# Image of RMC in the eyes of CF members



## Lumber (6 Nov 2007)

Now, we all know how highly everyone thinks of us bratty little OCdts and NCdts round here at the college :rofl:, so lets stay away from that.

What I'm curious is about how the rest of the CF feels towards our often forgotten little unit hidden away here in Kingston. There are two views that I see people would take. Base your responses on these, or offer up your own interpretation. You'll see what I mean.

First is the idea that RMC is a training institution just like any other in the CF. The mega, the battleschool in Gagetown, the fleet school in Esquimalt, the staff college in Toronto; all just schools designed to train and educate CF members to properly and effectively perform their duties. RMC is no different with this view. Subtly, we are obtaining University Degrees as oppose to learning fleet battle tactics, and we are also our own unit, as opposed to being TD'd here.

Second is the idea that RMC is a sort of elite, private, military college, open only to the luck, privileged few. In this view (which seems to be the historical view), the college is sort of separate from the rest of the CF. Its students are regforce members, but they aren't really yet a part of the brotherhood of CF members. The college would then be at liberty to have certain traditions and policies that may not always be in-line with common CF practices. 

How do non-RMC graduated Officers view the college? More interestingly (personall), how do NCOs and NCMs view the college? And finally, for those RMC grads out there in the forums, how do you view the school you once attended? Was it simply four years spent, training at a renowned and excellent learning institution, or do you feel that you now belong to a cadre of special members who stand apart from the rest of the CF?

Again, please refrain from submitting horor stories of your encounters with, or your sour (or bright  :-\) opinions of RMC cadets. I'm interested in starting a discussion on the image of the institution, not its members. 

TDV  , Gimme A Beer :cheers:


----------



## old medic (6 Nov 2007)

Often, opinions about educational institutions are created around the professors and staff. 



> Milhouse: Jeez...if it's in a book, it's _gotta_ be true!
> Bart: Scary, no?  [points at author's photo] And _this_ guy's head
> of the Spaceology Department at the Correspondence College of
> Tampa!



http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/67710/post-633315.html#msg633315
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52232.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52192/post-466748.html#msg466748


----------



## Lumber (6 Nov 2007)

old medic said:
			
		

> Often, opinions about educational institutions are created around the professors and staff.



I agree! And by all means, express your opinions based upon those people. What I meant was I don't want to start a thread about member's opinions of people associated with RMC (students, profs., etc.) But by all means, if your opinion on the image of RMC is based upon something about the people here, truck on. I.e. "Because of the extreme diligence that is common amongst all RMC cadets (again :rofl, I feel the image of the college is one of a hard working, cohesive unit." Or something like that.


----------



## medaid (6 Nov 2007)

I will split this into two separate parts. Part 1 from an NCM point of view, and Part 2 from an Officer point of view.

1) When I was an NCM (yes, I was once an NCM, and despite my lowly rank, I loved every moment of it. I was honored to have served with the troops that I had later had the privilege of commanding) I had met quite a few ring knockers. Yup you read it, I said it. RING KNOCKERS. They behaved as if they themselves were the centers of the universe, and because they had entered the prestige and affluent charm school, that they were better then all who wears a uniform, and all those who do not. This generated distaste from me. This generated disrespect from me, because they had not respected me. I would almost, actually no, I would liken these young gentlemen and I do use these terms VERY loosely, to those officers of the Cadet Instructors Cadre, the ones whom I ever so despise. I will tell you why I despise them and the similarities between the those of Charm School and those of the CIC movement. Not all, but the ones I have met.

    a) they believed that they are something special, that their uneducated opinion on how the CF function matters;
    b) they believed that through their vast experience on courses and scenarios that they are now fit to command, troops and cadets alike;
    c) they thought that the only way to do things were by the text book, and any other way besides what was listed in "Inf, Sect, In the Advance" is wrong, and all who  
        disagrees is wrong regardless of experience;
    d) they actually believe that their minuscule time in service amounted to their abilities to comment on things at hand, matters which concerned not of them, but those who 
        with vaster experiences have yet to find a solution to; and lastly
    e) the belief that because they are officers, they can do anything, and that their word is paramount above all else.

    I am not here to slam CIC nor RMC. But those are my observations when I was an NCM. Bottom line? I would not follow the majority of 'officers' from either institutions.

2) As an officer then shall we? What can I say to you, my 'brother' officer? Well lets start with this. In the eyes of RegF students at RMC, we in the PRes do not amount to the same standards as you. I have heard many times while on my CAP course, why PRes would need any of the 'good' gear such as TacVest and WWB when those of RMC do not have them. Why, we in the PRes deserve the same commission as those that graduate from RMC, and indeed why do those who graduate Civi U  (a lesser cousin to the pure bread stallions of RMC) deserve the same commission? We in the PRes do not do drill as long as you do (I have seen atrocious drill capabilities from RMC cadets), we are not as bright as you (if we were, we'd be at RMC now wouldn't we?) and above all else we are not even doing the same 'job' as you do in the RegF. Out of all the RMC cadets, and graduates that I have met personally, there is only 1 (one), count em, 1 officer I would follow willingly and without reserve. You want to know why?

   a) this officer was humble, never once did this officer hesitate to ask for advice on how to do things that they did not understand;
   b) this officer was willing to admit fault, and hell seek responsibility for the actions of her subordinates like those of a good leader;
   c) the officer held no animosity towards the their counterpart in the PRes, but infact embraced the opportunity to help educate us and bring us up to the RegF standard;
   d) the officer was willing to think out side of the box, and is willing to critique their ideas along with the input of their followers; and lastly
   e) this officer never stepped out of her boundaries and experience to point a finger at something they did not know and say it's wrong.

   The problem with the majority of RMC cadets is this. You are all pumped up to be these future leaders of tomorrow, and told how special you are continuously that you have never for once been slammed. I mean REALLY been slammed. I don't blame this on you, because in order to really be slammed, you have to have served! This is to ALL RMC cadets that are currently on this board who think they're hot stuff. You are worth NOTHING until you've completed your MOC and you have SERVED in a real unit. That means you have gone under the instruction of a Senior NCO who is NOT in a school but at an operational unit, and you have passed your JOUT junior officer under training) stages. Here within lies the problem. You are never told that you are not worth much, and thus you have an over inflated ego, which turns you into egomaniacs. Who, believe that by the power invested into you by the Queen's Commission you can do no wrong! That the CDS is the embodiment of what ever deity you believe in, and you are his right hand! PLEASE get OVER yourselves! You ask ANY NCM for their true opinion on RMC candidates, you will not get a flattering response, have you yourselves who attend RMC ever wonder WHY? You act with no regard to others, you live in a self centered little realm of yours, and you believe what you've learned and taught to each other is LEADERSHIP!

    Bottom line is my brother officer, I don't look too highly upon those who have earned their commission from RMC. I will take a DEO over an RMC officer any day, and most of the time I'll be bang on with my selection. If you look at the majority of senior General and Flag officers you will notice 1 thing. Majority of them are NOT RMC graduates. Be it for one reason or another, you think about that. That is my opinion on RMC and its candidates. You asked for a non BS personal opinion post, and you got it. Just to make it clear to those RMC cadets who think they're soemthing special over their PRes counterparts, just know this. Your PRes counterpart could be called up defend Canada tomorrow, or to help with a humanitarian mission the next, but YOU as RMC cadets sit in the comforts of your campus and never have to worry about that because YOU won't be. Next time, you want to say something disrespectful towards a PRes Officer for no other reason then because he or she is not RegF and did not graduate from RMC? Think twice, because that person probably already has more dirt on their boots from being in the field then you've got TI.


Cheers!

MT.


----------



## Lumber (6 Nov 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Bottom line is my brother officer, I don't look too highly upon those who have earned their commission from RMC. I will take a DEO over an RMC officer any day, and most of the time I'll be bang on with my selection. If you look at the majority of senior General and Flag officers you will notice 1 thing. Majority of them are NOT RMC graduates. Be it for one reason or another, you think about that. That is my opinion on RMC and its candidates. You asked for a non BS personal opinion post, and you got it. Just to make it clear to those RMC cadets who think they're soemthing special over their PRes counterparts, just know this. Your PRes counterpart could be called up defend Canada tomorrow, or to help with a humanitarian mission the next, but YOU as RMC cadets sit in the comforts of your campus and never have to worry about that because YOU won't be. Next time, you want to say something disrespectful towards a PRes Officer for no other reason then because he or she is not RegF and did not graduate from RMC? Think twice, because that person probably already has more dirt on their boots from being in the field then you've got TI.
> 
> 
> Cheers!
> ...



Umm, I appreciated the alternate points of view, but they're alternate views of RMC Cadets. I was looking for the view of the college. I.e. "The college is a stupid elitist social club full of arrogant assholes" or "The college is at the back end of CF training institutions."

And holy crap, did an RMC cadet tear apart PRes Officers in front of you or something? There's some serious hate going on here! I'm relieved you can think of one (1) RMC grad who you would follow into battle, but you can't assume that that is the ONLY one compotent enough that you would follow, do you?


----------



## Nemo888 (6 Nov 2007)

I tend to avoid all unseasoned or green officers, RMC grads slightly more so.


----------



## medaid (6 Nov 2007)

Sorry mate hard to critique an institution without critiquing its products. The insitution made you, but you also make the institution. No hate, just voicing my opinions and observation. It is by no means what everyone else thinks. Like I said I've met some good and mostly bad RMC candidates and graduates. Unfortunately, yes as of this very moment there is ONLY ONE I would follow without question. Unless someone can change my mind before I hit post, there won't be another.


----------



## Lumber (6 Nov 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Unless someone can change my mind before I hit post, there won't be another.



lol ;D


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (6 Nov 2007)

Those who stay after their obligatory service and dedicate themselves to the institution usually make fairly decent officers. the ones who came for the subsidised degree are usually not worth their salary. A lot of our current senior leaders are products of the institution.....LGen Natynchuk, (VCDS) VAdm Robertson(CMS), RAdm MacFadden(JTFA), LGen Watt (CAS) etc.
When you graduate from RMC you are a new University graduate with a guaranteed job...not guaranteed respect or privilege...then the earning of your spurs begins. RMC is not a bad foundation for that training but it's not the be all and end all. I've served with many RMC grads and did all my MARS MQC training with them so I've been around. The protected RMC "cloister" tends to breed an elitism in some and an unrealistic world view in others...as I said once they've done 4 or 5 years in the real CF and had the rough edges polished off they have a chance of being decent officers...if they stay on for the ride.


----------



## armyvern (6 Nov 2007)

It would seem that at this esteemed _*Military*_ Institution, it is quite acceptable, these days, to be improperly dressed while in uniform with nary a word said about it. Dress & deportment -- that basic instiller of discipline -- apparently, the dress portion, no where to be seen while in the classroom.

It would seem that this esteemed *Military* Institution is content with having hypocritical profs educating (not "leading") our fearless future leaders who won't hesitate to collect the Queen's Shilling and retain their "Queen's Commission" while suing to avoid toasting her.

It would seem that esteemed _*Military*_ Institution has removed the Sergeants from the ranks of it's staff this year. Ironically, those Sergeants who, along with the men and women who serve under them, _*ARE * _ the backbone of the Canadian Forces (despite what RMC Cadets like to believe about themselves).

It would seem that this esteemed _*Military*_ Institution is becoming ---

a more self-glorified _*Civ U*_ each day.

The "M" in RMC, is hanging on by a thread. It's too bad too, that their prior history seems to be slipping away ... quite noticeable while viewing and "leading" some of their recent_ product_.


----------



## Lumber (6 Nov 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> It would seem that esteemed _Military_ Institution has removed the Sergeants from the ranks of it's staff this year.



A terrible loss it was. I sincerely enjoyed working with my squadron's sargeant last year. I feel like i've lost my only link to the NCM world.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Sergeants _*ARE * _ the backbone of the Canadian Forces (despite what RMC Cadets like to believe about themselves).



I'll admit, like has been said many time already, RMC students and grads have a tendency to think they are king shit. But I don't know any who think they are the backbone of the CF. I'm not saying you lying or that your wrong. I'm sure you've met some who do believe that. Just don't generalize. We're cocky, not stupid.


----------



## armyvern (6 Nov 2007)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> A terrible loss it was. I sincerely enjoyed working with my squadron's sargeant last year. I feel like I've lost my only link to the NCM world.
> 
> I'll admit, like has been said many time already, RMC students and grads have a tendency to think they are king shit. But I don't know any who think they are the backbone of the CF. I'm not saying you lying or that your wrong. I'm sure you've met some who do believe that. Just don't generalize. We're cocky, not stupid.



Is one considered to be generalizing when that is _the_ prevailing attitude amongst _most_ of the outputs I've had the pleasure of dealing with over the past few years (It's either the "we are the backbone, without us *RMC* boys the CF would fold attitude" OR the "we *RMC* grads constitute the brightest future for the CF attitude)?

That's not slamming the grads BTW ... it's slamming the institution that actually managed to instill this '_value_' into these kids in such a manner that they actually hold it to be truly and ethically reflective of themselves, which, I can assure you, is not the case.

The CF is a team ... RMC grads ... are just a very small part of it.


----------



## Lumber (6 Nov 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Is one considered to be generalizing when that is _the_ prevailing attitude amongst _most_ of the outputs I've had the pleasure of dealing with over the past few years (It's either the "we are the backbone, without us *RMC* boys the CF would fold attitude" OR the "we *RMC* grads constitute the brightest future for the CF attitude)?
> 
> That's not slamming the grads BTW ... it's slamming the institution that actually managed to instill this '_value_' into these kids in such a manner that they actually hold it to be truly and ethically reflective of themselves.



It is and it isn't. What you say may, (and I do believe you), be true for the the outputs that you've had the pleasure of dealing with. But I'm going to assume you havn't had the pleasure (misfortune) of dealing with a majority of those outputs, and thus it is generalizing if if your are referring to outputs as a whole. So, the prevailing attitude amongst those you have dealt with may be that they are the backbone of the CF, but that may not be so for cadets as a whole. 

BUT, since I lack an enormous amount of experience, I cannot credibly refute your statement either. I can only head you caution in what may amount to assumptions.


----------



## observor 69 (6 Nov 2007)

I don't want to get into a large debating match here but...
I attended RMC,  took a few courses as an NCM, and :
Highly respected the whole academic institution, well funded particularly engineering, and faculty I meet in Poli Sci were at the top of their field and I note that many still are.
I got my degree from Queen's and I can attest that the average RMC student is a much more mature rounded individual. And like any university it has it's share of young idiots.
I also greatly admired the youthful enthusiasm for life and their endeavour from the student body. Captian Goddard seems an example of this enthusiasm for life.

In the field at an Air Force base as an Avionics tech I meet many RMC Engineering officers. The majority were good people.
As pilots arrogance is a given.  

RMC is similar to West Point it has it's faults but it is also an institution with a tradition and history of honour.


----------



## c_canuk (6 Nov 2007)

from what I know of it through my sister who just graduated in 06 RMC provides the tools for achieving a university education, while being more military oriented than Civy U

I think they need to stress that while RMC time counts towards your CD and Pension ( I'm assuming that it does), it does not count as time in as experiance. When you graduate you have maybe a year more experiance than a DEO and that is being generous.

Being a supervisor/student at RMC does not prepare one for leading, and it needs to be stressed that while PLQ and BOMQ have parallels they do not turn out equally qualified candidates... MCpls out of PLQs have at least of 6-8 years in and have been in supervisory positions for many of that. Officers who have no experiance to apply the training to are not ready to lead right out of the gate.

2 months after you've graduated RMC while your brother is on leave from teaching a BMQ that includes a couple 2LTs and Ocdts and is relaying a story that happend during the course in the field, do not snort and say "that doesn't happen" in your most haughty RMC tone unless you want to see his angry instructor face. It's generally good to pretend there is no rank in the house between siblings as getting jacked up by your older bro tends to make mom cry. Normally I would have bit my tounge but it was reflex at that point.

And on mentioning that course... it needs to be stressed to all officer candidates, the position of batman does not exist anymore... DO NOT ask the MCpl meeting you at the airport if he is the guy carrying your luggage.

I think RMC is like any other school, it provides the knowledge, but you need practice and experiance applying the knowledge before you can master it.


----------



## Strike (6 Nov 2007)

All I have to say, is thank goodness the 4th years will be living back at the campus next year.  It's no wonder a group of 2nd years didn't recognize the CWC out in town when he lives off campus.  What's even worse was the punishment he dolled out, without informing the Mackenzie CoC.  A prime example of how the presence of an NCO could have made a difference.  I'm sure any of the Sgts that had been there in previous years could have found a better way of dealing with that little situation.

Now, I am NOT painting the whole school with the same brush.  I've gone through the system and had the attitude BEFORE I even got to the school.  When I got into the summer training system, I found maybe a handful of my cohorts were carrying the hollier-than-thou attitude...but it was pretty much the same ratio coming from some ROTP students.  In fact, today, I can see the same ratio in the NCM structure at well (usually from the young bucks that are full of piss and vinegar).

As a school, I think the National recognition for research that the College just received speaks for itself.  The student to teacher ratio cannot be beat.  The support from the profs is wonderful.  The real-world opportunities are excellent.  How many of you know that the Enviro Sciences department has been the lead in DEW Line site clean-up for years?  In fact, many undergrad students have had their thesis projects furthered by this section and used in real-world applications.  This is one department.  I'm sure there are more than a few others who've had the same chances.


----------



## Teflon (6 Nov 2007)

> We're cocky, not stupid.



It's generally been my expearience that *cocky* = *stupid* in most cases


----------



## armyvern (6 Nov 2007)

Strike said:
			
		

> The real-world opportunities are excellent.  How many of you know that the Enviro Sciences department has been the lead in DEW Line site clean-up for years?  In fact, many undergrad students have had their thesis projects furthered by this section and used in real-world applications.  This is one department.  I'm sure there are more than a few others who've had the same chances.



Actually had a couple of those RMC enviro science officer candidates working up in CFS Alert with me one summer (I was the zippo), as we cleaned up the PCBs etc. Awesome people, both of them.

Don't get me wrong ... I've met a great number of RMC grads who've been excellent; it is, after all, in their attitude. Once they get out into the real world (ie at the pointy end etc), the ones that harbour the wrong attitude usually end up doing the same as anyone else -- adjusting it to correct it and shaping up ... or shipping out.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Nov 2007)

RMC = too much money for too little return.  We need a Sandhurst, a finishing school for officers, not a degree granting institution.  There's a real risk to the intellectual monoculture that is RMC, particularly with a force as small as the CF.  Far cheaper to buy off the shelf from Civvy U.

The infelixibility of RMC on scheduling of terms causese a tremndous strain on the indiv training system every year; you'd think that a school owned and operated by the CF for the CF would align its schedule to permit us to make maximum use of the training system by spreading its impact over the calendar year; instead, they slavishly follow the Civy U calendar.

The top-heavy personnel in the college needs reforming as well - if the CMBGs can be commanded by Colonels, then a four-year PAT platoon can be commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel vice a Brigadier General.  


... and don't get me started on the decision to let the Commandant be the career manager for "his" OCdts, further screwing up personnel production...


----------



## riggermade (6 Nov 2007)

In my experience as a WO who's duty is to bring along these young officers and let them benefit from your experience the officers coming out of RMC tend to think they after 4 years in the military know it all and that a WO with normally 20+ years is just another NCM for them to look down upon.  I found that the officers coming out of Civvy U were more apt to listen and learn


----------



## BF1 (6 Nov 2007)

I recently retired after 25 years in the Reg F as a WO and as an Officer.  
As a WO I met all types of young Officers in the field as our troop seemed to be a training ground for young Troop Commanders.  Regardless of background, some would listen and some would not.  Those who would not listen to minor suggestions like "Sir, the left ear of Scotty Dog wood is a good place for a hide" usually ended up embarrassing themselves in front of the troops when they got lost somewhere around Murphy's Pit.  It's fine not to listen to the voice of experience in Gagetown, but don't do it in theater as it will cost lives.
As an Officer, I commissioned under UTPM and was sent to a Civi U.  Due to my commissioning program I did my Basic Officer training with young Cadets heading off to RMC.  I can honestly say that these young recruits were a mix of arrogant, capable, cocky, incompetent, hard charging, lazy and smart individuals. These characteristics were resident *before* they went to RMC.  When I saw some of these young Officers a few years later, I found their characters had not changed, but those characteristics I mentioned earlier had become stronger.  All that to say, I don't think RMC creates any specific type of Officer, but the experience does enhance those character traits we see after graduation, for good and bad.[/b][/b]


----------



## Welshy (6 Nov 2007)

From my experience, the general sense at RMC these days is one of disdain for the entire institution. I think the culture of ring knockers may be dying out, but then again i could be wrong. They seem pretty fed up with the direction the institution seems to be heading, but I realise OCDTs love to complain, I would know .

From my experience of working with both Civy U and RMC, I found that the Civy U students were more independent due to the fact that they have to take care of themselves the entire time they are at school. Personally the idea of a finishing school seems much better to me, by allowing students to concentrate on school and then focus solely on their military careers and gain some experience.

There is alot of generalizations being made on this topic and it is important not to judge someone before you have even worked with them. Not all junoir officers coming out of the program are going to be bad and hell maybe some might even change their ways.


----------



## armyvern (6 Nov 2007)

Welshy said:
			
		

> There is alot of generalizations being made on this topic and it is important not to judge someone before you have even worked with them. Not all junoir officers coming out of the program are going to be bad and hell maybe some might even change their ways.



Well, there's a generalization if I ever saw one, considering no-one in this thread has neither insinuated that all junior officers coming out of the RMC program were going to be bad, nor that none of them would change their ways once out in the real world.


----------



## observor 69 (6 Nov 2007)

Welshy said:
			
		

> From my experience, the general sense at RMC these days is one of disdain for the entire institution. I think the culture of ring knockers may be dying out, but then again i could be wrong. They seem pretty fed up with the direction the institution seems to be heading, but I realise OCDTs love to complain, I would know .
> 
> From my experience of working with both Civy U and RMC, I found that the Civy U students were more independent due to the fact that they have to take care of themselves the entire time they are at school. Personally the idea of a finishing school seems much better to me, by allowing students to concentrate on school and then focus solely on their military careers and gain some experience.
> 
> There is alot of generalizations being made on this topic and it is important not to judge someone before you have even worked with them. Not all junoir officers coming out of the program are going to be bad and hell maybe some might even change their ways.



Ya I think the idea of a Sandhurst, ie. Civy u followed by  officer training has definite appeal.  After having four years to mature, and accumulate student debt,   candidates could be more motivated in their career choice.


----------



## Shamrock (6 Nov 2007)

As academics, I know some of my profs at Queen's were also instructing at RMC;  I even had RMC cadets in a few of my classes.


----------



## s23256 (6 Nov 2007)

I'll have a crack at the original question from the point of view of a relatively recent (2005) RMC grad.  My overall image of RMC looking back is that of an institution which has the potential to be an effective tool in the CF training system but struggles with a variety of identity issues and is currently, as was stated, hardly good value for money.  I will direct my comments along the three areas of interest which have cropped up in this thread, which conveniently parallel my own views, these being academics, military training, and overall culture.  As a caveat these are my opinions and are based on my experiences as a mech eng student and infantry officer candidate during my time at the college.  I invite members with a deeper insight into the issues driving the direction of the college to correct any false assumptions or errors which are mine alone.

In terms of its function as an academic institution RMC enjoys a variety of advantages which make it hard to beat.  Chief among these is the instructor to student ratio.  One would be hard pressed to find another university where one can complete an accredited degree in mechanical engineering while never being in a class with more than 70 students, and with an average class size of less than 25.  Coupled with the excellent facilities available, especially considering the size of the student body and the ability, as applicable, to draw on instructors with experience utilizing the skills taught in the field RMC is able to provide an excellent standard of academic instruction.  

Military training is one of the major stumbling blocks of RMC in terms of concept and execution, and is the crux of the major identity crisis.  Is RMC an academic institution or a military training facility, does it provide general military instruction or trade specific training?  These issues tend to limit the ability to conduct military training of any real value as proponents of one camp or another will always step in.  For example, mandatory morning PT was not allowed during my time due to the requirements of academics and the variety of trades and elements represented at the college made it impossible to conduct any kind of specialized training on a large scale as, for example (and understandably), most pilots had little interest in conducting platoon attacks etc.  As a result, RMC provides little if any useful military training and anyone who thinks that their time there makes them a better officer in terms of the technical aspects of their trade is deluding themselves.

The overall culture of RMC as an institution seems to be the largest bone of contention for those looking in, and in many cases I tend to agree.  Some of the attitudes and conduct I witnessed there would have resulted in a swift and violent removal from command, and likely a release in the "real" army (insert element as applicable).  And this of course is the problem.  RMC is the real army, why should it be any different or have a different disciplinary system, somewhat like a juvenile record (take that one any way you wish), than the real army.  The tolerance for incompetence and poor conduct I witnessed there (I won't go into any horror stories, everyone knows them all already) is a likely cause for the disdain towards its graduates which has been expressed above.  The real value of RMC over civilian university should be the opportunity for the chain of command to evaluate officer candidates on a long term basis, and weed out or develop those whose attitudes are not compatible with the military ethos.  Instead it seems to be run something like a summer camp with counselors chosen from within the ranks of the campers on, what appears to the cadet population, an arbitrary or uninformed basis.  I won't go into my issues with the cadet chain of command for fear of overloading the server, suffice to day that it is a poor analogue  for command in the real world.  RMC could certainly do with an influx of the real world in the form of a larger cadre of NCO instructors, contingent on the understanding that they would conduct training in their areas of expertise and have a real say in who was successfull at the college and who was tubed.  During my tenure, Sqn NCOs were employed as drill instructors and maybe taught the odd general interest military knowledge class on a Wednesday morning, hardly efficient use of a technical expert with up to 20 years of experience.  Overall, if a somewhat more military demeanour could be instillled, a more liberal release policy would certainly help in that regard, I believe the quality of the product, and thereby the image projected could be greatly improved.  

In my mind there are a few steps which could be taken to deal with the current issues.  By instilling a more military bearing, and less lenient treatment of those candidates who become the source of its poor reputation, I believe the overall image could be considerably improved.  This must be supported by a greater emphasis on military training, both general and trade specific.  Employing a cadre of NCO instructors to conduct continuation training between summer courses would have the advantages of maintaining and developing skills instead of letting them fade over the school year, allowing candidates to work with NCOs and learn their place before unit employment, and allowing those same NCOs to provide input on the candidates.  If the place was run less like a "private school for the privileged" and actually developed those with potential while disposing of those who displayed none the credibility of its graduates as well as the college as an institution could be greatly enhanced.


----------



## Roy Harding (6 Nov 2007)

Thank you, Spinaker for bringing this thread back from the brink.  Your post was informative and well thought out - and backed by experience.

As an aside, my oldest son achieved his Mech Eng (BSc) at U of A - the horror stories he tells of professor/student ratios are horrendous.

As someone who served for 25 years, and achieved the rank of WO, I dealt with many RMC grads.  I got out in 2004, but I had just begun to notice the trend others have mentioned regarding the ego of RMC grads.  

My overall experience in dealing with RMC grads during the '80s and '90s, however, was that they were hard chargers, who needed to be reined in occasionally, but after stepping on their dicks once or twice they carried on to become excellent leaders.  I hope that whatever changes happened in the late '90s/early '00s can be reversed to bring back the type of graduate I had the pleasure to serve with and under for the majority of my career.

Roy


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Nov 2007)

Being an alumnus of The University of Western Ontario, I tend to look down upon all other Canadian universities, RMC included.

In all seriousness, however, RMC is a fine institution, well-respected academically and military institution.  As an institution, however, it is more like a living breathing evolving thing as opposed to a collection of brick, mortar and Cadets.  As others have pointed out, there are a variety of personalities that come out of RMC.  Some are fine, some are not.  This, I must point out, is true of most things on this planet: no two things are the same, nor are they alike.

So, to sum up, RMC is fine.  I will not pre-judge anyone who comes from there: I will judge them on their own merits, not their source school, pedigree, province, whatever.  As for how RMC conducts its own affairs, I know too little about it to make any qualified comment.


----------



## Lumber (6 Nov 2007)

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> It is an unfortunate pain that it must interact with the CF from time to time rather than existing in glorious isolation.



How do you expect to fix the problem of the "inherent arrogance" of RMC cadets if you isolate them from the rest of the CF? The only way I can see, based on my extremely little experience, that this is going to be fixed, is to further integrate RMC with the CF and allow the values and character of the CF to be imposed upon the cadets. Am I wrong?


----------



## dapaterson (6 Nov 2007)

I suspect CSA 105 was a little bit tongue in cheek in his reply; there is a certain school of thought in certain corridors of military academe that does not wish to see their gentleman sailors, soldiers and airmen "contaminated" by the real world, but rather wish to shape the clay in splendid isolation.

Personally, I think it would be of tremendous value for RMC to move to a 3 full semester system, and provide for mandatory work terms for the students.  Ship (no pun intended) a few dozen NCdts to each coast and put them to work and so on through the force.

I suspect the pendulum will swing back another way over time, and the balance between the M and the C in RMC will shift.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (6 Nov 2007)

As a fellow Western grad I will agree with Mortarman.  At some point you are going to have to come to grips with the fact that you are going to RMC and get over it.

In all seriousness, though, I can't say that I think about RMC too much.  It does have a nice library, though, and there are some decent fishing holes around it for my little guys.

This time really trying to be serious, in the Army in any case what program you come from really doesn't matter all that much in my experience.  The training at the Combat Training Centre is what matters and everybody is the same.  Your soldiers will make their impression of you based on how you interact with them.  If a young officer is arrogant and doesn't listen to advice then the troops will think that he is arrogant and doesn't listen to advice.  If he is humble and takes advice then they will think that he is humble and takes advice.  Where he comes from won't matter one bit in that calculus.

Socrates advised us to "Know Thyself."  Despite his unfortunate end he was pretty bright about some stuff.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Nov 2007)

Interesting thread.

In the interests of full disclosure, I failed out of 3rd year at RRMC in the late 1980's- making me a pseudo-product of the MilCol system.  Even back in the day, us Roadents disliked RMC as being a poor copy of RRMC  

RMC today:  Having just graduated from RMC with a BMASC, I have to say that the academic work I did was pretty good- generally interesting and relevant.  Dealing with  RMC and CDA administratively to get my degree, however, was a friggin nightmare- over the course of 5 years as distance student, I had to re-register like three times, because they kept re-organizing the Distance Learning Faculty- like I had nothing better to do.  No one could answer a question, even if you could get someone on the phone.  Customer service disaster area. 

Somewhere, in the 1990s, the whole cadet wing came off of the rails.  Maybe, it was when they wiped out CADWINs (which I thought was a good system- allowed OCDTs to screw up without it necessarily ending up on a conduct sheet.  Also gave other cadets experience in drafting charges, conducting investigations and actually sitting summary trials).  When I was at RRMC, 230 cadets had 3 NCMs (the drill staff) that we interacted with on a regular basis.  They scared the crap out of us- but you listened to what they had to say and learned about NCMs.  We got lots of practice leading each other as cadet barman.  Again, we made a bunch of mistakes, but I found that my role as a section commander for 10 first-years actually did a pretty good job of preparing me for leading "real soldiers".  Sure, I made a ton of mistakes.  I also watched others make mistakes on me, which, interestingly, was the best lesson. As for the "adult supervision", they were extremely skilled at staying in the background and giving you just enough rope.  They also had balls of steel, because they took risks with their careers  (in many cases) by letting us make mistakes- big mistakes that probably would not be tolerated by today's CF. 

I think the institution has potential.  But, they had better start to live, eat and breathe customer service as an academic institution for the CF.  They would also be well advised to give the cadets lots of responsibility and let them make mistakes, correct them and carry on.  As the students get into 4th year, the staff should be carefully knocking the arrogance out of them, without getting rid of the enthusiasm- it used to work.

Oh yeah- make it friggin hard!  Lots of PT; lots of drill; a Guards Regiment approach to dress and deportment.

My 2 cents worth


----------



## Strike (6 Nov 2007)

Ref the customer service...COMPLETELY AGREE!!

How many messages do you have to leave at the 8 different numbers that you can call before someone calls you back?  Why does it take 3 weeks to answer an e-mail after you've read it?

I also have to agree with the CADWINs.  Once they got rid of the ability of cadets to truly rule themselves things started going downhill.  Why should someone still have to be reminded of when they jumped another school's mascot during a sporting event 7-8 years after the fact?  CADWINs would have had them running the square in gaitors and on charge parade with extra duties for a week or so and that would have been that.

As for the staff (Sqn Comds), you get 2 kinds -- those who really want to be there and those that really don't.  There's no inbetween.  Fortunately (and unfortunately) the cadets aren't stupid.  They know who the deadheads are and either learn from the ineptitude of these people, or just get pissed off and bitter that these people obviously have no interest in seeing them succeed (which is why I said unfortunately.  We don't need bitter cadets with a chip on their shoulder).

Spinaker,

Are you sure you were Mech Eng?  You write like you have a BA!


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Nov 2007)

SKT, thing was, Royal Roads (drill academy and indoctrination centre for the Regimental System) was far more oriented to "The Military" and less to "book smarts" than either CMR or RU (Royal University).  I had a whole post about Gen Y / iGen'ers and those who went before, as well as the MND's contracting an Estimate on "How to Improve the Leadership Qualities of the CF Officer Corps?" to RMC's Academia....imagine the answer was "more education, more degrees, not so much military...that will come in due course"  :

Like some previous comments, I don't blame the cadets for turning out how they do on the whole today, the system actually is developing them that way.  Coming to RMC as a grad student after close to 20 years of operations was a bit of an eye opener for me...can't quite place my finger on it, but there doesn't seem to be as much of an innate understanding of the military way as I remember absorbing in the mid-80's at Royal Roads.  Alas...I can be one of those old curmudgeons who walked school uphill both ways...in a blizzard.... 


G2G

p.s.  Just what the heck was the purpose of this thread, anyway?  Is it just me thinking that someone was trolling for a "Don't worry, you youngin's, you're really not as bad as all those soldiers tell you during your interaction with the CF during your summer training"?


----------



## Lumber (6 Nov 2007)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> p.s.  Just what the heck was the purpose of this thread, anyway?  Is it just me thinking that someone was trolling for a "Don't worry, you youngin's, you're really not as bad as all those soldiers tell you during your interaction with the CF during your summer training"?



The purpose of this was to satisfy my curiosity as to how the rest of the CF views the college. Whether it is a CF training institution similar to say, the staff college in Toronto, or, is it more like a elite, private military school more like Westpoint or Norwich in the States. No one actually commented on that, not really. Everyone seems to have used it to outline the difficiencies of the college, and the shortcoming and horrible character of its graduates.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Nov 2007)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> the difficiencies of the college, and the shortcoming and horrible character of its graduates.



Right there....is the answer to your question on how the college is seen.


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Nov 2007)

No he is not.  His questions have been answered, it is now up to him to accept that the image of the institution within the CF very much rests on the actions of those graduates who have experienced conflict outside of the College's insular environment. They are the one who have created and who help to maintain that image.

Locked unless someone can provide contributions beyond repetitive postings or "Oh yeah" poke-chest responses more worthy of a happy hour bar.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Nov 2007)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> The purpose of this was to satisfy my curiosity as to how the rest of the CF views the college. Whether it is a CF training institution similar to say, the staff college in Toronto, or, is it more like a elite, private military school more like Westpoint or Norwich in the States. No one actually commented on that, not really. Everyone seems to have used it to outline the _difficiencies_ of the college, and the shortcoming and horrible character of its graduates.



Hmmm...oh, the deficiencies irony.  

Okay, in considering my experiences and those of the majority with whom I've discussed this issue, the overall impression I have is that of late, RMC appears as an institution trying to respond to the Department's drive to enhance the quality of young CF officers by stressing education, yet misses the mark.  Today's young officer graduates appear to have a harder time integrating as military members into the CF to conduct the "Art of War" than in days past.  

I see RMC neither as a training institution like CFCSC, CLFCSC, etc... (focused on the professional development of war fighting), nor as an "elite" private school.  It is a university that provides an introduction to military service, including a fabricated hierarchy, to simulate to some degree the rank structure that graduates may be expected to experience after commissioning.  As many have noted, amongst other issues, the simulation falls short by not having a sufficient quantity of NCOs to inject enough of the experience in working with the very soldiers, sailors and airmen for whom the graduates one day will have responsibility.

Take it for what it's worth, free commentary.

G2G

_*edit:* Sorry Michael, this was in the breech, now in the clearing bay... ; ) _


----------



## EME_007 (13 Nov 2007)

Wow... At this stage in the game, I really can't see much of a difference between RMC grads and civi-U grads - an important basis used for judging the college.  Maybe it's because I'm still on course and it's about a 50-50 split (with some CFRs thrown in for good measure to keep all of us young'uns in line!). Is the difference only apparent when we're actually put in charge of 'real' people as opposed to students?  Or maybe our BOTP instructors just did a great job of squishing any possible inkling of RMC/ROTP-superiority out of my generation right from the get-go - I always felt that they did a pretty good job of reminding us that the way things worked at RMC was not the same as the real world


----------



## HYBRID (14 Nov 2007)

Having read everyones thoughts and opinions I will get straight to my point/question:
                  Should I go to RMC or CIVY U?        And this is my background...


1)  Currently a Corporal with 7 years service in the Primary Reserves.
2)  College Diploma in hand and currently working towards degree through RMC via Distance Study. (6 credits completed so far)
3)  I am currently a Commercial Helicopter Pilot working for a company out in BC.
4)  Finally currently on waiting list for CEOTP for pilot occupation but have been contemplating switching to ROTP as the pilot trade under CEOTP may be closing this year

Thats the long story short.  Anybody who has a suggestion or who has been in similiar circumstances PLEASE give me your 2 cents.  
Thanks.


----------



## kincanucks (14 Nov 2007)

HYBRID said:
			
		

> Having read everyones thoughts and opinions I will get straight to my point/question:
> Should I go to RMC or CIVY U?        And this is my background...
> 
> 
> ...



Depends on your academic results and whether or not Civy U will accept your RMC courses.  Might be easier to continue your degree through RMC.  Have you looked at UTPNCM?


----------



## Lumber (16 Nov 2007)

HYBRID said:
			
		

> Having read everyones thoughts and opinions I will get straight to my point/question:
> Should I go to RMC or CIVY U?        And this is my background...
> 
> 
> ...



I guess it would depend on your preference wouldn't it? Your 24, and most of the older cadets here seem to like it less then us younger, more inexperience, more naive cadets. As a UTPNCM you would be living in town or in a PMQ, you wouldn't be a full part of the cadet wing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure UTPNCMS don't get the RMC post-nominal on their degree because they only have to satisfy the academic pillar, not the other three (athletics, bilingualism and military, although military I suppose is already satisfied if the are CFRing). That is, instead of graduating 2Lt Bloggins B.Sci., R.M.C., you would graduate as just 2Lt Bloggins B.Sci.

Basically, if you actually _want_ to attend RMC  :rofl:, but want a little more freedom, go UTPNCM. If you want to be a part of the cadet wing and all its glory, involved in all aspects of the college and the joy that comes with it :brickwall:, then go ROTP. That's all assuming that you get accepted to RMC, of course. 

Actually, I'm not sure if you can go UTPNCM from PRes. All the UTs i've met have been RegF. Can anyone verify/cutmeoffattheknees about that one?

From what I've read here in the forums, your status as a pilot won't mean jack even if you get accepted as a pilot. They'll train you from square one up, so I've heard. Same thing if you get accepted CEOTP, again, so I've heard.

I actually don't know what the CEOTP program is, so I'll stay away from that one.


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Nov 2007)

I am not aware of the university being part of the post-nominals.  If they are, then I have to amend mine.

Anyway, I think you are somewhat correct re: UTPNCM not being "full" RMC in terms of having the scarlets, etc.  I also believe that the actual diploma is different in that vice RMC is says "Canadian Military College" or words to that effect.

That's all I know about it, because I went to The University of Western Ontario as UTPNCM.  By the way, the UWO Mustangs are playing football this weekend, so be sure to watch!

*PURPLE AND PROUD, BABY!  *​


----------



## dapaterson (16 Nov 2007)

The RMC post-nominal is somewhat past its prime - the CFAO (9-48) has not been updated since 1975.

Anyone insecure enough to feel a need to add "RMC" (or any of the other post-nominals listed in 9-48) to their name probably needs sympathy, more than anything else...


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (16 Nov 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The RMC post-nominal is somewhat past its prime - the CFAO (9-48) has not been updated since 1975.
> 
> Anyone insecure enough to feel a need to add "RMC" (or any of the other post-nominals listed in 9-48) to their name probably needs sympathy, more than anything else...



Actually 11 Mar 83 was the last amendment.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (17 Nov 2007)

I could have taken a 1000 hour course on anything

I chose RMC War Studies MA night classes from 2002 to 2007

STOP ME BEFORE I WRITE AGAIN!  >


----------



## AmphibousAssult (26 Nov 2007)

Being that I am currently at RMC and am PRes myself (C SCOT R), I can honestly say that I have had very little in the way of trouble with regard to my status as a reservist (was Pte. before I joined RMC through RETP). And I agree that this college operates nothing like the way my unit did, however with respect to the "M" being so small at RMC I think it is more the product of what is required out of the students. When I was told I was going to RMC the recruiter told me that I needed to focus on my studies more then anything else, this is because in order to graduate from this place you can fail PT tests, you can fail your courses during the summer, and not be fully bilingual upon gradutation, and you will still be comissioned as an officer, you just dont get the RMC at the end of your name. Now I have not personally had any problems with any of the componenets thus far,but I can say that when priorities must be made, school always comes first. I'm not sure but this academic attitude might be part of whats playing into the current attitude of cadets from the college.


----------

