# Academic vs. other trg for officers (split fm US Army Senior Leadership)



## Edward Campbell (3 Jan 2016)

I'm reasonably happy to continue to believe that there is *no correlation*, none at all, between academics and leadership. I have absolutely no real, documentary evidence upon which to base this _belief_ ... but all the evidence I have seen, reading and in my own experience, suggests that I'm correct.

Take the US case: I think it's fair to say that the five greatest military leaders of the 20th century were George C Marshall (head and shoulders the greatest military man of the 20th century in any country) followed by Bradley, Eisenhower, MacArthur and Nimitz. Of those four MacArthur and Nimitz are reported to have had first rate academic records while Bradley and Eisenhower were, to be charitable, undistinguished. None had an advanced degree. One wonders what made them better leaders: academics, sports or the very nature of the "officer production" system? My bets are on the latter two. I think the Duke of Wellington might have been right and the lessons learned on the "playing fields of Eton" likely had more to do with British military successes than education or, even, most experience.

I'm less than impressed with the degree laden David Petraeus types and those with experience like being (as Stanley McChrystal was) _senior service college fellow_ at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and _military fellow_ at the Council on Foreign Relations, than I am with officers with lots of experience in command of troops at the platoon, company and battalion level. Of course the officers at the very top will need *some* exposure to politics and strategy, but it seems to me that too much "study," formal and in think tanks, must be had at the expense of leading people and commanding ships and units.

In my own, personal experience I can say that the best officers with and under whom I served almost all had degrees ... a couple were RMC graduates who never did the final (academic) year. There were a couple of exceptions ~ our Officer Candidate Programme did produce some absolutely sterling officers with nothing more than high school diplomas, a handful of the best of whom became generals ~ but generally the best officers _*wanted*_ to have better educations because they were more interested in the world than were most other, ordinary people.

I remain committed to the notion that the most important training the army does is for junior leaders: junior officers and junior NCOs, it's where we "make or break" our people and good, hard, tough junior officers and junior NCOs will grow into good, thoughtful senior leaders in due course. The next most important course ought to be the staff college ~ for captains ~ because it should teach them to think under pressure. The things sailors and soldiers, including admirals and generals, do aren't really complicated or theoretically/academically difficult, but they have to be done under the most extraordinary circumstances so it seems a bit like brain surgery and rocket science all jammed together. Good leaders, master corporals and major generals, appear able to manage to perform brain surgery during rocket lift off, but I think that may have more to do with having been on the rugby first 15 than having a PhD.


----------



## Flavus101 (3 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm reasonably happy to continue to believe that there is *no correlation*, none at all, between academics and leadership. I have absolutely no real, documentary evidence upon which to base this _belief_ ... but all the evidence I have seen, reading and in my own experience, suggests that I'm correct....



:goodpost:

I definitely agree that a balance must be struck between learning through traditional academia, and learning by actually doing the job.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jan 2016)

The context of the Canadian degreed officer corps requirement (which has a number of loopholes) goes back to the events in Somalia, and the then-MND and PM endorsing all the recommendations of the Report to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management of the Canadian Forces in 1997.  It's one of the few recommendations still in force; there's a group in Kingston with a vested interest in protecting the concept, as it justifies their (expensive) existence.

The party line can be found at: http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo9/no3/06-bercuson-eng.asp

Or, look for just about any article in the Canadian Military Journal by Bernd Horn or Bill Bentley, a pair of apologists for the requirement, whose excessive military academic bent blinds them to the existence of experiential learning, and to the need for a military to be intellectually heterogeneous - pushing a majority of your officers through two small schools in Kingston and then Toronto does not build the necessary intellectual capital for an organization.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2016)

Read the article - thought it was bunk, for pretty much all of the reasons highlighted by Journeyman.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> but generally the best officers _*wanted*_ to have better educations because they were more interested in the world than were most other, ordinary people.



Concur - a bit of chicken/egg.  I believe the good officers seek an education, rather than being good because of it.



> I remain committed to the notion that the most important training the army does is for junior leaders: junior officers and junior NCOs, it's where we "make or break" our people and good, hard, tough junior officers and junior NCOs will grow into good, thoughtful senior leaders in due course. The next most important course ought to be the staff college ~ for captains ~ because it should teach them to think under pressure.



Agreed.  The professional education is, in my view, far more important than the academic one.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Jan 2016)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Agreed.  The professional education is, in my view, far more important than the academic one.



Unfortunately, its impossible to get a professional education when you're in an position for less than a year. We have some new Sig Os that get 1 year as a Tp Comd until they are rotated out, because we have so many that need that "check in the box" so they can be a Captain. There's a whole lot of Lieutenant pay incentives, but we never use more than the first 2 or 3. A lot of the problem comes because the promotion to Captain isn't earned, which is highly dangerous considering what trouble a poor Captain can get themselves, or their subordinates into.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2016)

What you are talking about is experience, which is something different.  A professional education is also somewhat different from a technical education, although the two are often intermixed.


----------



## ballz (3 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, its impossible to get a professional education when you're in an position for less than a year. We have some new Sig Os that get 1 year as a Tp Comd until they are rotated out, because we have so many that need that "check in the box" so they can be a Captain. There's a whole lot of Lieutenant pay incentives, but we never use more than the first 2 or 3. A lot of the problem comes because the promotion to Captain isn't earned, which is highly dangerous considering what trouble a poor Captain can get themselves, or their subordinates into.



Not to nitpick, but it has nothing to do with the promotion to Captain. You get that after being commissioned for 3 years, doesn't matter if they employ you as a Tp Comd or a janitor (we just had a guy get to Bn from the training system first week of December and was promoted to Captain at the Officer's Mess Dinner). They are probably having a high turnover because there are a bunch of people coming behind them. When there is no one coming behind them, people get stuck in their baseline job (we just have a guy at our Bn on his third year as a Platoon Commander simply because the tap has been turned off on people coming in... 3-4 years ago people were getting 6 months). Regardless, your point still stands, too many outside factors influencing how much time someone gets in vital positions. My last OC had 6 months as Pl Comd and about 10 months as an OC.... 16 months experience as an actual Commander before potentially being a CO of a battalion.

I tend to disagree with the way we promote people to Captain but that's outside of this thread.


----------



## Old Sweat (3 Jan 2016)

Deja vu all over again. We were debating this when I was a second lieutenant and that was more than half a century ago. Back then the Canadian Army had concluded that after a few years commissioned service, there really was no difference in officers regardless of method of entry. While obviously this was a generalization (no pun intended) we all felt at the time this was probably a valid observation. 

Mods, this thread has veered into a Canadian policy issue. Perhaps it could be split.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... but I think that may have more to do with having been on the rugby first 15 than having a PhD.


I love you man.   ;D



A subtle reminder that the Canadian National Men's' 15 Rugby team starts the Americas' Cup  on 5 February 2016 against Uruguay.


----------



## ballz (4 Jan 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Deja vu all over again. We were debating this when I was a second lieutenant and that was more than half a century ago. Back then the Canadian Army had concluded that after a few years commissioned service, there really was no difference in officers regardless of method of entry. While obviously this was a generalization (no pun intended) we all felt at the time this was probably a valid observation.
> 
> Mods, this thread has veered into a Canadian policy issue. Perhaps it could be split.



Agree with the split.

Don't know how the entry plans worked back then, but currently its not uncommon for a DEO to spend 2 years or more in training system, in some cases their entire 3 years required to be a Captain. This means guys are showing up to Bn without any actual service as Captains (if, like me, you consider your de-facto service to actually start when you are fully trained and sent to a unit).

When you have a guy promoted to Captain a week after he finished Phase 4 just getting his Platoon and still doesn't know where the rest easy is, and his peer Pl Comd showed up to Bn as a 2Lt and has 2 full years as a Pl Comd but is currently a Lt, I would say it ain't working and there is a real difference between those two. These scenarios are very common, my own company has this problem right now and we've had many similar cases since I got to Bn.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jan 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> Agree with the split.



Done - please continue ...


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 Jan 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> These scenarios are very common, my own company has this problem right now and we've had many similar cases since I got to Bn.



Perhaps it has to (partly) do with the very rigid rank hierarchy the Army tends to use.  For me, a junior Officer (2Lt, Lt or Capt) regardless of the rank is differenciated by experience in trade rather than rank/time in rank. It is the way we see things, at least in the Fighter Force and it seems to work for us!


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jan 2016)

Ideally, the CAF would have a single, simple common officer progression model:

OCdt/2Lt is an officer under training, not yet qualified DP1.

Lt is qualified DP1, employable in trade, and requires defined experience (and possibly additional training) to compete for promotion.  That experience clock starts ticking on promotion to Lt.

Capt is a competitive promotion.


Unfortunately, we've now got a blob of four ranks without adequate differentiation.


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 Jan 2016)

I think the real problem is with our training system where training that should take 6-9 months from enrolment takes 2+ years...


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Jan 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I think the real problem is with our training system where training that should take 6-9 months from enrolment takes 2+ years...



Agreed in spades. And this applies to NCMs as well as officers. Reaching back a long time, about 15-18 officers joined 1 RCHA in Gagetown in 1961. Of that nine of us were second lieutenants from the Officer Candidate Program who had started training in September 1960 and graduated in August 1961. The others were mainly lieutenants from the Regular Officer Training Program from service colleges and civvy universities, although one was a second lieutenant who had not completed the academic program at RMC. This group had completed three phases of training in summers. All of us also had completed the six week Young Officers Tactics Course as part of our phase training. We all were gainfully employable on arrival (well, at least most of us except for one who was in the "how the heck did he ever get through ROTP?" category) and were expected to perform as such regardless of origin. We were also similar in terms of age and background and as far as I can recall only one was from a military family.


----------



## Ostrozac (4 Jan 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Perhaps it has to (partly) do with the very rigid rank hierarchy the Army tends to use.  For me, a junior Officer (2Lt, Lt or Capt) regardless of the rank is differenciated by experience in trade rather than rank/time in rank. It is the way we see things, at least in the Fighter Force and it seems to work for us!



I've seen it in the army, too. I once served in a rifle company in one of our regular battalions that was commanded by a Captain. Now, he was a senior Captain, and was promoted Major six months after assuming command of his company,  but for a period he commanded other Captains and no one had any problems taking orders from him; including his Coy 2IC (Capt, pre-AOC) and his fresh off Phase IV Platoon Commanders (two of whom were Captains due to extended time in the training system).


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Jan 2016)

If the training system can't put people through fast enough, we need the recruiting system to stop recruiting people for those trades to reduce the backlog in the system. Corps decides how many they want, School says I can train X out of those, CMP says Recruiting will provide X out of those able to be trained based on priorities, etc.

We shouldn't be recruiting people if they can't get through the training system. Outliers like injuries/training failures can be facilitated as the schools know the statistics, and can provide those to recruiting to get accurate numbers in the door.


----------



## Navy_Pete (4 Jan 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Ideally, the CAF would have a single, simple common officer progression model:
> 
> OCdt/2Lt is an officer under training, not yet qualified DP1.
> 
> ...



Some trades take 3-4 years to get to the BOQ point due to the amount of training required.  It's not uncommon in the Navy to have juniour two ringers working for snr two ringers for this reason.  The officers on board frigates are intentionally structured like that.

Same as some of the tech trades with the METTP program, where after two years in a tech college, they come to the fleet as LS with no actual sea time.

I think this is the part of personnel management where you have to adapt your approach based on what experience people actually have, rather then trying to come up with a one sized fits all round hole for all the various sized pegs.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If the training system can't put people through fast enough, we need the recruiting system to stop recruiting people for those trades to reduce the backlog in the system. Corps decides how many they want, School says I can train X out of those, CMP says Recruiting will provide X out of those able to be trained based on priorities, etc.
> 
> We shouldn't be recruiting people if they can't get through the training system. Outliers like injuries/training failures can be facilitated as the schools know the statistics, and can provide those to recruiting to get accurate numbers in the door.



In theory, the AMOR process is supposed to do just that.



			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Some trades take 3-4 years to get to the BOQ point due to the amount of training required.  It's not uncommon in the Navy to have juniour two ringers working for snr two ringers for this reason.  The officers on board frigates are intentionally structured like that.
> 
> Same as some of the tech trades with the METTP program, where after two years in a tech college, they come to the fleet as LS with no actual sea time.
> 
> I think this is the part of personnel management where you have to adapt your approach based on what experience people actually have, rather then trying to come up with a one sized fits all round hole for all the various sized pegs.



There is no reason to rush to push people to Capt/Lt(N).  Pay for junior officers is very competitive with what the private sector pays - and training provided at no cost while being paid is almost unheard of in the private sector.

To use your tech trades analogy: why not have the Jr officer arrive as a SLt, then spend 3 or so years trade qualified getting experience, before challenging exams to be promoted to Lt(N)?

Admittedly, not all occupations follow identical progression models,  but some reasonable facsimile can be found.  It makes little sense to start paying some one in excess of $70K per year with little to no experience; that's what we are doing when we have turned Capt/Lt(N) into a "gimmie".


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2016)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Some *trades* ...



I think the discussion about common career paths ends right there.

For the Forces at large there are those who are hired to fight and there are those who are hired to get them to the fight and keep them in the fight.

And with the great respect that I have for those that fight ultimately the biggest problem seems to be finding and keeping the people that get them there and keep them there.  By and large they are people that use civvy skills in a military setting.  They do their job on a daily basis, exactly the same way they would be doing it during war time.  The only difference is in war time they have to spend some time ducking.

Meanwhile, the people paid to fight the ships, fly the planes, close with and destroy - don't get a lot of opportunities to actually practice their "trade".   Most of their careers will be spent waiting for opportunities - that society demands they hope will never come.

Maintaining ships and planes, or servicing vehicles and gear is a world apart from leading an assault.  There is merit, in my opinion, to having an entirely different rank structure and progression model, for the technical trades as opposed to the combat trades - regardless of the impact it may have on how ADMs and CPSEU calculate their pensions.


----------



## mariomike (4 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> There is merit, in my opinion, to having an entirely different rank structure and progression model, for the technical trades as opposed to the combat trades - regardless of the impact it may have on how ADMs and CPSEU calculate their pensions.



They have something like that in emergency services. Members in operations are in the Supplemental Pension Plan. Members in operational support are in the Primary Pension Plan.

The Supplemental Plan enhances the pension that a member already earns in the Primary Plan.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Maintaining ships and planes, or servicing vehicles and gear is a world apart from leading an assault.  There is merit, in my opinion, to having an entirely different rank structure and progression model, for the technical trades as opposed to the combat trades - regardless of the impact it may have on how ADMs and CPSEU calculate their pensions.



If we remove mandatory progression to Captain after X years regardless of trade qualification, then we don't need separate rank structures. We already have enough Us vs. Them, without someone "only" being a technical Captain, or "only" a combat arms Lieutenant. I had a Captain, who had been a Captain for a few years, on a BSOC course that had not yet completed his DP1, and failed it for the 3rd (if memory serves) time. If you're not at OFP, you should not be a Captain. We have the same issue with NCMs: I completely disagree with Pte(T) being awarded with Time In. It should be Time In + successful completion of DP1. You should be promoted off the grad parade. Make the rank mean something.


----------



## ballz (4 Jan 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Perhaps it has to (partly) do with the very rigid rank hierarchy the Army tends to use.  For me, a junior Officer (2Lt, Lt or Capt) regardless of the rank is differenciated by experience in trade rather than rank/time in rank. It is the way we see things, at least in the Fighter Force and it seems to work for us!



You have a valid point. The problem is not so much "within" the smaller organizations. In our coy, we all recognize "X Pl Comd has been doing this for 2x years and he is the senior Pl Comd, Y Pl Comd may be a Captain but he just got here." At a micro level that is easy to reconcile. However, when a new OC or CO comes in they have usually just jumped to the conclusion that the Captain is senior in experience. The army has a whole recognizes a Captain as something different from an Lieutenant. Examples of this are when succession of command comes into play, or when you are sending a couple of LOs, or positions come around such as an instructor position on Phase III that requires a "Captain," things get real screwy. Our Recce Pl Comd was an Lt and was sent to teach on BMOQ(L) while a Captain on RW (for just being a terrible officer basically) was sent to instruct on DP1.1. The Recce Pl Comd was none-too-pleased to hear he wasn't teaching on DP1.1 because he was "just an Lt."

And the army isn't wrong for treating a Captain as a higher rank than a Lieutenant. Why do we have a rank structure if its not going to have any meaning/usefulness behind it? I think the solution is not to ignore the rank structure but to fix how we promote people to Captains, so that when someone sees a Captain and an Lt standing together they know the Captain is *actually* more experienced, if nothing else. I think the easy solution is that when you get to Battalion, you are promoted to Lt. After 2 years as an Lt, you are promoted to Captain**. From then on its competitive of course. This may not work outside of the Infantry but it sure would fix our schmozzle.

**The exception that I would make for the 2 years in Bn is for UTPNCMs / CFRs. If you were a Sgt or below, a year in Bn as an Lt before Capt. If you were a WO, straight to Capt. I think this very simple system solves most issues, for us anyway.



			
				Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I've seen it in the army, too. I once served in a rifle company in one of our regular battalions that was commanded by a Captain. Now, he was a senior Captain, and was promoted Major six months after assuming command of his company,  but for a period he commanded other Captains and no one had any problems taking orders from him; including his Coy 2IC (Capt, pre-AOC) and his fresh off Phase IV Platoon Commanders (two of whom were Captains due to extended time in the training system).



Stuff like that is going on all the time. As I said, at a micro-level, its easy to manage as long as people's egos don't get in the way. If their egos get in the way, well, they won't be long getting sorted out as they probably aren't a quality employee anyway.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jan 2016)

And all those anecdotes explain why:

     1. A simple, common CF wide rank/trade system has been, basically, a less than optimal solution for almost 50 years now. We, now you, made it work, we developed local "work arounds," but there are good reasons why so many
         navies, armies and air forces have different rank/trade structures;

     2. For the _*Army*_'s officer corps, promotion to each rank level, starting at officer cadet, must rest on some basis of qualification and proven (competitive) ability ~ courses, examinations, PERs, etc;

     3. We, at least in the Army, might want to look at something like the old (pre 1985) US Army specialist structure;
         
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





     4. The business of "over ranking" ~ which solved a HUGE and critical pay in the mid 1960s and which now gives you "interchangeable" _corporal-privates_ and _captain-lieutenants_ ~ needs to be addressed; and

     5. The business of tying rank to trade, also an artefact of the 1960s, needs to be re-examined, at least for the Army.


----------



## Navy_Pete (4 Jan 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In theory, the AMOR process is supposed to do just that.
> 
> There is no reason to rush to push people to Capt/Lt(N).  Pay for junior officers is very competitive with what the private sector pays - and training provided at no cost while being paid is almost unheard of in the private sector.
> 
> ...



So in the Naval Tech Officer trades, you spend 3 years as a SLt to get you BOQ, which includes a whack of schooling, some hands on training, then a full year to do OJT on a ship, finishing off with a full technical oral board chaired by a Cdr with a LCdr and two Lts.  They can go from two-six hours.  At that point you are fully trade qualified and if you have your time in rank, get promoted to Lt(N).

Most people then spend a few years working ashore as a two ringer, come back to a ship for another year and do another OJPR to get their Head of Department (HOD) qualification, while working directly for a HOD qualified Lt(N).  (As an aside, they used to have LCdrs as HODs, but not any longer on the CPFs or any of the new ships).  At the end of that OJPR is another oral board, chaired by a Cdr NTO, another Cdr/LCdr MARs officer, and two more Lt(N)s or LCdrs.

Long story short, if you waited until after the HOD board for the second ring, you'd have experienced engineers with somewhere around 6-8 years of time in competing for the Lt(N) promotion.  Given that a big part of our training leans heavily towards doing all the things engineers normally are weak in, SLt salary is not that competitive, so would easy pickings for head hunters.  As well, you can spend your two years before going back to the A/HOD training year in Ottawa doing the same work as ENG 4s in the public service.  You can look up the pay tables, but very easy to see that SLt pay isn't close to competitive with what the government pays everyone not in uniform for generally having less actual responsibilities in similar jobs.

I'm sure there are a lot of other technical trades and other support trades in the same boat, so unless they make a separate table, pretty hard to make a GSO fit the huge variety of trades in the CAF.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jan 2016)

Looking at Mechanical engineers in Canada, salary ranges from $46-97K, with an average of $62K (http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Job=Mechanical_Engineer/Salary).  Therefore, someone with 6-8 years in the military becoming a Lt(N) would be above average in their pay for their field, since Lt(N) Basic is $6202 per month, or $74K per year.  (This ignores the extremely competitive benefits pacakge, including a full, indexed pension available after 25 years of service, medical and dental for the individual and their dependents... which add to the value of the compensation).

It appears that the CAF believes all members are posted to CFB Lake Woebegon, where everyone is above average.




			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 5. The business of tying rank to trade, also an artefact of the 1960s, needs to be re-examined, at least for the Army.



The challenge was encountered in the 1990s, when the TASK (Trade Advancement through Skills and Knowledge) initiative went forward; it proposed delinking rank and pay to some extent, to reward liong service and knowledge, particularly in complex technical trades.  TASK failed for two reasons.  First, ego: Higher ranks want higher pay than subordinates.  Second, and more importantly, zero sum: any changes to compensation for the CAF would have to come out of the existing compensation envelope, so implementing TASK's recommendations would ahve meant winners and losers.  No one wants to be a loser.


----------



## Navy_Pete (5 Jan 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Looking at Mechanical engineers in Canada, salary ranges from $46-97K, with an average of $62K (http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Job=Mechanical_Engineer/Salary).  Therefore, someone with 6-8 years in the military becoming a Lt(N) would be above average in their pay for their field, since Lt(N) Basic is $6202 per month, or $74K per year.  (This ignores the extremely competitive benefits pacakge, including a full, indexed pension available after 25 years of service, medical and dental for the individual and their dependents... which add to the value of the compensation).
> 
> It appears that the CAF believes all members are posted to CFB Lake Woebegon, where everyone is above average.



I agree; I think we're very fairly paid as two ringers (and in general for where we hit our promotions compared to level of responsibility etc).

If we were doing the same work as SLts, not so much.  Was bringing it up as an example of why changing promotion to Capt (or Lt(N)) across the board wouldn't work for a lot of trades.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Jan 2016)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I agree; I think we're very fairly paid as two ringers (and in general for where we hit our promotions compared to level of responsibility etc).
> 
> If we were doing the same work as SLts, not so much.  Was bringing it up as an example of why changing promotion to Capt (or Lt(N)) across the board wouldn't work for a lot of trades.



SLt pay starts at $59K for ROTP grads, or $51K for a DEO.  As an entry-level position with minimal experience, very decent wages.  (And that ignores environmental allowances, PLD and such).


----------



## mariomike (5 Jan 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Looking at Mechanical engineers in Canada, salary ranges from $46-97K, with an average of $62K (http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Job=Mechanical_Engineer/Salary).  .



Out of curiosity, I looked up what The Toronto Transit Commission ( TTC ) pays their Mechanical Engineers. Back in 2013, some were making as much as $124,309.69. Not including Taxable Benefits.
TTC has good job security, benefits and pension.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Jan 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, I looked up what The Toronto Transit Commission ( TTC ) pays their Mechanical Engineers. Back in 2013, some were making as much as $124,309.69. Not including Taxable Benefits.
> TTC has good job security, benefits and pension.



Yes.  And a CAF mechanical engineer at the rank of Capt(N)/LCol makes up to $150K.

But talking about the top of the heap (the TTC Chief Mechanical Engineer, https://ttc.talentnest.com/en/posting/10178) is irrelevant when we're talking about very junior engineers, just starting out.


----------



## mariomike (5 Jan 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But talking about the top of the heap (the TTC Chief Mechanical Engineer, https://ttc.talentnest.com/en/posting/10178) is irrelevant when we're talking about very junior engineers, just starting out.



My source was the Sunshine List. There were_ many_  TTC Engineers listed. What the TTC pays their Engineers can be seen here,
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/pssd/pdf/municipalities_2014.pdf

This entry level TTC job call is now closed, but it shows their starting salary for Mechanical Engineers hired off the street,

VEHICLE ENGINEER - MECHANICAL
Completion of a University Degree in Mechanical Engineering or equivalent
Annual Salary Range: $76,895.00 to $96,150.60 
https://ttc.talentnest.com/en/posting/15037#.Vov5ertIiUk

It looks like the Chief of Vehicle Engineering made $162,880.96. Not including Taxable Benefits.

Edit to add
City of Toronto 
Engineer ( off the street )
Salary/Rate $84,666.40 - $99,481.20 / Year 
Hours of Work (bi-weekly) 70.00 
"Must be registered as a Professional Engineer (P.Eng.) with the Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO)."
https://www.brainhunter.com/frontoffice/seekerViewJobDetailAction.do?sitecode=pl389&jobId=2194521&page=search&external=


----------



## Navy_Pete (5 Jan 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> SLt pay starts at $59K for ROTP grads, or $51K for a DEO.  As an entry-level position with minimal experience, very decent wages.  (And that ignores environmental allowances, PLD and such).



Again, I agree.  Once you get more experience and earn some of the qualifications, the Capt/Lt(N) pay scale follows the private sector trend, so makes sense to keep the promotion automatic (as opposed to making it merit based as per previous posts due to issues on combat arms side).  Would argue that getting the associated required qualifications does make it merit based in any case.

I was just trying to demonstrate why the current rank/promotion system makes sense for other trades other then Inf. Off, not argue we should get paid more; our current pay and benefits package is generally pretty competitive, and get to do all kinds of other fun things you'd ever do civie side.

In any case, this may be completely off tangent from the academic training split, but I guess my point was that while the current 'automatic' promotion to Capt can cause confusion for the army types, that may be particular to that one (very large) trade in certain cases, and in probably a lot of other (smaller) trades, makes perfect sense for a lot of reasons, including level of responsibility, training requirements, and pay scale (relative to comparable private sector employement). :cheers:


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jan 2016)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Again, I agree.  Once you get more experience and earn some of the qualifications, the Capt/Lt(N) pay scale follows the private sector trend, so makes sense to keep the promotion automatic (as opposed to making it merit based as per previous posts due to issues on combat arms side).  Would argue that getting the associated required qualifications does make it merit based in any case.
> 
> I was just trying to demonstrate why the current rank/promotion system makes sense for other trades other then Inf. Off, not argue we should get paid more; our current pay and benefits package is generally pretty competitive, and get to do all kinds of other fun things you'd ever do civie side.
> 
> In any case, this may be completely off tangent from the academic training split, but I guess my point was that while the current 'automatic' promotion to Capt can cause confusion for the army types, that may be particular to that one (very large) trade in certain cases, and in probably a lot of other (smaller) trades, makes perfect sense for a lot of reasons, including level of responsibility, training requirements, and pay scale (relative to comparable private sector employement). :cheers:



What you're talking about isn't automatic promotion. Your SLts have a lot of hoops to jump through, recommendations, high marks on assessments to EARN a promotion to Lt(N). They've achieved an operational function point that requires them to wear that rank, so they get it. They've also spent 3 years as a SLt, which is a lot of learning after formal trade school. A similar system can be ported to the Army, where perhaps Lts have to do OJT packages, and spent certain time in rank, and be recommendation for promotion, instead of just time-in, regardless of trade qualifications or job experience.


----------



## McG (5 Jan 2016)

I think the navy model already fits what is being proposed, in this thread, for the army.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (7 Jan 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> This entry level TTC job call is now closed, but it shows their starting salary for Mechanical Engineers hired off the street,
> 
> VEHICLE ENGINEER - MECHANICAL
> Completion of a University Degree in Mechanical Engineering or equivalent
> ...



Both of the positions that you quoted as examples of "off the street" starting salaries require registration as a P.Eng.  They would hardly be considered as entry level since one of the requirements of the PEO is "at least 48 months of verifiable, acceptable engineering experience".


----------



## mariomike (7 Jan 2016)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Both of the positions that you quoted as examples of "off the street" starting salaries require registration as a P.Eng.



With The City of Toronto, the term "off the street", as I understood it, meant someone hired through the open-to-the-public external hiring process. Regardless of outside experience.

There is another process for permanent city employees via the closed-to-the-public internal hiring process. 

Also open to the public,

SENIOR ENGINEER
$98,298.20 - $115,515.40 / Year
Monday to Friday, 35 Hours per Week
Closing Date 05-Feb-2016 
https://www.brainhunter.com/frontoffice/seekerViewJobDetailAction.do?sitecode=pl389&jobId=2196345&page=search&external=



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> They would hardly be considered as entry level since one of the requirements of the PEO is "at least 48 months of verifiable, acceptable engineering experience".



Looks like at least some of the experience can be "pregraduation",

"Your pregraduation experience should provide you an opportunity to be licensed in less than the four years usually required after graduation by exposing you to the five quality-based criteria used to assess experience: application of theory, practical experience, management of engineering, communication skills, and social implications of engineering."
http://peo.on.ca/index.php/ci_id/22884/la_id/1.htm


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Jan 2016)

In the UK they put all Officers through RMA Sandhurst.

Some go in after graduating from university (at their own cost I might add) and others, like I was, are non-graduates. 

Graduates who pass are pretty quickly promoted to full Lt after commissioning. Non-graduates serve as 2Lts for 2 years at a lower rate of pay doing the same job before being promoted to Lt. Meanwhile, the graduates are all promoted to Captain by that time.

Was I bitter? Hell yeah....


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Jan 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> In the UK they put all Officers through RMA Sandhurst.
> 
> Some go in after graduating from university (at their own cost I might add) and others, like I was, are non-graduates.
> 
> ...



Pretty well how the pre-integration Canadian Army operated, except we all didn't go to RMC or through ROTP. ROTP graduates were commissioned as lieutenants while we peasants did two years and a bit as second lieutenants essentially doing the same job but at two thirds of the pay. The ROTP graduates also made captain after three years (if they had passed their promotion exams) while we did five as lieutenants or a total of seven as a subaltern before promotion. The logic was that regardless of entry program everybody did about seven years before promotion to captain.


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Jan 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Pretty well the pre-integration Canadian Army operated, except we all didn't go to RMC or through ROTP. ROTP graduates were commissioned as lieutenants while we peasants did two years and a bit as second lieutenants essentially doing the same job but at two thirds of the pay. The ROTP graduates also made captain after three years (if they had passed their promotion exams) while we did five as lieutenants or a total of seven as a subaltern before promotion. The logic was that regardless of entry program everybody did about seven years before promotion to captain.



I think the UK uses the same (odd) logic. They didn't give me the difference in pay over that period though. Harrumph....


----------

