. 

CAF (as well as other public service positions) is fighting to meet the needs of personnel requirements in many trades and they’re trying to work with what they have to work with. There simply isn’t the volume needed of applicants who possess the level of fitness required (which yes, I agree, is pathetic and very troublesome. Even in my worst shape I’ve never been unable to pass the FORCE), as well as passing the aptitude, medical, etc. The _why’s_ of why this is happening has been discussed at length many times here too. Unfortunately, it’s simply not a new concern/issue.

This all being said, I spent a significant amount of time at CFLRS and there’s no shortage of fit, healthy recruits who get through training just fine—sustaining both the physical elements and the psychological ones. But yes, there are absolutely those who, in my mind, never should’ve been allowed to pass, whether it be for performance, behaviour, etc. Re-courses happen a lot, there’s discipline and such, people do get removed/kicked out permanently, but the latter, percentage-wise, isn’t common. 

I wasn’t in 15 or 20 or 30yrs ago, but I have several friends/acquaintances who were 20yrs+. They’ve all shared their stories of how they feel things were better in their days, both as staff and as a recruit. One of the main scentiments common among all of their experiences, however, is that the recruit experience was harder then, but for different reasons. There’s no more throwing kit and contents of one’s living space out windows, no more physical aggressiveness of any kind, no more name-calling, no more yelling at nose-length range, no more swearing, no more ‘punishment PT’ etc, etc. So, the tactics once readily available to swing a recruit into shape aren’t there anymore. (Which is good AND bad, depending on perspective.) Instead, there’s a high-level of passive-aggressive/mind games—but not the same type of overt mind games of prior decades—being employed at different times by _some_ staff (the severity differs by the individual) , there’s ‘swipes’ (your child can explain this to you if they hadn’t mentioned it before) for whatever infraction that’s been committed...not that any of that has any bearing on a candidate being fit and ready to complete basic, it doesn’t. The point I’m making is that the onus doesn’t, can’t and shouldn’t fall on CAF to get qualified people through the door. Recruiters have a job to do, and their job isn’t easy from what I can tell/have been told—I’m not in Recruiting. The problem lies with what’s happening with kids before they even step foot in a recruiting centre. 

I personally feel that RegF should stay like Pres and have applicants pass the FORCE before enrolment. But reality is, as said above, there’d then be even more problems with successful numbers needed than there already are. I don’t agree with constantly lowering our baseline standard to cater to the unmotivated—I really don’t. It angers me. But from what I can tell, CAFs hands are tied in many areas. Get them in the door and then try to mold them to the necessary standard (sometimes successfully, sometimes not), vice not get them in the door at all.


----------



## kcdist (7 Nov 2018)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> I’m in no way saying this to be condescending or flippant, but I’m surprised you weren’t aware of this issue before your child enrolled, either through various media outlets, former military friends expressing their thoughts about the current state of things, etc.



Thanks for taking the time for a detailed response.

No....I have to admit I was gobsmacked. 

I assumed that with recent combat operations and with the formation of the Special Operations Regiment that, perhaps, there was a cultural shift towards 'elitism'. Back in the 80's/90's, I believe the military wasn't nearly at the forefront of public consciousness as it is today. Post Cold War and Pre 9/11, a desire for a career in the CF might have been harder to explain than today (the lifelong urge to clean snow in Toronto streets?!?). 

Couple that with the frequent articles about suicides both among recent veterans and at RMC, then my logical assumption was that the recruiting system would be focused on vetting for higher quality candidates than ever before, both physically and mentally. 

The occasional article by Christie Blatchford led me to believe how hard and time consuming it was to get through the system.....logically pointing to incredibly high standards. Especially with high unemployment in the oilpatch, I assumed they were beating back potential candidates with broomsticks.

Oh well...... So long as the Phase Training (or whatever it's called today) is as hardcore and competent as it was it the past.... 

It is, right?


----------



## RocketScientist (7 Nov 2018)

kcdist said:
			
		

> Based on the recent experience of my daughter/son, the recruiting process of today is inefficient and lacks many of the steps that existed 30 years ago. It appears, as a result, that the recruit that arrives for basic training is, on average, of weaker quality. Many of the glaring shortcomings/disqualifiers that might have previously excluded a candidate from enrollment are not identified during the process, as evidenced by large percentage of kids that appeared to be wholly unsuited for military service, based on my kid's experience, compared to mine. Further, it appears that, at least initially, those extremely weak individuals are not immediately released from service.





> Lack of appropriate physical fitness abilities, combined with lack of mental fortitude (in several areas, not just in being able to handle a military environment) among the ‘millennial’ generation are common discussions practically everywhere. Not just public service, but professions across the board are suffering in many ways.





> The problem lies with what’s happening with kids before they even step foot in a recruiting centre.



I'm getting notes of:
- "Back in my day" we had it much harder
- Things were better "back in my day"
- These damn millenials have it too easy
- These damn millenial are whiney entitled cry babies (except my kid, of course)
- Get off my lawn you damn millenials!

What did I miss...


----------



## BeyondTheNow (7 Nov 2018)

ACE_Engineer said:
			
		

> I'm getting notes of:
> - "Back in my day" we had it much harder
> - Things were better "back in my day"
> - These damn millenials have it too easy
> ...



Nope. That's what you're singularly pulling from the totality of this thread.

That being said, there's anecdotal proof across many disciplines and from several professional sources in the sociology and psychology fields addressing the fact that millennials are consistently experiencing detrimental levels of anxiety and depression like never before, on average (as compared to the levels pre mid-to-late-80s) their physical capabilities are weak and their coping mechanisms are under-developed.  Are these concerns meant to apply to every single person born after 1980-whatever? No. Of course not. But just like other generations, where stereotypical behaviours have been applied, the 'millennial' generation is no different. Theirs, however, is a particular set of circumstances never before seen or documented to the extent it is now. (AND, for the record, before anyone thinks the millennials just get dumped on unjustly and everything's made out to be their fault, the same professionals have also stated that it's the responsibility of how they've been raised. So really, while it's important for them to be aware of how they need to improve, there's responsibility to be had on the prior generation in trying to bring the pendulum back to where it should be. But that's another discussion...)


----------



## Lumber (7 Nov 2018)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> Nope. That's what you're singularly pulling from the totality of this thread.
> 
> That being said, there's anecdotal proof across many disciplines and from several professional sources in the sociology and psychology fields addressing the fact that millennials are consistently experiencing detrimental levels of anxiety and depression like never before, on average (as compared to the levels pre mid-to-late-80s) their physical capabilities are weak and their coping mechanisms are under-developed.



Hard times make hard men.
Hard men make good times.
Good times make weak men.
Weak men make hard times.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Nov 2018)

In the 80's & 90's being gay was illegal (with pers tormented) in the CAF and sexual assault seemed to be a big joke and cases brushed under the rug/ victims harassed out of the CAF.

So the 80s weren't all that super.

That said I largely agree with the premise of the OP. Recruiting standards suck.

We're getting physically (and perhaps mentally) weaker recruits who have all sorts of problems. Why? Because it's a reflection of society (as some said). Can't disconnect from the internet and have grown up being told (read lied to) that they can do anything if they just stay positive and really want it. When they fail or things don't go their way they want to run away or quit. Teachers often can't even fail kids, it's ridiculous. 

We need to lower standards (and expectations) otherwise we wouldn't be able to sustain ourselves so that's why. 

On that note kids these days are a lot smarter and not as apt to be treated like shit and just accept it.  The CAF can be a super shitty employer ripe with favoritism, harassment  and toxic leaders and kids being smarter and more perceptive then ever can recognize that. Why would they want to work in that environment? So that hurts our numbers too.

There are some amazing recruits out there, probably lots. Troops and officer cadets. 
There's lots that collectively bring us down too, but without them we'd be worse off, sad as that is to say.


----------



## Remius (7 Nov 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We need to lower standards (and expectations) otherwise we wouldn't be able to sustain ourselves so that's why.



Agreed. 

Recruiting should not be where the standard is.  We should recruit and then train them to get to where we want them at.  Not expect them to be there already.  it's much easier to find a doctor and get him up to speed than it is to find a 17 year old fit as hell troop and make him/her into a doctor.  We can do that but it takes way more time than we can afford.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Nov 2018)

You're confusing recruiting and selection.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (8 Nov 2018)

A couple points, first off the earlier recruiting standards failed in many cases to weed out some terrible excuses for human beings. I will give the easy example of the embarrassment that was the Airborne Regiment in the 90s and how far they strayed from the CAFs values and ethics. This was under the tougher standards, so clearly they didn't have that much of a effect. 

Secondly, you have to recruit from the population that is out there. Right now the population (in general not just Millenials) is out of shape, entitled, and addicted to technology. The CAF has to do what it has always been expected to do and mold the population into what it needs to perform its duties. Its just more difficult now as before as the gap between what the CAF needs and what it is given to work with is wider. There is however benefits, such as many people possessing much more education than they did in the past, or the capability to adapt to technology much easier than previous generations. As a military it needs to adapt and overcome, as this is the new reality for it, and is unlikely to change. This is also not unique to Canada, many Western nations are having a tough time recruiting as well so that is always a consideration.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Nov 2018)

ACE_Engineer said:
			
		

> I'm getting notes of:
> - "Back in my day" we had it much harder
> - Things were better "back in my day"
> - These damn millenials have it too easy
> ...



I think you missed considering the fact that (according to a recent post of yours), you're currently applying to the Reserves and don't actually have a schmick how things ARE let alone how things WERE.    :not-again:

Some of the points being raised are valid and worthy of further consideration;  I was an Instructor at CFLRS in early 2007 when the first OCdt showed up and failed the initial PT test, which was a watered down version of the EXPRES test (very easy IMO).  He/she was significantly out of shape and would not have passed a PT test during the recruiting process, had it not of been removed.  In this specific example I personally witnessed, that individual should not have made it thru the Green Doors at the Mega in such a state.  I'm of opinion that if you want to be an Officer, you put some effort into it including before you show up for training.  In this case, this individual clearly did not.

Times have changed, but not always for the better.


----------



## kcdist (8 Nov 2018)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> A couple points, first off the earlier recruiting standards failed in many cases to weed out some terrible excuses for human beings. I will give the easy example of the embarrassment that was the Airborne Regiment in the 90s and how far they strayed from the CAFs values and ethics. This was under the tougher standards, so clearly they didn't have that much of a effect.



A couple of points in response to your couple of points.

There will never be a perfect, flawless recruiting process. Look at the news today about a prominent former cabinet minister. Think he wasn't vetted numerous times over his career? The typical large city Police Services have much more comprehensive processes compared to the CF, and yet they still hire the odd sociopath. The legal profession? The medical profession? All have had their share of terrible excuses for human beings. Heck, even the NASA astronaut program has had its share of scandals, and I couldn't imagine a more rigorous selection process on the planet.  

My point is the response to recruiting failures in the past shouldn't be to remove all standards and obstacles towards enrollment today, if that was indeed the reason. The recruiting process should exist to identify those that possess the characteristics and attributes that will most likely lead to success. It appears right now that the only characteristic that are focused on, at least for the Officer track, is academics. As we all know, being book smart alone does not make a quality officer.

In specific regards to the ROTP selection process, is there a single Junior Executive recruitment process in the civilian world that doesn't require character references? Back in the 80's, I had to provide three non-family references. Meaning, I had to have made a positive enough impact on three people in my life that they would take the time to write a letter on my behalf, vouching for my good character and, in some cases, leadership potential. Why does this requirement no longer exist? It couldn't be cost savings, as the only investment by the CF would be the few minutes required to read each letter. However, if a weak, introverted, ultimately unsuitable candidate was unable to procure such references, it might save the CF thousands in wasted time and effort by closing the file before enrollment rather than enroll and ultimately fail.

Other examples exist of Then vs. Now, such as an extensive interview. Now, a stressful three-on-one interview wouldn't catch all those that aren't overall suitable, but it might catch a few. And.....what's cheaper? A three person, hour long interview, or hiring, transporting, outfitting, paying and starting to train a candidate that has zero abilities and potential, other than being really book smart?

Virtually all aspirational institutions that I can think of have minimum standards to ensure applicants possess the basic qualities or building blocks that can be trained and formed into the final product. Why doesn't the CF? If my goal is to lead soldiers in the field, shouldn't the CF, prior to committing finite resources to my hiring and education, first make sure, for example, that I have the ability to organize a small 3 person work party in a small unit task without breaking down into tears.

Read the headlines. RMC has had numerous issues with the mental health of its students. Our country expects these kids to potentially lead its soldier on the battlefield, and yet, an (apparently) significant percentage are having mental issues whilst attending school? Perhaps physiological screening before they joined might save the taxpayer from investing tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars on someone that was wholly unsuited for the position they were applying for. 

As far as physical testing, there's a big difference between hiring someone who's not in the best of shape, but could get better with a few months of effort, and hiring someone who could star in the reality show "My 350 Pound Life - RMC edition". Spare the taxpayer and don't hire the real big kids until they have shown effort and commitment to lose weight and get in some semblance of shape. Without exaggeration, the CF is hiring Officer recruits that cannot complete ONE SINGLE PUSHUP!. Their lack of commitment towards a basic tenet of the CF should have been immediate grounds for exclusion of their file from further consideration. 

I could go on with other examples, but hopefully you get the point.

One final thought. Is the publicized difficulty towards meeting diversity goals, especially the massive requirement for women, a factor in the reduced steps/vetting/obstacles compared to previous generations? Does the CF get political points for simply hiring as opposed to producing the trained, final product?

One thing I do know. Based on my first hand observations, (and in the absence of any mitigating information I'm unaware of) if the folks in charge of CF recruiting worked for my company, they'd be looking for a new job. ......


----------

