# Arbour Report - Recommendation #29:  Future of Military Colleges



## stoker dave (31 May 2022)

In the recent Arbour report, recommendation #29 is to evaluate the future of military colleges.  Specifically:

_Recommendation #29: A combination of Defence Team members and external experts, led by an external education specialist, should conduct a detailed review of the benefits, disadvantages and costs, both for the CAF and more broadly, of continuing to educate ROTP cadets at the military colleges. The review should focus on the quality of education, socialization and military training in that environment. It should also consider and assess the different models for delivering university-level and military leadership training to naval/officer cadets, and determine whether the RMC Kingston and the RMC Saint-Jean should continue as undergraduate degree-granting institutions, or whether officer candidates should be required to attend civilian university undergraduate programs through the ROTP.

In the interim, the CPCC should engage with the RMC Kingston and the RMC St-Jean authorities to address the long-standing culture concerns unique to the military college environment, including the continuing misogynistic and discriminatory environment and the ongoing incidence of sexual misconduct. Progress should be measured by metrics other than the number of hours of training given to cadets. The Exit Survey of graduating cadets should be adapted to capture cadets’ experiences with sexual misconduct or discrimination._

I believe a separate thread in the MilCol category is justified to separate this recommendation from others that are addressed in the Arbour report.  

So, what, if any, is the future of RMC and RMC St-Jean?


----------



## Remius (31 May 2022)

Get out of the undergraduate business.


----------



## dimsum (31 May 2022)

stoker dave said:


> So, what, if any, is the future of RMC and RMC St-Jean?


Others have mentioned it in other threads:

Make RMC like RMA Sandhurst in the UK - somewhere that all officers, regardless of intake, go after (or before, whatever) their studies to do the "military" aspect of pre-trades training.  Roll CAFJOD, etc into that as well.  

Do we need separate campuses?  Probably not.  Put it all in one place.


----------



## dapaterson (31 May 2022)

Revisit the 1997 MND 10 recommendation - permit officers to serve up to the rank of Capt without a degree, to a maximum of 12 years (VAC ETB plus a CD).

Voila, greatly reduced demand.


----------



## Navy_Pete (31 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> Others have mentioned it in other threads:
> 
> Make RMC like RMA Sandhurst in the UK - somewhere that all officers, regardless of intake, go after (or before, whatever) their studies to do the "military" aspect of pre-trades training.  Roll CAFJOD, etc into that as well.
> 
> Do we need separate campuses?  Probably not.  Put it all in one place.


But why though? CAFJOD is done online and everything else is done during existing phase training. That would just be an unnecessary posting. RMC does some interesting work in direct support of the CAF under the grad programs but if that's the only reason we keep it open it would make sense to just shift that to DRDC.

I can't tell any real difference between RMC, ROTP and DEO grads after OFP performance wise, so why do we need an RMC at all? I can't imagine the equivalent of what happened o LCol Popov  happening at a normal university, and not resulting a referral to the police for sexually harassing kids.

2 Royal Military College bosses downplayed need to combat sexual misconduct: ex-training head - National | Globalnews.ca


----------



## dimsum (31 May 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> RMC does some interesting work in direct support of the CAF under the grad programs but if that's the only reason we keep it open it would make sense to just shift that to DRDC.


Having worked around DRDC, I'm not sure they'd want to take the extra load.  They were in the middle of a re-org.


----------



## dapaterson (31 May 2022)

DRDC is always in the middle of a re-org.


----------



## Navy_Pete (31 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> Having worked around DRDC, I'm not sure they'd want to take the extra load.  They were in the middle of a re-org.


I was thinking more along the lines of the things DRDC doesn't currently do, (like IT security) and just roll it up into a new DRDC cell, maybe partner with CSEC, etc etc.

Basically if RMC has been doing something for DND out of convenience, there may be better ways to deliver that real capability than a bespoke university.


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 May 2022)

But what about the tradition of Mil Coll Officers never failing their summer courses, unlike RESO and OCTP candidates?

If they cancel the colleges I assume there will be a Class Action Charter Challenge as a result


----------



## stoker dave (31 May 2022)

I started this thread and am curious to see which way it might go.  My two cents:

1.  I was at RMC in the mid-80's when 'lady cadets' were first introduced.  That was not particularly well done, especially if you have read Kate Armstong's book.  The fact that forty years later many of those same problems persist does not speak well of the institution. 
2.  I work in a specialized field of engineering.  There is a program at RMC in that field.  I have previously contacted RMC about arranging site visits, collaboration, etc.   No response at all.  In general, I don't believe the level of research at RMC is particularly high and I don't believe they attract top-tier professors.  

So I would welcome this review.  The military colleges should stand or fall based on their merit.   My guess is the 'old boys' will rally around the (RMC) flag and start a boisterous campaign about the importance of the colleges, history, tradition, etc.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (31 May 2022)

stoker dave said:


> I started this thread and am curious to see which way it might go.  My two cents:
> 
> 1.  I was at RMC in the mid-80's when 'lady cadets' were first introduced.  That was not particularly well done, especially if you have read Kate Armstong's book.  The fact that forty years later many of those same problems persist does not speak well of the institution.


The problem with legacy organizations is that a lot of what surrounds them are "how we have always done things.." because "the results are right there." I think now that the microscope has been on RMC, most Canadians and honestly a lot of CAF members are wondering if the juice is worth the squeeze anymore. CFRs, UTPNCMs, DEOs, CEOTPs etc. have all become excellent tactical and strategic leaders and officers within the CAF without having had the Four Pillars experience. Which brings me to your second point:



stoker dave said:


> 2.  I work in a specialized field of engineering.  There is a program at RMC in that field.  I have previously contacted RMC about arranging site visits, collaboration, etc.   No response at all.  In general, I don't believe the level of research at RMC is particularly high and I don't believe they attract top-tier professors.
> 
> So I would welcome this review.  The military colleges should stand or fall based on their merit.   My guess is the 'old boys' will rally around the (RMC) flag and start a boisterous campaign about the importance of the colleges, history, tradition, etc.


Was RMC ever supposed to be a research university? I feel as though like everything we do in the CAF, something becomes a good idea, gets implemented with zeal for the first little while, then gets underfunded/taken off the priority list, but never truly dies. Instead, it syphons money and is retained for posterity. Should we have a research university, or should we partner with other universities that have far more money and standing within their fields and do it properly, instead of half-assed

As for tradition, "Tradition is taking advice from the dead at the expense of the living." If there is merit in 2022 in retaining certain traditions, norms, and activities; be all means keep them. If there is anything that doesn't, cut it out like a tumor. I personally feel having RMC become a "trade school" for Officers makes far more sense than having it be a degree granting university. A 4 month course over the summer covering BMOQ/BMOQ-A/CAFJODs/AJSO/  Commonalities in one go for the ROTP/UTPNCM folks, then 2 other 4 month sessions throughout the year for DEOs/CFRs (yes I said what I said)/CEOTPs. If you make everyone a Ring Knocker, no one can claim its a barrier to advancement.

If we're going to be making change, let it be radical change.


----------



## Journeyman (31 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> If we're going to be making change, let it be radical change.


Fuel-air explosives it is then.


----------



## btrudy (31 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Was RMC ever supposed to be a research university? I feel as though like everything we do in the CAF, something becomes a good idea, gets implemented with zeal for the first little while, then gets underfunded/taken off the priority list, but never truly dies. Instead, it syphons money and is retained for posterity. Should we have a research university, or should we partner with other universities that have far more money and standing within their fields and do it properly, instead of half-assed


Running a research program is basically the only way to run a decent undergraduate program, as otherwise you're not going to attract anyone decent in their field. 

Might as well be running a community college at that point. 



rmc_wannabe said:


> As for tradition, "Tradition is taking advice from the dead at the expense of the living." If there is merit in 2022 in retaining certain traditions, norms, and activities; be all means keep them. If there is anything that doesn't, cut it out like a tumor. I personally feel having RMC become a "trade school" for Officers makes far more sense than having it be a degree granting university. A 4 month course over the summer covering BMOQ/BMOQ-A/CAFJODs/AJSO/  Commonalities in one go for the ROTP/UTPNCM folks, then 2 other 4 month sessions throughout the year for DEOs/CFRs (yes I said what I said)/CEOTPs. If you make everyone a Ring Knocker, no one can claim its a barrier to advancement.
> 
> If we're going to be making change, let it be radical change.



My issue with this is that of the four pillars of RMC's ROTP program, the military training aspect of it is by far the weakest. Getting rid of everything but that program seems to me to be not at all in the CAF's best interests. 

Frankly, if we expect that there's a requirement for an extended period of military specific training for officers.... just make BMOQ longer and more comprehensive. 

I suppose it wouldn't be a terrible thing to move the delivery of that program to the RMC campus mind you, but at that point it should be a detachment of CFLRS.


----------



## McG (31 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> Others have mentioned it in other threads:
> 
> Make RMC like RMA Sandhurst in the UK - somewhere that all officers, regardless of intake, go after (or before, whatever) their studies to do the "military" aspect of pre-trades training.  Roll CAFJOD, etc into that as well.


We already have an officer recruit school. Does it need to move just to extend a lifeline to the RMC name?

But RMC does more than just undergraduate education, and I think there is room in the CAF for some areas of study (particularly at the graduate level) that might be treated a little controversially at civilian universities ... fighting platform, combat sensor, & weapons engineering type stuff. A place like the Naval Postgraduate School or the Air Force Institute of Technology in the US. 

But such a venue doesn't need to be all in-house, and can be primarly based on a partnership with a civilian university. Think RMCS Shrivenham. Which has mostly been replaced by a Cranfield University campus within their defence academy.

RMC has allowed the repatriation of several programs that previously saw officers spend 1 – 2 years in the UK to become geomatics officers, ammunition technical officers, and army technical officers.  RMC can also tailor an individual’s academic program (including coordinating a masters thesis that is relevant to the sponsoring units) to an extent that a civilian university will not. 1 ESU has several sponsored positions and it coordinates with the civil engineering faculty in this regard.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (31 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> Running a research program is basically the only way to run a decent undergraduate program, as otherwise you're not going to attract anyone decent in their field.
> 
> Might as well be running a community college at that point.


If we are were no longer running undergraduate programs at RMC, does that matter? The only programs that would be working out of RMC then would be post-grad or Military training, and I would argue stuff like ATWO and ATSO would be better suited to a Technical School like UOIT or NAIT than at RMC. "College" is what the school was supposed to be and was for many years. Its only very recently in its history that its become "the Ivy league on Point Frederick."



btrudy said:


> My issue with this is that of the four pillars of RMC's ROTP program, the military training aspect of it is by far the weakest. Getting rid of everything but that program seems to me to be not at all in the CAF's best interests.


Chicken or Egg? Is the Military Pillar weak because its the least valued or because there is more pressure on the other 3? I would gather that if everyone already has their degree coming in, more emphasis can be put on developing leaders instead of ensuring academic success. 


btrudy said:


> Frankly, if we expect that there's a requirement for an extended period of military specific training for officers.... just make BMOQ longer and more comprehensive.
> I suppose it wouldn't be a terrible thing to move the delivery of that program to the RMC campus mind you, but at that point it should be a detachment of CFLRS.


Perhaps we have decentralized too much of the Junior Officer development. This might help? I don't know. All I know is doing the same thing over and over again is lunacy.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 May 2022)

The profession of arms is at least as complex as the professions of law and medicine, and probably more complex.  The latter two can dump most of the required information into people at the front end in three years; the former can not because the advanced education would be wasted if delivered long before most of it is used.  One difference, then, is that the profession of arms has an educational delta that should be delivered in chunks over a long time.  Another is that the presumed undergraduate education prerequisites/gatekeepers for law and medicine are not as relevant to the profession of arms.  Much of the education is deliverable (and best delivered) in an academic setting rather than a training area.  Claiming that the CAF doesn't need a four-year degree-granting institution is not the same as saying that the CAF doesn't need an institution that delivers four years' worth of education over the course of a long service career.


----------



## dapaterson (31 May 2022)

The CAF needs the ability to deliver ongoing professional education and professional development throughout a military career.

Some may be outsourced; some may be in house; but there is no modern requirement for massive collections of bricks and mortar.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (31 May 2022)

I can get behind that line of thinking @Brad Sallows . We do that with our NCM cadre in the form of DP 2/PLQ, DP 3/4, ILP, ALP, SLP, etc. I notice that we front load a lot of things on for the officers at DP1/2 and essentially plant the seed at 2Lt in the hope it grows into a Major tree bearing fruit. 

As to @dapaterson 's comment, to fix the above, would it make sense to have a catalogue of training/professional development that folks can use in a "summer school" type model, where members have certain options they can take from various post secondary institutes to develop their leadership/ability? Maybe even tie in secondments as a form of "practical development" as well. 

Its an interesting conundrum that I think will see some creative solutions; but at the same time, I can see fear of the unknown putting a damper on the best of ideas.


----------



## WLSC (31 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> Others have mentioned it in other threads:
> 
> Make RMC like RMA Sandhurst in the UK - somewhere that all officers, regardless of intake, go after (or before, whatever) their studies to do the "military" aspect of pre-trades training.  Roll CAFJOD, etc into that as well.
> 
> Do we need separate campuses?  Probably not.  Put it all in one place.


This is my thoughts for the last 6 years.  We have enough very good university in Canada so the need that lead to the creation of the RMCC are not there anymore.


----------



## MustyMountain (31 May 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> But why though? CAFJOD is done online and everything else is done during existing phase training. That would just be an unnecessary posting. RMC does some interesting work in direct support of the CAF under the grad programs but if that's the only reason we keep it open it would make sense to just shift that to DRDC.
> 
> I can't tell any real difference between RMC, ROTP and DEO grads after OFP performance wise, so why do we need an RMC at all? I can't imagine the equivalent of what happened o LCol Popov  happening at a normal university, and not resulting a referral to the police for sexually harassing kids.
> 
> 2 Royal Military College bosses downplayed need to combat sexual misconduct: ex-training head - National | Globalnews.ca


wow I just an read an article about LCol Popov... disgusting to say the least. As a 22 year old NCM applicant, I am worried what officers I am going to be serving under. That  sure as hell doesn't fly civvie side... definitely shouldn't fly mil side.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (31 May 2022)

ResMonkey said:


> wow I just an read an article about LCol Popov... disgusting to say the least. As a 22 year old NCM applicant, I am worried what officers I am going to be serving under. That shit sure as hell doesn't fly civvie side... definitely shouldn't fly mil side.


90/10 rule: 

-90 percent of the people you will work with/for are decent human beings and will be looking out for your best interests.
-10 percent of the people you will work with/for are not and will not.

The 10 percent of those folks are the reason we are all getting tarred with the same brush. Those 10 percent are also the source for 90 percent of the headlines you've seen over the past 18 months. Its those 10 percent that we as an organization need to reform or remove to see things move forward.

Keep that context and it won't seem as much of a doom and gloom situation.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> ... The 10 percent of those folks are the reason we are all getting tarred with the same brush. Those 10 percent are also the source for 90 percent of the headlines you've seen over the past 18 months. Its those 10 percent that we as an organization need to reform or remove to see things move forward ...


Not justifying any misconduct by any of the ones who've been out of line, but even 10% may be high.  You're bang on, though, on "the many keeners suffer because of the few weiners" in this and other scenarios (not to mention in most cases where new "improved" rules are created)


----------



## MustyMountain (31 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> 90/10 rule:
> 
> -90 percent of the people you will work with/for are decent human beings and will be looking out for your best interests.
> -10 percent of the people you will work with/for are not and will not.
> ...


It's always the few, who ruin it for the majority.  What I don't get is how anybody stands for it, especially high command who you think would want the best for the CAF. Recently where I'm from, some big name realtors got exposed, and even some people my age who I went to school with. The realtors literally left the city and moved to nowhere BC just they could restart there lives some what... and the people my age have a tarnished reputation and I presume, struggle to get with women these days... The real estate agencies didn't try to sweep it under the rug or try to cover for their 'best' real estate agents. No they told them to frick off and made an apology to the public so they keep the respect of their clients. I don't understand why the CAF isn't like this. Corruption from the top down is the only way this occurs and that's what worries me. Craziness. I just want an exciting rewarding job and haven't been super into the politics of the CAF, but I would never stand for anyone stepping out of line like that, currently or when/If I get into the CAF.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (31 May 2022)

@ResMonkey "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept." 

For a lot of these people, their leaders and superiors felt that personal failings were able to be walked past because "They're a great soldier with solid tactical acumen and combat experience." Doesn't matter if the person is the next Eisenhower strategically or operationally, if that person is a douche to work for/with, they need to be corrected/not advance because of their failure to be corrected.

We ask near perfection of our soldiers, sailors, and air personnel when it comes to doing the business. We need to ensure we expect the same of those who lead them.


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> 90/10 rule:
> 
> -90 percent of the people you will work with/for are decent human beings and will be looking out for your best interests.
> -10 percent of the people you will work with/for are not and will not.
> ...



Well, there's the 10% we might know about and the unknown number of ones we don't ... 









						High-Functioning Sociopath or Antisocial Personality Disorder?
					

A high-functioning sociopath is a person with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). A sociopath or person with ASPD doesn't care about other people’s emotions, rights, or experiences. They lack remorse for their actions, motivated almost exclusively by getting what they want.




					www.healthline.com


----------



## btrudy (31 May 2022)

ResMonkey said:


> wow I just an read an article about LCol Popov... disgusting to say the least. As a 22 year old NCM applicant, I am worried what officers I am going to be serving under. That shit sure as hell doesn't fly civvie side... definitely shouldn't fly mil side.



I wouldn't be so sure about that "doesn't fly civvie side". There's a lot of terrible shit that goes on in companies across the country that likewise gets swept under the rug.


----------



## OldSolduer (31 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> I wouldn't be so sure about that "doesn't fly civvie side". There's a lot of terrible shit that goes on in companies across the country that likewise gets swept under the rug.


I fully agree. It’s the elephant in the room and the nepotism etc that goes on is just as bad civvy side


----------



## MustyMountain (31 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> @ResMonkey "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept."
> 
> For a lot of these people, their leaders and superiors felt that personal failings were able to be walked past because "They're a great soldier with solid tactical acumen and combat experience." Doesn't matter if the person is the next Eisenhower strategically or operationally, if that person is a douche to work for/with, they need to be corrected/not advance because of their failure to be corrected.
> 
> We ask near perfection of our soldiers, sailors, and air personnel when it comes to doing the business. We need to ensure we expect the same of those who lead them.


I agree completely. Being a solid human being comes before performance in any line of work. Just because you wear a higher rank then me or went to RMC doesn't give you the right to be dick, or make you impervious to your teeth getting knocked in some cases lol. It's all been said before me. And to note, I am expecting to meet amazing people in the CAF and understand not everyone is perfect, but there is a line that cannot be crossed in modern civilization, military or not, and I plan to uphold that line.


----------



## MustyMountain (31 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> I wouldn't be so sure about that "doesn't fly civvie side". There's a lot of terrible shit that goes on in companies across the country that likewise gets swept under the rug.


This is changing so fast in my eyes with a huge generation of educated people coming into the workforce, who would rather step up then be stepped on. Companies are realizing this as well and are not as tolerant in my experience. Especially with sexual harassment. But yes, there is always some dick who's dad owns Microsoft that can get away with whatever. And to those people, keep your head up on the ice buddy...


----------



## MustyMountain (31 May 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> I fully agree. It’s the elephant in the room and the nepotism etc that goes on is just as bad civvy side


I don't have any experience in the CAF yet so I am extremely biased I suppose, and obviously things are changing for the better, because they have too. I don't mean to paint a bad picture as I really to be in the CAF myself and be the change I want to see


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 May 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> I fully agree. It’s the elephant in the room and the nepotism etc that goes on is just as bad civvy side



But civvies can't throw you in jail for being late to work unless, you know, you happen to work in a jail


----------



## rmc_wannabe (31 May 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> But civvies can't throw you in jail for being late to work unless, you know, you happen to work in a jail


Yes, but a civvy company can fire you with cause for any number of reasons that we in the CAF give 2nd, 3rd, and 17th chances to fix. 
a lot of the crap I have seen in my military career would see a meeting with HR at 10 followed by a security escort at 1430 at my previous civilian employer.


----------



## btrudy (31 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Yes, but a civvy company can fire you with cause for any number of reasons that we in the CAF give 2nd, 3rd, and 17th chances to fix.
> a lot of the crap I have seen in my military career would see a meeting with HR at 10 followed by a security escort at 1430 at my previous civilian employer.



We are indeed a lot less likely to fire people for minor infractions. Of course, given that we spend a couple hundred thousand dollars training everyone up before they're used for anything, I think that makes sense.

The problem being is that also extends to us being less likely to fire people for major infractions too.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (31 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> We are indeed a lot less likely to fire people for minor infractions. Of course, given that we spend a couple hundred thousand dollars training everyone up before they're used for anything, I think that makes sense.
> 
> The problem being is that also extends to us being less likely to fire people for major infractions too.


Doesn't matter if we have invested 40 Mil into developing a Senior Officer/NCM: the effects of their toxic leadership, especially if they're causing harm to their subordinates, costs us more in losing large numbers of middle and lower end employees due to a lack of confidence in their leaders.
I would rather see us eat the cost of a shitty leader early on than to bleed the middle dude to systemic issues caused by not ripping the band-aid off in the pre-OFP to DP1 arena.


----------



## Remius (31 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Doesn't matter if we have invested 40 Mil into developing a Senior Officer/NCM: the effects of their toxic leadership, especially if they're causing harm to their subordinates, costs us more in losing large numbers of middle and lower end employees due to a lack of confidence in their leaders.
> I would rather see us eat the cost of a shitty leader early on than to bleed the middle dude to systemic issues caused by not ripping the band-aid off in the pre-OFP to DP1 arena.


Agreed.  An expensive shitty leader can cost us a dozen expensive awesome followers.


----------



## OldSolduer (31 May 2022)

Remius said:


> Agreed.  An expensive shitty leader can cost us a dozen expensive awesome followers.


And possibly future awesome leaders from that dozen.

And yes I have seen employees here escorted from the property never to return. Basically most are for inappropriate relationships with our "guests".
Never for being an incompetent boob though.


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 May 2022)

Remius said:


> Agreed.  An expensive shitty leader can cost us a dozen expensive awesome followers.



And there are various organizations who have done the math on that, e.g.,


Fact Check: The Cost of Poor Leadership​
Poor leadership can cost companies thousands to millions of dollars per year, depending on the size of the organization. Collectively in the United States alone, businesses are losing trillions of dollars per year as a result of voluntary turnover and inability to hire qualified talent due to poor brand reputation.

Wade Burgess, entrepreneur, Chief Revenue Officer at Rev.com, and former VP of Talent Solutions at LinkedIn, wrote a 2016 blog that broke down just how expensive this can be. He found that:


The cost of a bad reputation for a company with 10,000 employees could be as much as $7.6 million in additional wages. This is based on the average U.S. salary being $47,230 (according to BLS), assumed annual turnover of 16.4%, and a minimum 10% pay raise.
Employers who fail to invest in their reputation could be paying up to an additional $4,723 per employee hired.
Nearly half of U.S. professionals would entirely rule out taking a job with a company that exhibited the top three negative employer brand factors (1. Concerns about job security; 2. Dysfunctional teams; and 3. Poor leadership), no matter what pay raise they were offered.
Even a pay raise of 10% would only tempt 28% of employees to sign on the dotted line.






						Fact Check: The Cost of Poor Leadership | LFCC Workforce Solutions
					






					lfccworkforce.com


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (31 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> Running a research program is basically the only way to run a decent undergraduate program, as otherwise you're not going to attract anyone decent in their field.
> 
> Might as well be running a community college at that point.


RMC's issue is that it, like our entire Military writ large, lacks focus.  Actual analysis would tell us that RMC could cut down the number of programs it has but also make those programs it does deliver, offer more value to the CAF.

Example:

The fact it produces a substantial portion of our Country's Naval Officers, yet offers no relevant degrees or programs that cover Naval Issues, is telling.

Meanwhile, I can go to the CCG College in Cape Breton and receive a four year degree in either Marine Navigation or Marine Engineering that is University Accredited and also meets Transport Canada and IMO/STCW certification requirements expected of a professional mariner.



btrudy said:


> My issue with this is that of the four pillars of RMC's ROTP program, the military training aspect of it is by far the weakest. Getting rid of everything but that program seems to me to be not at all in the CAF's best interests.
> 
> Frankly, if we expect that there's a requirement for an extended period of military specific training for officers.... just make BMOQ longer and more comprehensive.
> 
> I suppose it wouldn't be a terrible thing to move the delivery of that program to the RMC campus mind you, but at that point it should be a detachment of CFLRS.


Bingo!  With a few changes, RMC could radically enhance the Military Pillar.  RMC is like the rest of the CAF, the org chart briefs real well on a powerpoint slide.


----------



## btrudy (31 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Doesn't matter if we have invested 40 Mil into developing a Senior Officer/NCM: the effects of their toxic leadership, especially if they're causing harm to their subordinates, costs us more in losing large numbers of middle and lower end employees due to a lack of confidence in their leaders.
> I would rather see us eat the cost of a shitty leader early on than to bleed the middle dude to systemic issues caused by not ripping the band-aid off in the pre-OFP to DP1 arena.



Just to be clear, when I was talking about minor infractions, I meant stuff like "being late", not anything that actually contributes to a toxic workplace.

The problem as it stands is that we basically never fire anyone for creating a toxic workplace, unless they're also committing a crime while doing so.


----------



## Good2Golf (31 May 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The fact it produces a substantial portion of our Country's Naval Officers, yet offers no relevant degrees or programs that cover Naval Issues, is telling.


If only there had been a military college that had substantial Naval-related degrees like Physics & Oceanography…


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> 90/10 rule:
> 
> -90 percent of the people you will work with/for are decent human beings and will be looking out for your best interests.
> -10 percent of the people you will work with/for are not and will not.
> ...



Every course has bad students that shouldn't pass (and sometimes shouldn't be in the CAF). Sometimes they get removed and sometimes, no matter how much cause there is to boot them, they squeeze by.

One of my issues with RMC is that these bad students aren't squeezing by a 3 month course, or even 6 month course. Somehow they're squeezing by for 4 years. 

Do the powers that be think these people become squared away once they graduate?


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> I wouldn't be so sure about that "doesn't fly civvie side".


Federal Court certifies $1.1B RCMP bullying, harassment class action​


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 May 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> If only there had been a military college that had substantial Naval-related degrees like Physics & Oceanography…


dare to dream…


----------



## OldSolduer (31 May 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> If only there had been a military college that had substantial Naval-related degrees like Physics & Oceanography…


The next thing you know you guys will be singing "In The Navy".....


----------



## Good2Golf (31 May 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> The next thing you know you guys will be singing "In The Navy".....


…again… 😆


----------



## FJAG (31 May 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Another is that the presumed undergraduate education prerequisites/gatekeepers for law and medicine are not as relevant to the profession of arms.


Note, however, that law schools all have a pre-law requirement of two years on undergraduate studies. They don't care what field. The intent is to ensure that law students and future lawyers will have had exposure to some thing other than law in their education.

I view RMC as doing just that through its education program. IMHO that is undercut by the general environment of RMC which is counterproductive to a general education and immersion in civilian society. My preference is let cadets go through a civilan post secondary education coupled with intensive military only courses in the summer.



Humphrey Bogart said:


> The fact it produces a substantial portion of our Country's Naval Officers, yet offers no relevant degrees or programs that cover Naval Issues, is telling.
> 
> Meanwhile, I can go to the CCG College in Cape Breton and receive a four year degree in either Marine Navigation or Marine Engineering that is University Accredited and also meets Transport Canada and IMO/STCW certification requirements expected of a professional mariner.


I've always thought that sending other ranks through community colleges to learn trades that have military usefulness (trucking, food services, paramedics, mechanics) would be worth us spending money on for their tuition. I can see the same for specialized professional knowledge gotten through university programs.



rmc_wannabe said:


> Yes, but a civvy company can fire you with cause for any number of reasons that we in the CAF give 2nd, 3rd, and 17th chances to fix.
> a lot of the crap I have seen in my military career would see a meeting with HR at 10 followed by a security escort at 1430 at my previous civilian employer.


We have a system for counselling and correcting people to get them back on track. Giving people second and even third chances is every bit as important as removing people who don't respond to that. 

Our problem is that we don't do it well and our revolving leadership posting cycles has a lot to do with that in that institutional memory of a person's failings is fleeting. On top of that perceptions of a subordinate's failings are highly subjective amongst leaders. 

Don't for a minute consider civilian employers as the paragons of personnel management. Very few have had any of the leadership training that even a junior NCM gets. They are generally notorious for failing to document or deal with personnel issues until they hit the "straw that broke the camel's back moment". Their major advantage is that they mostly have lengthier periods of contacts with their employees and can better evaluate their long-term strengths and weaknesses.

🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 May 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Every course has bad students that shouldn't pass (and sometimes shouldn't be in the CAF). Sometimes they get removed and sometimes, no matter how much cause there is to boot them, they squeeze by.
> 
> One of my issues with RMC is that these bad students aren't squeezing by a 3 month course, or even 6 month course. Somehow they're squeezing by for 4 years.
> 
> *Do the powers that be think these people become squared away once they graduate?*



Well, at least we can offload them to the units and blame the SNCOs for not 'mentoring' their new Officers properly


----------



## OldSolduer (31 May 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Well, at least we can offload them to the units and blame the SNCOs for not 'mentoring' their new Officers properly


Actually it is not a Senior NCOs job to mentor the new platoon commander. That job is the Platoon 2 I/Cs  which in an Infantry Pl is a WO. Now a Sgt may do the job if he is a Pl 2 I/C. Section commanders do have input however.


----------



## Navy_Pete (31 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Doesn't matter if we have invested 40 Mil into developing a Senior Officer/NCM: the effects of their toxic leadership, especially if they're causing harm to their subordinates, costs us more in losing large numbers of middle and lower end employees due to a lack of confidence in their leaders.
> I would rather see us eat the cost of a shitty leader early on than to bleed the middle dude to systemic issues caused by not ripping the band-aid off in the pre-OFP to DP1 arena.


I think very few people have developed any leadership skills by the time they hit high school, and really depends on what kind of examples you had to follow.

So shitty leaders not only turn into toxic assholes that impact a lot of people as they get promoted, they also set a pretty bad example that some will inevitably follow. So to keep going with the LCol Popov situation, I'm sure a bunch of the students felt like assholes and hopefully hoisted it in, some probably just had it bounce off and carried on, but I'm sure there were a few whose take away was they can get away with things and the old boys club will protect them. Similarly when they see people that that were jerks get promoted, it kind of reinforces that.

Know a few people who were terrible COs, but they started out as jerks as a D level (think new two ringer), were pricks as OROs, and graduated to intolerable assholes as XO. And when their behaviour kept getting them advanced in their career, not really a surprise, but it's not like they were great people that suddenly flipped when they got Command.

Personally found the 'unofficial' 360 feedback as a subbie probably the best thing ever at adjusting course as I tried to figure things out. Hopefully that still happens (but probably a lot more politely than what I got 15 years ago from people that had 20-30 years in at that point) but honestly think it's too late in someone's career when they hit the senior officer level, which is what they are talking about in the report.

All that to say is that RMC seems even more resistant to change than the CAF in general, so if they can't apply even a normal standard of behaviour for a university, let alone the high ethical standards of the CAF probably time to divest ourselves of a lead weight. We can easily divert the same folks to ROTP and ramp up other entrance plans to make up for it, and just partner with the many other researchers and organizations to keep looking at niche subjects with a focus on something particular to the CAF.

As an aside, it was actually a lot of extra work to do a thesis with experiments directly relevant to the Navy instead of just applying for the numerous industry grants, so tweaking the sponsored PGT program to streamline being able to put together a proposal and get funding would probably provide a lot of bang for the buck.

(edited a bit for some particularly bad run on sentences, but probably time for bed)


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Part of the problem is we need to shift away from the corporate "Credentials" based management model that was adopted in the early 2000s and adopt a more "Effects" based leadership model.
> 
> I say Effects based in the sense of "What are the effects of this person leading the organization? Are they positive? Toxic? Do people want to work with/for this person? Let's take a look at the health and morale of the group you command; discipline problems? Administrative Actions? Merely having having them aren't a reflection of your command ability, but they do speak to the environment you're fostering."
> 
> The ability to competently lead isn't vested in topping ALP, JCSP, or having a CCE Language profile or Masters of Defense Studies; they compliment it for sure, but the true metric of a leader's ability should always be reflected primarily in the personnel they're responsible for.



I agree!

And of course you know this would mean doing away with the military colleges, which are a good example of a 'credentials' versus 'effects' based approach to leadership.


----------



## MilEME09 (24 Jul 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> I agree!
> 
> And of course you know this would mean doing away with the military colleges, which are a good example of a 'credentials' versus 'effects' based approach to leadership.


Get rid of degreed officer requirenent, nothing an officer learns absolutely requires a degree.


----------



## Kilted (24 Jul 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Get rid of degreed officer requirenent, nothing an officer learns absolutely requires a degree.


How would you determine who would be an officer then?


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> How would you determine who would be an officer then?


Well, since at least a BA is an entry-level requirement for loads of positions _not_ requiring management or leadership these days outside the military, is it the ideal "first hurdle" to becoming an officer?  Anyone have any data on degrees are statistically more likely to lead to better officers?  I ask because my anecdotally limited evidence from 30 years ago showed me both good and bad officers with and without degrees.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jul 2022)

I wouldn't go so far as to say I feel bad for these leaders getting in shit ("duh I didn't know better" ) but when you think of it our culture in the CAF creates a lot of these "rank has privileges" types who routinely don't practice what they preach. They're brought up through the ranks getting away with "cause I'm a *$#@in sergeant major" or "cause I'm the CO" double standards.

I can imagine the rank privilege is so ingrained in the people that they're genuinely surprised when they get in shit for something. 

The whole rank has privlage is a cornerstone of our culture problem.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Jul 2022)

Rank Hath Its Privilege is not uniform in its application; some are granted a pass while others are persecuted for the same behaviours.  It's in-groups in a closed system manipulating the system to their own benefit.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Jul 2022)

The degreed officer corps was a recommendation from the 1997 Report to the PM on the Leadership and Management of the CAF.  There were a series of reviews which, taken together, recommended that a broad based liberal arts education would give institutional leadership the ability to understand complex environments and make appropriate decisions instead of resorting to war crimes (baiting, sodomizing and murdering teenagers in your custody, lying and covering up activities, creating fraudulent documents...)

Naturally, that became corrupted from "education" to more of a "training" perspective, where specific degree programs are now used to select for specific occupations.  To the point where the Royal Canadian Logistics Service adopted degree standards that excluded the senior serving logistician at the time.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> But that can also mean 'punishing' those who didn't take time off.  I remember a girl who as soon as she got full time had 3 children in 5 years.  Now has the same seniority for job picks/ etc as those who worked all of those five years.


Yet as a society we need those kids, because they are going to help pay for your pension and healthcare. If we want to have women in the workplace, then you need to accommodate for childbirth and child raising. Allowing men to share in that accommodation has been beneficial as well.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (24 Jul 2022)

dapaterson said:


> The degreed officer corps was a recommendation from the 1997 Report to the PM on the Leadership and Management of the CAF.  There were a series of reviews which, taken together, recommended that a broad based liberal arts education would give institutional leadership the ability to understand complex environments and make appropriate decisions instead of resorting to war crimes (baiting, sodomizing and murdering teenagers in your custody, lying and covering up activities, creating fraudulent documents...)
> 
> Naturally, that became corrupted from "education" to more of a "training" perspective, where specific degree programs are now used to select for specific occupations.  To the point where the Royal Canadian Logistics Service adopted degree standards that excluded the senior serving logistician at the time.


It's similar to the CAFJOD/ALP/ILP/PLQ/GBA+ belief that experiential learning over the course of years can be condensed into a certification or credential. 

Leadership, good leadership, is based on being of good character, sound judgement, and a willingness to learn and grow with experience. 

A BA or finishing a 200 slide CAFJOD isn't going to do that, no matter what we mandate.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jul 2022)

We need thinking officers.  If there are ways to find and develop those people other than using a university education as a proxy, run with it.

The "credentials" based model has to remain to the extent that it ensures officers are competent to do staff and command work commensurate with rank/appointment.  Most staff officers don't have to "lead" anything; they have to be intelligent, educated, industrious, objective, and detail-minded.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> .  Most staff officers don't have to "lead" anything; they have to be intelligent, educated, industrious, objective, and detail-minded.


So Corporals??


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Jul 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> So Corporals??


Bite your tongue, heretic! That kind of talk will get you an appointment with the rack.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I wouldn't go so far as to say I feel bad for these leaders getting in shit ("duh I didn't know better" ) but when you think of it our culture in the CAF creates a lot of these "rank has privileges" types who routinely don't practice what they preach. They're brought up through the ranks getting away with "cause I'm a *$#@in sergeant major" or "cause I'm the CO" double standards.
> 
> I can imagine the rank privilege is so ingrained in the people that they're genuinely surprised when they get in shit for something.
> 
> The whole rank has privlage is a cornerstone of our culture problem.


Rank has responsibilities, and each step up you take they become far more serious.


----------



## ArmyRick (25 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> How would you determine who would be an officer then?


Design an "officer selection" to take place after basic training. Check for mental and physical endurance, integrity, performance and thinking under stress, problem solving, etc. Make it 2-3 weeks long. You should be able to quickly find those with the abilities and traits neccesary


----------



## SupersonicMax (25 Jul 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> Design an "officer selection" to take place after basic training. Check for mental and physical endurance, integrity, performance and thinking under stress, problem solving, etc. Make it 2-3 weeks long. You should be able to quickly find those with the abilities and traits neccesary


It’s easy to see abilities.  Far more difficult to see potential.  You can’t base your assessment on abilities for 16-20 years old kids.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2022)

Require testing in order to promote people combined with a subordinate/peer/supervisor review.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Rank has responsibilities, and each step up you take they become far more serious.


In a perfect world, and not just in the military, a higher standard is expected because one is expected to know better the higher up the food chain one gets.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> We need thinking officers.  If there are ways to find and develop those people other than using a university education as a proxy, run with it.
> 
> The "credentials" based model has to remain to the extent that it ensures officers are competent to do staff and command work commensurate with rank/appointment.  Most staff officers don't have to "lead" anything; they have to be intelligent, educated, industrious, objective, and detail-minded.



Rowallan Company enters the chat 

"Develop character first and military leadership will follow." Lord Rowallan, 1943

The *Rowallan Company* was a British Army training course based at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (RMAS) which existed from 1977 to 2002. Its gruelling 12-week programme was designed to improve leadership ability and toughen up borderline candidates from the Regular Commissions Board (RCB) in preparation for the 1-year Commissioning Course.[1] Rowallan cadets were given the pay and grade of a soldier recruit, not an officer cadet, and existed under a far harsher regime than the latter. Physical punishments and restriction of privileges were the norm, and training was largely based around field craft and adventurous training in adverse conditions and forbidding locations such as the Brecon Beacons. Despite a high dropout and failure rate of c50%, the course was successful in increasing the in-flow of candidates to RMAS, and many ex-Rowallan Cadets have gone on to have successful army careers and achieve high rank. Rather than being a black mark as a 'failed RCB candidate', ex-Rowallan cadets view it as something of a badge of honour to have survived this arduous training. Rowallan Company was disbanded in 2002.









						Rowallan Company
					






					en.everybodywiki.com


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Jul 2022)

Just throw out there that might make sense for some officer trades but not all; for the engineering, health care etc the degree is part of the background knowledge required for the trade.

On the Navy side we used to do NOAB screening after the initial recruiting centre screening. Was only a week long, but screened out a number of additional candidates, either by the Navy deciding they weren't up to par or the candidates deciding they didn't want to continue after getting to sea for the day. That got canceled but I think saved a lot of time and effort, and was more Navy appropriate than field craft or building a tripod with a small team.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jul 2022)

Precious few of the CAF's engineers engage in work that requires professional engineers.  That's a workforce design issue.


----------



## McG (25 Jul 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Precious few of the CAF's engineers engage in work that requires professional engineers.  That's a workforce design issue.


... but a deliberate workforce design that was influenced by a few engineers (of various types) who discovered that it's much easier to make jobs for themselves as project managers.  Most of those PM jobs should be made civilian, and the uniformed engineers can get back to focusing on technical work.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jul 2022)

McG said:


> ... but a deliberate workforce design that was influenced by a few engineers (of various types) who discovered that it's much easier to make jobs for themselves as project managers.  Most of those PM jobs should be made civilian, and the uniformed engineers can get back to focusing on technical work.


Heretic.


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Jul 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Precious few of the CAF's engineers engage in work that requires professional engineers.  That's a workforce design issue.


Professional Engineering certification is provincial anyway, so doesn't apply to the CAF. But we definitely do comparable work that you can apply the same principles to, as a lot of it is simply professional ethics vice straight design work.

Project management is a legitimate part of that as well, and what a lot of P.Engs actually do. It's a lot easier to effectively manage a complex technical project when you understand the details.

A lot of the PM jobs are civilian, but useful to have a good mix so we take into account how things are in reality, vice how things work on paper. We're buying new ships that are built to commercial standards, which is based on commercial practices, and a lot of those are different from how we actually operate, or respond to emergencies. All of that is pretty relevant when you are doing a review or picking equipment.

Making the jobs civilian would increase the SWE envelope and mean a whole bunch of releases to fill the positions anyway; typically the civilian equivalent to the military ranks is a 5-10% raise, plus you get things like overtime and acting pay, plus the GoC will actually pay things like the P.Eng fees.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jul 2022)

And your pension point is later, and there's no military training cost, and there's no uniform costs, and the EBP is less than half... lots of valid reasons to downsize the military cohort where they are not required.


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Jul 2022)

There is already a pretty natural bottle neck in a lot of the engineering trades at the Maj/LCdr rank, where you only have a small number of positions above it, and really get out of the technical work anyway.

The changes to the hiring process make it a lot easier to transition into a civilian job so there is a natural feeder into it. Think it's a win/win, as it keeps people with the experience/training in, and then gives stability for the different jobs instead of changing them out every few years.

It's all somewhat irrelevant anyway; we spend a lot of money training/eductating people to get very niche specializations, but then tend to ignore them and ask a consulatant if the opinion is inconvenient (at least on the oversight side). Drives me crazy to have some fairly specialist knowledge but somehow a random consultant with no relevant experience can write a report that gets taken with more weight than whatever recommendation I come up with.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> It's all somewhat irrelevant anyway; we spend a lot of money training/eductating people to get very niche specializations, but then tend to ignore them and ask a consulatant if the opinion is inconvenient (at least on the oversight side). Drives me crazy to have some fairly specialist knowledge but somehow a random consultant with no relevant experience can write a report that gets taken with more weight than whatever recommendation I come up with.


Yea but how much of your salary do you kickback 
 to the coffers of whatever party is governing at the time?????

There are ways to be important.....


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Jul 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Yea but how much of your salary do you kickback
> to the coffers of whatever party is governing at the time?????
> 
> There are ways to be important.....


I don't think it's that at all; we just chronically undervalue our internal expertise.

I joked about getting an impressive stamp and/or letterhead, but honestly it's just stupid. I think I've seen several million spent on consulatant reports/surveys to tell us what we already know, but they wanted an 'independent opinion'.

I think that's my issue with a lot of these external reports on reforming the CAF; they are written by people who have no idea what we do so there is no real context taken into account to make the solutions actually practical. We don't just work in an office so we can't adopt solutions developed for large businesses without mapping out what they do to what we do. There is always opportunities for learning and changing, but things have to work in the context they are applied, or they don't really work.


----------



## TacticalTea (25 Jul 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> Design an "officer selection" to take place after basic training. Check for mental and physical endurance, integrity, performance and thinking under stress, problem solving, etc. Make it 2-3 weeks long. You should be able to quickly find those with the abilities and traits neccesary


I've taken a keen interest in the RMA Sandhurst model. (Which was previously brought up in this thread a few weeks ago)

From what I can gather, it does not seem to be a requirement to have a degree to be an officer in the British Armed Forces. Obviously, if a specialized job requires a degree, then needless to say... it shall be a requirement. 

Speaking generally however, I've met many an educated fella who turned out to be obtuse and close-minded. It seems to be common knowledge, nowadays, that a college degree is no guarantee of moral or intellectual fortitude. It is, indeed, nothing more than a proxy.

On the other hand, I've had the pleasure to work with a plethora of enlisted folks who had veritably taken on the path of the warrior monk, consistently striving to widen their perspectives and depth of knowledge.

As such, I'm inclined to believe it would be better to return to the old ways of the midshipman: have prospective officers serve a year or two in the ranks as an alternative to obtaining a degree, before sending them off for a one-year course at RMC. This, truly, would allow chains of command to better evaluate who is a good fit for the role of an officer.

At any rate, the current assessment philosophy seems to be ''we'll take whatever we can get, and if they make it to OFP, that means they're good enough. At worst, they'll fill staff jobs.''


----------



## quadrapiper (25 Jul 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> There is already a pretty natural bottle neck in a lot of the engineering trades at the Maj/LCdr rank, where you only have a small number of positions above it, and really get out of the technical work anyway.
> 
> The changes to the hiring process make it a lot easier to transition into a civilian job so there is a natural feeder into it. Think it's a win/win, as it keeps people with the experience/training in, and then gives stability for the different jobs instead of changing them out every few years.
> 
> It's all somewhat irrelevant anyway; we spend a lot of money training/eductating people to get very niche specializations, but then tend to ignore them and ask a consulatant if the opinion is inconvenient (at least on the oversight side). Drives me crazy to have some fairly specialist knowledge but somehow a random consultant with no relevant experience can write a report that gets taken with more weight than whatever recommendation I come up with.


Is this something where there might be a need to review what's needed for the deployable force, and what's a static role? Not suggesting the latter should be entirely civilian, but (recalling comments in other threads) lest there be a large deployment, make sure there's no vital static tasks being covered by someone who is, properly, going to be leaving the country with a deployed force.


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Jul 2022)

quadrapiper said:


> Is this something where there might be a need to review what's needed for the deployable force, and what's a static role? Not suggesting the latter should be entirely civilian, but (recalling comments in other threads) lest there be a large deployment, make sure there's no vital static tasks being covered by someone who is, properly, going to be leaving the country with a deployed force.


I think it's really trade specific; in some cases the deployment opportunities disappear when you hit a certain rank, and since Afghanistan ended I stopped seeing CFTPO requests for deployments outside the trade in 'purple jobs' (unarmed observer, watch officer etc), so assume they are being filled by the Army now when they come up.

With the engineers in the Navy the postings to ship caps out at Lt(N), and aside from a very specific jobs there aren't many opportunities to get attached to a deployed ship, so most of the Senior officer jobs are essentially support for our trade (either directly on the coast, at 3rd line with ADM(Mat) or wokring on a project). You still need to understand how the ships function, so having that background is critical, but don't necessarily need to be in uniform anymore at that point.

Still the opportunity to do some other purple jobs in the CAF, but honestly if someone wants to do core engineering work to support the RCN, they will have better luck working for an ISSC or someone like NETE/QETE/DRDC.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jul 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> I've taken a keen interest in the RMA Sandhurst model. (Which was previously brought up in this thread a few weeks ago)
> 
> From what I can gather, it does not seem to be a requirement to have a degree to be an officer in the British Armed Forces. Obviously, if a specialized job requires a degree, then needless to say... it shall be a requirement.
> 
> ...



I've weighed in before on the Sandhurst model, having passed out as a 'Non-Graduate'.

It works very well except that, should you wish to pursue a degree subsequently, you will likely not be successful in having the military support you through this endeavour. What this results in is a two tiered system where the graduates tend to do better career - wise because: education box ticked. Non-graduates can therefore find themselves somewhat ghettoized into non-command type staff and training roles after approximately the rank of Major. I should emphasize that the majority of graduates enter RMAS having paid for their degree out of their own pockets. Very few are sponsored for 'In Service' degrees at civilian universities.

Interestingly, I recently attended a 40th reunion of my RMAS intake (oh gawd, has it really been that long?) and very few of those I passed out with seem to have progressed beyond the rank of Colonel. On the other hand several Officers I know, who were graduates, retired as one, two, three, and even one four, star.

The lack of degree acheivement opportunities also has an impact on retention. For example, seeing the writing on the wall, one of the reasons that I decided to leave the British Army, after 8+ years, was to pursue a degree. I'm not up to speed on what they do these days in the UK, so this might have all changed by now.

Having said that, if the CAF adopted a Sandhurst approach I assume that it could leverage our existing ILP system to help support those who wish to progress their educational qualifications to gain a degree, in due course, during their careers.


----------



## TacticalTea (25 Jul 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> I've weighed in before on the Sandhurst model, having passed out as a 'Non-Graduate'.
> 
> It works very well except that, should you wish to pursue a degree subsequently, you will likely not be successful in having the military support you through this endeavour. What this results in is a two tiered system where the graduates tend to do better career - wise because: education box ticked. Non-graduates can therefore find themselves somewhat ghettoized into non-command type staff and training roles after approximately the rank of Major. I should emphasize that the majority of graduates enter RMAS having paid for their degree out of their own pockets. Very few are sponsored for 'In Service' degrees at civilian universities.
> 
> ...


Indeed, that is the issue I foresee with that system as well.

I believe it can be worked around, if found necessary, by ensuring that officers are supported to enroll in part-time continuous education. In essence, I nod to your last paragraph.


----------



## SupersonicMax (25 Jul 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Indeed, that is the issue I foresee with that system as well.
> 
> I believe it can be worked around, if found necessary, by ensuring that officers are supported to enroll in part-time continuous education. In essence, I nod to your last paragraph.


The issue with continued education is that seldom are people given the time to actually complete courses.  It is often done on their own time, at the expense of work-life balance, one of the current major dissatisfiers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> The issue with continued education is that seldom are people given the time to actually complete courses.  It is often done on their own time, at the expense of work-life balance, one of the current major dissatisfiers.


You mean like everyone else has to do??


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jul 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> You mean like everyone else has to do??



The whole of the Militia enters the chat


----------



## TacticalTea (25 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> The issue with continued education is that seldom are people given the time to actually complete courses.  It is often done on their own time, at the expense of work-life balance, one of the current major dissatisfiers.


Indeed, that much is not lost on me. 

I'm trying to think of / find out how this could be best managed.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (25 Jul 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> I've weighed in before on the Sandhurst model, having passed out as a 'Non-Graduate'.
> 
> . . .  What this results in is a two tiered system where the graduates tend to do better career - wise because: education box ticked. Non-graduates can therefore find themselves somewhat ghettoized into non-command type staff and training roles after approximately the rank of Major. . . .



Is it only graduation from university that is the leg up or is a "public school" education an important criteria?









						Are too many Army officers privately educated?
					

The BBC has found almost half of the latest Army officer cadets went to private schools.



					www.bbc.com
				





> Are too many Army officers privately educated?​*Nearly half of the British Army's latest intake of officer cadets were privately educated, the BBC has found.*
> 
> A Freedom of Information request has revealed 49% of those who entered the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst in January came from fee-paying schools.
> 
> ...



I'm channeling ERC's reference in another thread about "non-U" and "U".


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jul 2022)

Blackadder1916 said:


> Is it only graduation from university that is the leg up or is a "public school" education an important criteria?



Good question...

I have no objective data to judge, of course, but the big educational hurdle for anyone in the UK are the 'A' Levels. You have to do well at those to even make it in to Sandhurst, I believe. Two A levels seems to be the average, three is unusual, and I impressed the hell out of them when I turned up with four 'A level equivalencies', which were the courses I managed to complete for first year credits at community college in BC before I came over. I got the impression that the UK's A level process is somewhat more arduous than first year community college in Canada though, so I felt something of a fraud 

If you happen to have attended a posh 'public school' it can help a bit at the start, I think, because: boarding school life. But I saw Eton graduates treated the same as the rest of us when it came to being able to demonstrate high levels of competency in training/ leadership. For example, I recall one particular Officer Cadet heading for my regiment, whose father was a LGen and who had been to Weillington, got the boot half way through training.

Paradoxically, even though we tend to think of the British as really class conscious, at Sandhurst I certainly saw nothing like the favouritism I experienced when I went through Phase 2 & 3 Infantry at Gagetown before I attended RMAS. 

Mil Coll vs. RESO/DEO, or Franco vs. Anglo Officer Cadets... if you were Mill Coll or Franco, you had a much better chance of passing even if you were garbage.


----------



## SupersonicMax (25 Jul 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> You mean like everyone else has to do??


Except it is not a criteria for everyone else to keep their job.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2022)

To keep or to go higher?


----------



## Grimey (25 Jul 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Drives me crazy to have some fairly specialist knowledge but somehow a random consultant with no relevant experience can write a report that gets taken with more weight than whatever recommendation I come up with.


A personal anecdote akin to that.  After RIMPAC 2010 we had to change out the stbd cruise in PH.  OPDEF followed by LOGREQ to Esquimalt for the spare 570KF and change out kit.  We got challenged on the kit.  F4 Eng or some such:  “Can you use the USN’s change out kit.  We’re sure they have one in Pearl.”  Me: WT absolute F.🤬

Lesson learned was that ashore engineering expertise can turn into ‘random consultants’ when they’ve been away from the practice too long.


----------



## SupersonicMax (25 Jul 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> To keep or to go higher?


To keep.  Many people that joined under the CEOTP were threatened with not getting TOS if they didn’t complete their degree within 9 years.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Jul 2022)

Grimey said:


> A personal anecdote akin to that.  After RIMPAC 2010 we had to change out the stbd cruise in PH.  OPDEF followed by LOGREQ to Esquimalt for the spare 570KF and change out kit.  We got challenged on the kit.  F4 Eng or some such:  “Can you use the USN’s change out kit.  We’re sure they have one in Pearl.”  Me: WT absolute F.🤬
> 
> Lesson learned was that ashore engineering expertise can turn into ‘random consultants’ when they’ve been away from the practice too long.



"An expert is an ordinary fellow from another town." Mark Twain


----------



## rmc_wannabe (26 Jul 2022)

Grimey said:


> A personal anecdote akin to that.  After RIMPAC 2010 we had to change out the stbd cruise in PH.  OPDEF followed by LOGREQ to Esquimalt for the spare 570KF and change out kit.  We got challenged on the kit.  F4 Eng or some such:  “Can you use the USN’s change out kit.  We’re sure they have one in Pearl.”  Me: WT absolute F.🤬
> 
> Lesson learned was that ashore engineering expertise can turn into ‘random consultants’ when they’ve been away from the practice too long.


I feel I have lost a lot in translation, but, is this an exasperation akin to "We don't use the same parts!" ?


----------



## Grimey (26 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I feel I have lost a lot in translation, but, is this an exasperation akin to "We don't use the same parts!" ?


It is.  Also, It’s (or rather was) frustration with our betters who think we do who should know better.


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Jul 2022)

Grimey said:


> It is.  Also, It’s (or rather was) frustration with our betters who think we do who should know better.


…and they’d also be the ones to quickly step back behind the curtain if you did use local, unapproved STE to Re&Re the power pack and things didn’t go 100% right.


----------



## kev994 (26 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> To keep.  Many people that joined under the CEOTP were threatened with not getting TOS if they didn’t complete their degree within 9 years.


What ever happened to that “on the bus/ off the bus” threat, I haven’t heard it in a few years. I do recall when BPSOs were pointing out to people failing RMC that you had ~9 years to get your degree but a ~7 year commitment _wink wink_


----------



## TacticalTea (13 Aug 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Indeed, that much is not lost on me.
> 
> I'm trying to think of / find out how this could be best managed.


Going back on this topic;

A little bird tells me Staff College graduation does not even necessarily count as an MA anymore. You only receive your Master's if you attended the residential phase. As such, it shouldn't require a BA, and a single-year RMC program should provide a sufficient academic base upon which to erect this tower of knowledge.

Thus the only remaining hurdle is that MAs count for too many points in the assessment process for senior officers. The obvious solution is to simply... not. 

Not count them as so valuable. It amounts to credentialism anyway. 

In essence, there would be two paths; either you show up with a BA and go to RMC for a year, or show up with nothing, spend two years as an NCM, then go to RMC for a year. This would ensure candidates are at least somewhat older and hopefully more mature, as well as either more educated or more accustomed to the ways of the military. 

The BA isn't a hindrance to obtaining the job if your Command team assesses that you're officer material, but giving an advantage to those holding BAs provides the CAF's officer cadre with an overall more scientific, liberal education-based thinking process.

I maintain, as stated elsewhere, that a degreed job need not be an officer job if it would never foreseeably hold command.

Tell me if I'm an ignorant fool and couldn't be more wrong; I'm all ears.


----------



## McG (13 Aug 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> A little bird tells me Staff College graduation does not even necessarily count as an MA anymore.


In never did. The masters is additional work on top of the staff college, and it was not necessary to complete staff college. I have not heard anything about it no longer being an option, but I have heard it is an option offered only to those who attend in person.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Aug 2022)

Correct.  JCSP DL graduates in 2014 (I believe) were the last to have any real chance at a Master's.


----------



## brihard (13 Aug 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Correct.  JCSP DL graduates in 2014 (I believe) were the last to have any real chance at a Master's.


Don’t see why that has to be the case… Colleague of mine has an MA is War Studies from RMC completed entirely online. Granted she picked away at it over several years, but anyway, it was delivered entirely by distance. If JCSP DL doesn’t have a Master’s option is that purely a matter of the institution lacking the will to make it possible?


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Aug 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Correct.  JCSP DL graduates in 2014 (I believe) were the last to have any real chance at a Master's.


I am pretty sure DL grads can take a couple more RMC DL courses to get their Masters.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Aug 2022)

Actually nice to see posts that have nothing to do with the thread topic for a change.......however.


----------



## brihard (13 Aug 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Actually nice to see posts that have nothing to do with the thread topic for a change.......however.


Oops, sorry. I know there’s a thread on this recently, I thought we were in that one.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Aug 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> I am pretty sure DL grads can take a couple more RMC DL courses to get their Masters.


That changed with the class of 2015.  CFC hasn't bothered to get off their ass to fix it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Aug 2022)

brihard said:


> Oops, sorry. I know there’s a thread on this recently, I thought we were in that one.


And now we are.
Bruce


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Aug 2022)

dapaterson said:


> That changed with the class of 2015.  CFC hasn't bothered to get off their ass to fix it.


From the JCSP 47 DL joining instructions (not sure which year that is, most probably after 2015), available online by searching « JCSP DL » on Google.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Aug 2022)

Para 5 paraphrased says that the DL students can take their credits elsewhere to get a Masters, or do additional coursework compared to the residency students.  Those additional credits are at the expense of the student - not only must you work full time for two years while doing the program, but you must then pay out of pocket to get the MDS.

And this year, as the final fuck you to the DL students, they were not permitted in the hall for their own graduation, but were sent a link to watch on their phones (then called in for their grip and grin).


----------



## brihard (13 Aug 2022)

Got it. So the credits count and will get you most of the way there, but CAF has not taken it upon itself to structure a JCSP DL that will take you all the way across the finish line. Any idea what would be the delta between JCSP DL completion and attaining the needed credits for the MDS? Is it just a matter of a couple additional courses/major research paper?


----------



## dapaterson (13 Aug 2022)

As I recall, three courses plus a paper, each of which you must pay for.


----------



## Navy_Pete (13 Aug 2022)

What I still find weird is that the JCSP is supposed to be Master's level study as part of the professionalization of senior officers, but if you already have a Masters, you still have to go to JCSP for the tick in the box. After spending a few years getting a real Masters under the PG program, nothing less appealing then spending a year on IR in Toronto doing some BS CAF academics, that doesn't actually get into anything concretely useful.


----------



## btrudy (13 Aug 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> What I still find weird is that the JCSP is supposed to be Master's level study as part of the professionalization of senior officers, but if you already have a Masters, you still have to go to JCSP for the tick in the box. After spending a few years getting a real Masters under the PG program, nothing less appealing then spending a year on IR in Toronto doing some BS CAF academics, that doesn't actually get into anything concretely useful.



It's intended to be job training that is also structured in an academic manner, to allow for the dual benefit of both counting for (or towards) a Masters, while also getting the military qualification. Yes, the academic nature of it helps out as part of the "professionalization of senior officers" that any post-secondary education would aid in, but it has a specific focus as well. 

Doing some random Masters on Shakespeare or Guided Weapon Systems or the War of 1812 isn't going to provide the base level knowledge that they're trying to instill in everyone who goes through Staff College. 

I'd suggest that your assessment of it not "actually getting into anything concretely useful" is ... inaccurate at best.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (13 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> It's intended to be job training that is also structured in an academic manner, to allow for the dual benefit of both counting for (or towards) a Masters, while also getting the military qualification. Yes, the academic nature of it helps out as part of the "professionalization of senior officers" that any post-secondary education would aid in, but it has a specific focus as well.


The problem is that it has become carrot and stick. You need JCSP to advance, but the Masters is also a carrot dangled to get reluctant folks to commit to institutionalized education on the CAF's terms. 

I'm certain that a senior Logistics officer will see further development getting an MBA or a Signals Officer getting a Masters in Project Management than going to CFC and getting the same generic year of CAFJOD 5/7 2.0 as their peers. 

It's also a bit of salt in the wound that promotion past Major on most SCRITs favours a Masters, however, JCSP is a senior Major and up program. Why the double Masters? It's credentialism in place of experience.


btrudy said:


> Doing some random Masters on Shakespeare or Guided Weapon Systems or the War of 1812 isn't going to provide the base level knowledge that they're trying to instill in everyone who goes through Staff College.


Content vice method my friend. You're learning and demonstrating skills in a Masters program more so than learning content. Talk to someone who has a Masters in History about what facts they learned vice what processes they learned for research, constructive thought, multiple perspectives, etc. It's not what is learned but how it's learned that makes the difference between a Bachelors and a Masters.



btrudy said:


> I'd suggest that your assessment of it not "actually getting into anything concretely useful" is ... inaccurate at best.


And I would counter that any practical application from JCSP is minimal unless you're going to be force employed in a Joint L1/2 environment. 

Much like front loading the CAFJODs and AJSO into DP2, when a brand new subbie is still getting their feet wet in their craft; JCSP is teaching Advanced Calculus to a middle schooler: it's going to help them when they get to the next higher level, but it's information overloading instead of building a foundation.


----------



## Navy_Pete (13 Aug 2022)

The US equivalent is shorter, but the final evaluation is actually running a giant exercise with, air, land, sea and special force assets. They don't do a lot of the theoretical content we do; instead they learn by doing, with actual mentoring and oversight.

Our looks at the theory of leadership, and some other very concrete issues as an academic issue, and then maybe some of it will stick (if you do jobs relevant to that kind of thing). No actual practical portion, which doesn't make sense when the actual subjects are very concrete and practical issues like leadership and operational planning.

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/118/406/cfc300-46-eng.pdf

No one coming out of JCSP is going to be able to do actual staff planning off the bat unless they have previous experience as a junior officer or Major/LCdr. There will still be a significant learning period if you go into a staff job to learn the specifics there, and a lot of people will go to JCSP and never do that kind of work.

And if you read the syllabus, people will be doing that kind of work at the two ringer and two and half already without JCSP, and your prep for those is a posting message, and, if you are lucky, a turnover. A huge swathes of the CAF is also doing critical things like financial planning, project managements and logistic/technical support that isn't covered at all in JCSP, which is why the CAF already has a sponsored PG program.

Lot of empire building at CFC on this one, and really no justifiable reason for it to be physically located in Toronto, where everyone is required to do a cost move to the most expensive city in Canada (or go on IR to a place that isn't close to the majority of the bases). If it was at least located in the NCR area that would make sense, as a lot of people are posted there following the course anyway to do staff jobs anyway.

Given the financial costs of running the school, the salary of the students, and the loss of a year of time doing jobs, I don't see the bang for the buck here. At least with sponsored PGs it's tied directly to a specific job so that knowledge is put to use immediately afterwards.


----------



## McG (13 Aug 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> What I still find weird is that the JCSP is supposed to be Master's level study as part of the professionalization of senior officers


JCSP is not masters level and, as demonstrated by the fact that the masters level is both optional & not universally available, it is not supposed to be.

It is post-graduate level, but there are lots of post-graduate certificate and diploma programs at various universities & colleges. Post-graduate includes but does not equal higher degrees.

JCSP is supposed to be professional military education relevant to filling command and staff roles at operational, institutional, and strategic levels.


----------



## Navy_Pete (13 Aug 2022)

McG said:


> JCSP is not masters level and, as demonstrated by the fact that the masters level is both optional & not universally available, it is not supposed to be.
> 
> It is post-graduate level, but there are lots of post-graduate certificate and diploma programs at various universities & colleges. Post-graduate includes but does not equal higher degrees.
> 
> JCSP is supposed to be professional military education relevant to filling command and staff roles at operational, institutional, and strategic levels.


A few years ago they made the Masters of Defence Studies portion mandatory; previously it was optional for people that already had a Masters. Not sure if that has changed back, but I guess they thought some students had too much free time, as there wasn't an option to do a shortened version without the MDS (ie do a single semester for the Command/Staff roles).

Concur with the intent of what it's supposed to be, but loading people on it who aren't going to be filling staff command or staff roles in case they might do a posting in the future isn't really in line with the just-in-time training philosophy.

Given that you are paying a senior Major for a year, have a cost move to/from Toronto, plus operating costs for CFC, doesn't seem like a great ROI.


----------



## McG (13 Aug 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> isn't really in line with the just-in-time training philosophy.
> 
> Given that you are paying a senior Major for a year …


We should not be doing just in time training. That is a Lean practice that makes the Human resources pool fragile. We should (as we used to reach) train two levels up so that people are ready to step into higher roles when an emergency demands.

… also, it is cheaper to send a major onto a year of PME than to send a LCol.


----------



## Navy_Pete (13 Aug 2022)

McG said:


> We should not be doing just in time training. That is a Lean practice that makes the Human resources pool fragile. We should (as we used to reach) train two levels up so that people are ready to step into higher roles when an emergency demands.
> 
> … also, it is cheaper to send a major onto a year of PME than to send a LCol.


Sure, but you do that in the unit, not in a class room. Our HR pool is fragile, and this takes people out of it for a full year, while providing very broad PME that will still require direct and job specific on boarding.

All the training and assessments up to that point include basics like leadership in a practical setting, and recommendations for suitability for Command type positions. Depending where you are working, you will already be staff work and operational planning that would allow you to step into those jobs.

Similarly, the majority of officers have an undergrad already, and are also assessed on comms all the way through.

People getting recommended for JCSP are already scoring really highly on that side of things, so isn't it largely redundant at this point?

If the big value of the JCSP is some tours of NDHQ or NATO to see how HQs work and discussions with OGDs, it would be even cheaper to just do some short term DL coursing and TD.

It's a big investment, but the requirement and benefits out of it is really poorly articulated. And if things are at the point where some of us boffins are in charge of operational or campaign planning things have gone really poorly. Maybe is great for some MOCs but it will be largely unused in others, so probably a good time to review the requirement.


----------



## Weinie (13 Aug 2022)

The Bread Guy said:


> Well, since at least a BA is an entry-level requirement for loads of positions _not_ requiring management or leadership these days outside the military, is it the ideal "first hurdle" to becoming an officer?  Anyone have any data on degrees are statistically more likely to lead to better officers?  I ask because my anecdotally limited evidence from 30 years ago showed me both good and bad officers with and without degrees.


And my 39 years plus of service showed me that degreed vs non-degreed officers meant jack-shit. Some folks r born leaders, some folks learn their position, some folks are middling, and some folks are toxic. It is like, "voila, competency vis a vis rank is acquired.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (13 Aug 2022)

Weinie said:


> And my 39 years plus of service showed me that degreed vs non-degreed officers meant jack-shit. Some folks r born leaders, some folks learn their position, some folks are middling, and some folks are toxic. It is like, "voila, competency vis a vis rank is acquired.


Bingo.

As a CFR currently stuck...well....playing catch up, education, qualification, aptitude, and experience are not branches on the same tree. 

I scraped through high-school, however, I know what military correspondence is supposed to look like because of... well...red ink. Lots of it. 

When I have been given orders in the past, you can tell when the drafter has been on the receiving end before; vice someone writing a dissertation in SMESC format. 

I have met very intelligent and educated officers that have gone on to be successful Project Managers and Staff Officers; who lack the charisma and personal skills to lead a marching band let alone a Troop or Sqn of soldiers.

IMHO, for as much as we push the study of Clausewitz's _On War_ , we arrogantly forget that the man also opined that not all officers are made of the same mettle; and attempt to train charisma, character, and gravitas into people who are far more suited to the analytical and intellectual aspect of warfare. 

Both have their place, but sadly we seem to think the two are interchangeable with 2 year posting message for "breadth of experience."


----------



## kev994 (13 Aug 2022)

It drives me crazy that an MBA completed at a lower rank is 1 point, but if you wait and finish it as a Maj it’s 2 points, and it was 0 points as a Capt. JCSP tops it off as a 3rd point (including the 2 points for Masters in rank). Is JCSP really 3x better for the institution than a Master’s received at a lower rank?


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Aug 2022)

kev994 said:


> It drives me crazy that an MBA completed at a lower rank is 1 point, but if you wait and finish it as a Maj it’s 2 points, and it was 0 points as a Capt. JCSP tops it off as a 3rd point (including the 2 points for Masters in rank). Is JCSP really 3x better for the institution than a Master’s received at a lower rank?


I’d have to look at the SCRIT but I don’t think the rank at which you completed post-grad matters in board points. 

As far as JCSP is concerned, it wasn’t post-graduate level.  It was baccalaureate-level at best, sometimes more like High School. I didn’t learn how to be a better staff officer nor a better commander.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Aug 2022)

I will note that the best instructors on JCSP (DL) were the contracted academics, and not the faculty on staff.


----------



## McG (13 Aug 2022)

kev994 said:


> MBA completed at a lower rank is 1 point, but if you wait and finish it as a Maj it’s 2 points, and …


What occupation’s SCRIT scores education based whether it was achieved within current rank or not?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (13 Aug 2022)

00341 for one.


----------

