# Why do CF Pilots need a degree?



## ROTP Applicant (19 Apr 2005)

As I'm sitting here studying for my Financial Accounting exam, I begin to wonder, why do CF Pilots or any other CF officers need degrees? How would my degree in Commerce and Finance or someone else's degree in History, Philosophy or Math help them in their respective jobs (excluding engineers). And now, many squadrons are still short of pilots while the recruiting centres are forced to tell applicants with 2000hrs and with an Aviation Diploma to go and get a degree before they can even apply. How would having a degree make them better pilots? I understand that getting a degree shows that you can handle all of the information that a pilot would be bombarded with at Moose Jaw, but aren't there any other indicators to show that the potential CF pilot can handle the high information load. CCEP pilots were successful in getting their wings, and they didn't have their degrees, so why change the policy now?


----------



## chaos75 (19 Apr 2005)

Try reading this.

http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/cfli/engraph/poa/doc/DutyWithHonourLongVers_e.pdf

Also consider, your not joining just to be a pilot (I hope not anyways), your going to be an officer and leader.  Professionalism, proficiency, expertise, accountability, responsability are all terms you should get to know.


----------



## ROTP Applicant (19 Apr 2005)

chaos75 said:
			
		

> Try reading this.
> 
> http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/cfli/engraph/poa/doc/DutyWithHonourLongVers_e.pdf
> 
> Also consider, your not joining just to be a pilot (I hope not anyways), your going to be an officer and leader.   Professionalism, proficiency, expertise, accountability, responsability are all terms you should get to know.



Thanks for the lesson in morals. Yes, I joined to become a leader and pilot, but since I'm brand new to the CF and since the initial question wasn't answered, could you explain to me why someone needs to have a degree to be a leader?


----------



## Infanteer (19 Apr 2005)

Read this thread:

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


----------



## chaos75 (19 Apr 2005)

Wasnt meant to be a lesson in anything.  Read the pam on that link, it will explain the reasons exactly why officers need a higher level of education.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Apr 2005)

The answer is " you don't"...i have lead troops at various levels and i don't have a degree.   But the simple fact is that as an officer you are required to have that ability to criticaly analize situations and it has been deemed that you should aquire this trough post-secondary education by The CF.   Does it make you a better pilot ?   Does the ability to think and criticaly analyse help ?   You have to think beyond the cockpit to the day where you may be a test pilot at AETE or a project manager for some new weapon system for the CF-18....... Being a pilot isn't just about the flying and being an leader.    You are doing financial accounting right ?   Think about what i have said and you will see where your education will serve you.   You may be the CO of a sqn someday where you WILL have to manage your unit's budget.........

Like i said, stick your head out of the cockpit for just a little bit and you should be able to answer your own question.


----------



## -rb (19 Apr 2005)

ROTP Civi U said:
			
		

> As I'm sitting here studying for my Financial Accounting exam, I begin to wonder, why do CF Pilots or any other CF officers need degrees? How would my degree in Commerce and Finance or someone else's degree in History, Philosophy or Math help them in their respective jobs (excluding engineers).



That comment just touched on the thread of a recent article I read on CNN regarding Einstein, to briefly quote...

One crucial aspect of Einstein's training that is overlooked, says Notre Dame science historian Don Howard, is the years of philosophy he read as a teenager -- Kant, Schopenhauer and Spinoza, among others. It taught him how to think independently and abstractly about space and time, Howard says, and it wasn't long before he became a philosopher himself.

"The independence created by philosophical insight is -- in my opinion -- the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth," Einstein wrote in 1944.

It's not necessarily what's written on the piece of paper you recieve upon graduation, it's the process itself that matters. A degree can open more doors than it will close, both in the real world and within the individual. 

I'm not discounting the experience of private pilots licenses etc. but like it or not, a degree is the minimum educational standard (which has been debated in _numerous _ other threads) of todays up and coming Officers.

Personally as a civi still from the outside looking in, I'm a little torn on the issue. I've seen both the benefits of education vs. real-life experience and having met officers from both sides of the coin i'm not one to place judgement on their leadership abilities... (yet ). 

However, it is what it is.

cheers.


----------



## Inch (19 Apr 2005)

Well, here's my take.

I entered under CCEP, and I got my wings last Apr. The thing I think you've missed is that not any College Aviation grad can get in and certainly not every 2000hr pilot, afterall, how valuable is 2000hrs of letting someone else fly, never leaving your immediate area? There were only about 8 approved Aviation Colleges across the country when I went CCEP. I've seen 2000hr pilots fail out and zero time guys get their wings, so obviously the almighty hour isn't a very accurate indicator of how you'll fare in CF pilot training. That said, I've also seen engineers fail out as well as other university grads. So you not only need a keen intellect and the ability to think outside the box, but you also need to have good hands and feet. 

So while there's always exceptions to the rules, the general concensus among most western nations is that a higher education (ie a bachelor's degree) is a requirement for an officer in the profession of arms.


----------



## ROTP Applicant (19 Apr 2005)

Thanks for your responses guys. Always glad to learn and understand something better.


----------



## inferno (19 Apr 2005)

Not sure how this fits in, but if you can, try and find/watch/download any of the documentaries by journalists in Iraq.

Watching the journalist interview Enlisted infantry, and then Commissioned infantry officers in the Marines is like night and day. The enlisted personel comment about how they like to play music in the humvees, how they got shot at and it was, "so ninja" or at the peak of the interview they state they are there to free Iraqis. 

On the other hand the commissioned officers tend to be very well spoken, they are excellent orators and know a lot of history. Not to mention they can if neccessary usually skirt a question with Bill Clinton efficiency.

I've noticed this difference between college and university students too. I think there's a maturity, intelligence, life experiance (in regards to going to university and experiancing it) that is necessary for an Officer.


----------



## TCBF (19 Apr 2005)

Think of the Navy, Army, and Air Force as three pyramids in the big pyramid of the Canadian Forces.   Every thing you do or fail to do will determine how high up the pyramid you go,with the CDS being at the top.  Everyone wants their colour of uniform to have it's turn at the top slot , so all have to remain competitive, and select and groom their movers for a shot at the top.  A degree is part of that process.

A Sergeant-Pilot may have flown a Spit out of Malta, but in a tiny, stunted CF, we can't do that.

Flight, Sqn, and Wing Commanders have to have been pilots at one point, so you don't want to waste a pilot's billet on someone who will never have a shot at being  a Flt/Sqn/Wing Commander.  The more who make the grade, the better a selection they have to chose from.

Same in the army.  Lots of Troop/Platoon Warrants become Tp/Pl Ldrs, but only when there is a shortage of officers.  

Besides, a degree proves you are "trainable". 

As well, academic qualifications are increasingly seen as badges of civil rank in the public, and they will often not take seriously any opinion from a person that has not been to university.  So, it will increase your credibility when dealing with other agencies, which you will eventually do.

Tom


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Apr 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Besides, a degree proves you are "trainable".
> 
> As well, academic qualifications are increasingly seen as badges of civil rank in the public, and they will often not take seriously any opinion from a person that has not been to university.  So, it will increase your credibility when dealing with other agencies, which you will eventually do.



Remove "trainable" and substitute "can be pressed to learn" which does not translate into useful knowledge without something more. Soldiers, athletes and tradesmen "train" and only the stupid get in their way. Ever notice how many soldiers and athletes have a degree? Way higher than the population averages.  And, eventually, everybody needs a plumber, or a mechanic or an electrician. Few people require the services of a person with a Phd in sociology or political science or womens studies or etc. and  etc. 

Academic qualifications can be viewed as badges of rank, but I prefer to think of them as targets of opportunity and the civil service as a target rich environment that is ripe to be exploited at will by enterprising businessmen, civil lawyers and occasionally by quick witted lay people.    
  
Disagree with the credibility stuff as well. Parsing the first part of your statement, if I have four degrees of ascending order, I guess I wouldn't have to take anybody else seriously as I would myself. [phew ... only 3- one of which is in etc. ].

The second part suggests that credibility could be measured through the number of degrees a person has. Does 0 degrees = 0 credibility? If the answer is "no", then it cannot be true that 1 degree equals more credibility than 0 degrees. You get the picture.   

Cheers.


----------



## TCBF (19 Apr 2005)

Sure, I get the picture, just like you.

It's society that doesn't get the picture.  Government bureaucracies - especially academic ones - have lost the gonads to rate people's performance and promote by character.  They now use seniority and "qualifications" rather than being judgemental in any way.  Since - by this method - a degree in Wimins Studies with a Doctorate in Female Pygmy Intergenerational Networking During the Rainy Season is just as valuable - if not more - than an engineering degree or a doctor of medicine, the "appropriate" people get to move ahead.p 

You spend the money on a degree which subsidizes the hiring of politically correct activist professors, you take in what they say and spout it back to them in the same manner.  For God's sake, don't think or disagree.  Once you have your first degree, you do the consultant/activist/bureaucrat/academic spiral and are in turn subsidized by the students - sons and daughters of your colleages - who will eventually replace you.

A taxpayer funded, self-perpetuating socialist intellectual elite.

A degree cures all ills - that's why we give them to convicts. ;D

Tom


----------



## 277to081 (22 Apr 2005)

inferno said:
			
		

> Not sure how this fits in, but if you can, try and find/watch/download any of the documentaries by journalists in Iraq.
> 
> Watching the journalist interview Enlisted infantry, and then Commissioned infantry officers in the Marines is like night and day. The enlisted personel comment about how they like to play music in the humvees, how they got shot at and it was, "so ninja" or at the peak of the interview they state they are there to free Iraqis.
> 
> ...



I don't think that this is a very fair example, you can put a well spoken guy with a degree in with a bunch of enlisted guys and he will sound just like them after a month or two. They are two different cultures (commissioned and non) that are bred in two different ways. There is a certain expectation put on officers, especially when being interviewed by the media, on how to speak and act, there is more pressure for them not to look like a jackass. On the other side of the coin, you could throw an enlisted high school grad like myself in with a mix of officers for a few months and I would be able to pick up on the different idiosyncrasies and come off as one of them. I think having the degree is pretty much a workforce standard now a days for any type of management position, it shows that you went that extra mile to make yourself more desirable, they had to draw a line somewhere I guess.


----------



## paracowboy (23 Apr 2005)

or, short answer: 'cause the Crown says so.


----------



## Bill22108131 (23 Apr 2005)

Good initial question and I believe paracowboy gave the most pertinent answer.  It was only a few years ago that all officers were required to have a degree (excluding CFRs).  Some of the best Nav/Pilot COs I have served under did not have degrees.  They were articulate, ensured their DCOs balanced the Sqn budgets, and they executed their leadership duties beyond reproach.  Thinking back to the military definition of leadership applied to all ranks, an education is nowhere to be found.  The first principle of leadership is "achieve professional competence".  An aviator must be the best he can be, and then should strive to further himself in other fields.  Everyday I see university educated pilots who cannot make the cut after 5 years attempting to reach their AC qual on our four engine aircraft and we post them out to ground/support roles.  We are now burdened with overpaid, well educated desk jockeys who cannot fly airplanes.  My opinion is that we train the young 18, 19 year-olds out of high school to be pilots, and we continue with the training until they can master their aircraft type.  Those identified as having general officer potential can be set aside to complete a degree program.  Like some CF technicians who are happier and more productive at their bench with their tools, there are many aircrew who just want to fly and they are damn good at it.  Training before education is only a logical reverse of what is currently happening.  We spend millions on aircrew training and we are failing at reaching our maximum potential.  Aircrew selection cannot identify all personal shortfalls.  You have to put the pilot in control of the 135,000 lb airplane in a moderate risk environment to test his or her mettle.   My final thought is education does not ensure good leadership.  

Bill


----------



## George Wallace (23 Apr 2005)

Bill

I agree 100+%.  Well said.

GW


----------



## TCBF (23 Apr 2005)

That's it.  Same in the Army.  Phase training and Troop time, then a "Window" where the chosen can be sent away.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Apr 2005)

Bill22108131 said:
			
		

> Good initial question and I believe paracowboy gave the most pertinent answer.   It was only a few years ago that all officers were required to have a degree (excluding CFRs).   Some of the best Nav/Pilot COs I have served under did not have degrees.   They were articulate, ensured their DCOs balanced the Sqn budgets, and they executed their leadership duties beyond reproach.   Thinking back to the military definition of leadership applied to all ranks, an education is nowhere to be found.   The first principle of leadership is "achieve professional competence".   An aviator must be the best he can be, and then should strive to further himself in other fields.   Everyday I see university educated pilots who cannot make the cut after 5 years attempting to reach their AC qual on our four engine aircraft and we post them out to ground/support roles.   We are now burdened with overpaid, well educated desk jockeys who cannot fly airplanes.   My opinion is that we train the young 18, 19 year-olds out of high school to be pilots, and we continue with the training until they can master their aircraft type.   Those identified as having general officer potential can be set aside to complete a degree program.   Like some CF technicians who are happier and more productive at their bench with their tools, there are many aircrew who just want to fly and they are damn good at it.   Training before education is only a logical reverse of what is currently happening.   We spend millions on aircrew training and we are failing at reaching our maximum potential.   Aircrew selection cannot identify all personal shortfalls.   You have to put the pilot in control of the 135,000 lb airplane in a moderate risk environment to test his or her mettle.     My final thought is education does not ensure good leadership.
> 
> Bill



Bill,

i had actualy never thought of it that way.  What you propose actualy makes sense to me.  I havent been in the air force for long but i have met some of those pilots you refer to that have no wish for high rank.  Food for though for me, thanks


----------



## I_Drive_Planes (23 Apr 2005)

As someone who is trying to get in under ROTP (just passed ASC!) I have been reading this thread with great interest.  I'm just wondering what you guys would think of having a purely military academy, similar to Sandhurst in the UK.  Sandhurst allows the British Army to turn out officers in under a year, and seems to focus on the academics that actually apply to a career in the military.  I'm curious to know how some of you who are more knowldegable than me would compare an officer that entered through BOTP vs. someone who went to RMC vs. someone who went to a civillian university, vs. someone who went to an institution such as Sandhurst.  IMHO I feel that doing a purely military education would be more beneficial to me in my (future) military career than going through a degree, and it would benefit the forces by producing officers faster, but what do I know, I'm just a greasy civvy!  ;D

Planes


----------



## Bill22108131 (26 Apr 2005)

In response to "planes".  Don't take my thoughts on degrees and an honest education incorrectly.  The CF needs members with degrees, including post grad and beyond.  I just abhor the idea of degrees for all.   WRT your question about Sandhurst, I'm not familiar with the program, so I cannot comment too deeply on its merits or disadvantages.  Only conducting the courses to perform your job is no different than the trade/phase training currently offered at any CF school.  University level courses are taught to our NCMs and officers alike at different phases in their career.  As to whether an officer should be an RMC or civvy U grad, in my mind there is little difference.  The important thing is we need a mix.  RMC as an internal institution of higher learning for the CF provides us with officers with a well rounded education and military experience.  DEOs (direct entry officers), in possession of the appropriate degree, give the military balance with the "real world", something RMC grads can lose sight of.  As to who makes the better leader, it depends totally upon the individual not the paper on the wall.  BTW "planes", civvies are not greasy, just certain people in life.

Cheers,
Bill


----------

