# Auditor General Suggests RMC Not Working



## Old Sweat (21 Nov 2017)

This report from the Toronto Star reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act suggest that the Auditor General found that RMC is not an effective institution.

Costly Royal Military College falling down in training leaders: Auditor General
Institution costs twice as much as other universities, turns out graduates lacking in military education and leadership skills: report.

A complete review of the Royal Military College of Canada begins today at the prestigious institution. Senior Canadian Armed Forces commanders ordered the probe following a number of suspected suicides and allegations of sexual misconduct.

By BRUCE CAMPION-SMITHOttawa Bureau
Tues., Nov. 21, 2017
OTTAWA—The Royal Military College, Canada’s premier school for young officers, costs twice as much as other universities, yet turns out graduates lacking in military education and leadership skills, the Auditor General says.

While cadets are meant to become leaders in the armed forces, military training takes a back seat to academic subjects and most students see such training as “irrelevant” and a “poor use of time,” according to a report from the watchdog released Tuesday.

And incidents of misconduct at the storied institution, located in Kingston, show that it is falling down in its mission to produce officers with strong leadership skills.

“The academic environment at the college does not consistently support the teaching of military conduct and ethical behaviour,” Auditor General Michael Ferguson said.

“The college must re-establish its focus as a military training institution, so that it can produce the leaders the Canadian Armed Forces require,” he said.

Yet the Royal Military College (RMC) comes at a steep price tag. The Auditor General report concluded that the college is the “most costly way” to educate future military officers; it costs some $40,000 more a year than a civilian university does, the report found.

Despite the higher costs, National Defence was unable to show that RMC graduates turn out to be more effective military leaders. Indeed, the Canadian Armed Forces’ own internal study found “no discernible difference” and concluded that there was no evidence to show that RMC graduates had a “stronger grasp of military leadership or proper conduct.”

The audit examined whether the college produces quality officers at a reasonable cost. It also looked at whether National Defence ensured proper conduct of the officer cadets and staff. The investigation concluded that the school comes up short.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (21 Nov 2017)

The OAG's report

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201711_06_e_42671.html

And referenced often in the above report  Special Staff Assistance Visit - Report on the Climate, Training Environment, Culture and ROTP Programme at the Royal Military College of Canada – Kingston


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Nov 2017)

Maybe we should re-purpose RMC as a 1 or 2 year "finishing school"?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Nov 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Maybe we should re-purpose RMC as a 1 or 2 year "finishing school"?



My only comment:  The tools, resources, structure and personnel are already in place to make RMC effective; however, what is lacking is clear will and desire to enforce the policies and procedures as they are written.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (21 Nov 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Maybe we should re-purpose RMC as a 1 or 2 year "finishing school"?



That has been the best suggestion I've heard.

RMC has been a lackluster academic institution for a long time. Per student the cost is double other universities and it rates pretty low on academics.

Personally I'd think the best way forward is everyone gets their degrees from better universities and then go to RMC for a year of finishing and "officership" training.


----------



## Navy_Pete (21 Nov 2017)

Out of curiosity, DEOs learn all the 'officership' stuff on your trades courses or via OJT. I noticed when we were all juniors running through the system a lot of the RMC knowledge didn't apply to the real military, and effectively we were all at comparable levels of knowledge and competency by the time we hit our trade qualification.  Bearing that in mind, why have RMC as a finishing school at all if you get away from core undergrad work? Depending on the specific trade, large portions of us have never been to RMC and we seem to be able to effectively do our jobs.

I think they'd be better off not making Mickey mouse rules up on the fly and treating the students as young professionals under training instead of kids would go a long way to sorting out a lot of the issues.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Nov 2017)

Would Sandhurst be a useful model? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Military_Academy_Sandhurst


----------



## McG (21 Nov 2017)

Recruiting bonuses are cheaper and faster than RMC.

I would suggest creating a “Canadian Sandhurst” may be a different topic than the future of RMC because we could have both at the same time on the same entitlement stream.

If the decision were made that RMC is not required as a degree granting institution, I would not try to transform it into anything like Sandhurst.  But, if it were decided that we needed something like Sandhurst, I would build it in CTC (or alternately build it by any large land training area and leave it under CMP ownership).


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (21 Nov 2017)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, DEOs learn all the 'officership' stuff on your trades courses or via OJT. I noticed when we were all juniors running through the system a lot of the RMC knowledge didn't apply to the real military, and effectively we were all at comparable levels of knowledge and competency by the time we hit our trade qualification.  Bearing that in mind, why have RMC as a finishing school at all if you get away from core undergrad work? Depending on the specific trade, large portions of us have never been to RMC and we seem to be able to effectively do our jobs.
> 
> I think they'd be better off not making Mickey mouse rules up on the fly and treating the students as young professionals under training instead of kids would go a long way to sorting out a lot of the issues.



Mainly because the officer corps as a whole seems lacking from my POV. There seems to be a general lack of understanding of administrative procedures as well (which is understandable since SNCO's learn them over years of experience). 

Everything from leadership, to administrative and disciplinary procedures, to parts of the CAFJODs and even a dumbed down version of the AOC could be bundled together in a 6 month or 12 month course that will better prepare officers for actual leadership and management. More-so than what a bachelor of arts can do, or what the leadership level system attempted but failed to do.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Nov 2017)

[quote author=Navy_Pete]

I think they'd be better off not making Mickey mouse rules up on the fly and treating the students as young professionals under training instead of kids would go a long way to sorting out a lot of the issues.
[/quote]

Society seems to be heading in directions not very synonymous with military ethos and lifestyle. Sense of entitlement, pampered behavior, ABYSMAL fitness. 
I'm offended! I Know my rights! kind of stuff. 

It may be a good idea to drop the university degree requirement and do the Sandhurst model, or, set up RMC as a finishing school where degree holding people wanting to be officers in the CAF can go to and concentrate on military academics.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Nov 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> Recruiting bonuses are cheaper and faster than RMC.
> 
> I would suggest creating a “Canadian Sandhurst” may be a different topic than the future of RMC because we could have both at the same time on the same entitlement stream.
> 
> If the decision were made that RMC is not required as a degree granting institution, I would not try to transform it into anything like Sandhurst.  But, if it were decided that we needed something like Sandhurst, I would build it in CTC (or alternately build it by any large land training area and leave it under CMP ownership).



Dundurn.

Just sayin...


----------



## dapaterson (21 Nov 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Dundurn.
> 
> Just sayin...




Incentive to succeed (else recoursing in Dundurn), plus potential to someday help the region reach 22 pairs of chromosomes...


----------



## ballz (21 Nov 2017)

Personally, I would have preferred an extra 3-6 months of training at the Infantry School (or a year) than a day or a year at any kind of BS "officership" training. And I mean actual professional training more ex's, more practice, more challenges... I never even got the opportunity to lead a patrol before I was a qualified Infantry Officer and being posted to a Reg Froce Battalion to be a Platoon Commander.

Our military's ego on this whole "training leaders" and training "officership" can be out of control. Help make me professionally competent or get the eff out of the way. I had to waste 4 years at university*, I sure wouldn't want to waste another year doing "officership" training.

*95% of the valuable things I learned at university were learned outside of the classroom. Learning how to live like an adult that pays bills, budgets, cooks their own food, learning that life outside of high school means less GAFF for your peers approval, etc. You know, basic post-adolescence maturing. Unfortunately, many people that go to RMC (or many other very small universities where they don't leave the nest) don't get this out of university either.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (21 Nov 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> Personally, I would have preferred an extra 3-6 months of training at the Infantry School (or a year) than a day or a year at any kind of BS "officership" training. And I mean actual professional training more ex's, more practice, more challenges... I never even got the opportunity to lead a patrol before I was a qualified Infantry Officer at a reg force Battalion.
> 
> Our military's ego on this whole "training leaders" and training "officership" can be out of control. Help make me professionally competent or get the eff out of the way. I had to waste 4 years at university*, I sure wouldn't want to waste another year doing "officership" training.
> 
> *95% of the valuable things I learned at university were learned outside of the classroom. Learning how to live like an adult that pays bills, budgets, cooks their own food, learning that life outside of high school means less GAFF for your peers approval, etc. You know, basic post-adolescence maturing. Unfortunately, many people that go to RMC (or many other very small universities where they don't leave the nest) don't get this out of university either.



I don't know anything really about Infantry Officer training, however my interaction with most infantry officers is that they do a good job with the leadership side of things. That said, that's only really one trade. There's still a lot to be desired.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Nov 2017)

Is RMC modeled on Sandhurst ?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Nov 2017)

Not at all, T6.

Closer to Annapolis or West Point, but not at their level for  the military part, IMHO.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Nov 2017)

However, unlike Annapolis or West Point, the four year program at RMC is pensionable time and counts towards retirement.  For those from Quebec or Newfoundland who do an additional prep year at CMR, they'll complete 20% of the time required to receive an immediate pension before completing their degree...


----------



## kev994 (21 Nov 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> However, unlike Annapolis or West Point, the four year program at RMC is pensionable time and counts towards retirement.  For those from Quebec or Newfoundland who do an additional prep year at CMR, they'll complete 20% of the time required to receive an immediate pension before completing their degree...


‘Merica has a 20 year 50% pension though so it evens out.


----------



## Underway (21 Nov 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Is RMC modeled on Sandhurst ?



Sandhurst actually has a selection process that lasts 3-4 weeks for instructors.  RMC has a posting msg or puts cadets in charge (the blind leading the blind).  Its an honour and privilege to be an instructor at Sandhurst which looks good for your career.  RMC is just another administrative posting.


----------



## McG (21 Nov 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Is RMC modeled on Sandhurst ?


RMC is a university.  Sandhurst is a training centre.

The Infantry School’s CAP staff have more in common with Sandhurst than does RMC.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Nov 2017)

Would converting RMC to the Sandhurst model work better for the CF ?


----------



## McG (21 Nov 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Would converting RMC to the Sandhurst model work better for the CF ?


Good god no. 
If you want a race car, you don’t try to get it by converting your Cessna. You start new.

If Canada wants an officers academy, then it should create something new at a location with appropriate training real estate.

If Canada does not need a military university, then it should close RMC. But remember that RMC does more than just OCdt under grad education.  There are a few post graduate technical programs that you will not find at a civilian university in Canada.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Nov 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> Good god no.
> If you want a race car, you don’t try to get it by converting your Cessna. You start new.
> 
> If Canada wants an officers academy, then it should create something new at a location with appropriate training real estate.
> ...



But must the CAF own a university, or can it sponsor such programs at another school (McMaster or UQM or Dal or McGill or UBC or... plenty of excellent schools in Canada)


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (22 Nov 2017)

Pre-flight said:
			
		

> Mainly because the officer corps as a whole seems lacking from my POV. There seems to be a general lack of understanding of administrative procedures as well (which is understandable since SNCO's learn them over years of experience).
> 
> Everything from leadership, to administrative and disciplinary procedures, to parts of the CAFJODs and even a dumbed down version of the AOC could be bundled together in a 6 month or 12 month course that will better prepare officers for actual leadership and management. More-so than what a bachelor of arts can do, or what the leadership level system attempted but failed to do.



What is your branch and experience? Please do not introduce AOC into this discussion. AOC does great things across the river.


----------



## McG (22 Nov 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But must the CAF own a university, or can it sponsor such programs at another school (McMaster or UQM or Dal or McGill or UBC or... plenty of excellent schools in Canada)


What, like what someone else does with Cranfield? Stop dreaming up proven concepts.


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Nov 2017)

I have been thinking that RMC might use the Sandhurst model in that cadets attend a 44 week course culminating with a commission.Cadets would arrive already with a 4 year college degree.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (22 Nov 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But must the CAF own a university, or can it sponsor such programs at another school (McMaster or UQM or Dal or McGill or UBC or... plenty of excellent schools in Canada)



Yes, but where would they get this?


----------



## McG (22 Nov 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I have been thinking that RMC the CAF might use the Sandhurst model in that cadets attend a 44 week course culminating with a commission.Cadets would arrive already with a 4 year college degree.


If the CAF wants an academy as opposed to a university, then it should not try to twist RMC (on its tiny plot of land beside a base with a tiny training area) to that purpose.  If the CAF wants an academy, RMC is not the institution to do it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Nov 2017)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Yes, but where would they get this?



The gift shop?


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Nov 2017)

RMA Sandhurst: where leaders are not necessarily graduates. But if you want to get a degree, it looks like they can make that happen now after you pass, while you are serving:

Sandhurst chief says army needs character not university degrees 

“There are a number of people with very good degrees out there – but what you are looking for is character. That is one thing the army develops very well. There is a feeling now that people are going to university because it is the ‘done’ thing.”

General Nanson revealed that from this September, school-leavers who have been accepted for officer training at Sandhurst will be able to register for a BSc in Leadership and Strategic Studies. Once they have completed the undergraduate degree,  developed in partnership with the University of Reading, they can go on to complete a Masters.   

Officers will build up credits during their 12-month officer training course at Sandhurst, which will make up a third of the degree. They can complete the remaining two thirds over a four year period while they are a serving officer

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/08/14/army-chief-reveals-plans-entice-school-leavers-sandhurst-offering/


----------



## Journeyman (22 Nov 2017)

According to CBC, it looks like any issues are well on their way to being solved.  :nod:


> When it comes to the criticism of leadership, Sajjan said the government intends to develop an action plan.





Note that this is the same Minister we were told last spring would be moved out of Defence for lying mis-speaking about his 'architectural' prowess.  I suspect "action plan" (particularly regarding leadership) means 'waffle until the people forget the issue.'


----------



## Inspir (22 Nov 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But must the CAF own a university, or can it sponsor such programs at another school (McMaster or UQM or Dal or McGill or UBC or... plenty of excellent schools in Canada)



Are you thinking along the lines of how the Canadian Coast Guard College does it? With their Officers getting a degree from Cape Breton University.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Nov 2017)

All this talk about Sandhurst, that's great but the CAF is a joint force and RMC is a joint College.

If the CAF wanted to create a Sandhurst, it would need to also create a Britannia Naval Academy and RAF Academy. Hmmmm, or it could create a Tri-Service Academy and base it out of Kingston.

What's good for the Army isn't necessarily good for the other services but that's tough to swallow in our JARMY military.


----------



## Journeyman (22 Nov 2017)

The bottom line, as I see it:

anic:.... for less than a week.  Society will then have wandered off, fixated on Hollywood's next crisis.  If there's any talk of significant change, the old guard alumni will circle the wagons to ensure nothing happens.

The "action plan" will drag on, producing mindless platitudes about how RMC is required to be different.  Having already acknowledged that there are leadership issues (and given our military's default setting of building more/bigger HQs), they'll likely throw in a couple of extraneous LCol/Cdr positions to be "leadership role-model" mannequins.

Nothing will change.   :boring:



*Now, if I was cynical.....* 
Will anyone wonder (out loud): "RMC used to produce military leaders; there has been no significant change to the MilCol programme, but now it doesn't work;  what's different?  Oh, the raw materials."  No child left behind. Everyone gets a participation ribbon. Drool running from their mouths as they're glued to cell phones.

People are surprised that so many Cadets show up self-entitled, illiterate, socially helpless.... and RMC is supposed to magically fix that (without speaking harshly or releasing anyone)?   :

*Just as well I'm not cynical.*


----------



## Towards_the_gap (22 Nov 2017)

My humble 2c......

I worked with a great deal of awesome officers during my short time in the CF, on par with any I worked with in the British Army (products of Sandhurst). And of course, some absolute duds.

Was there a noticeable difference between RMC grads and non-RMC grads? Professionally, I'd say no. Academically, I wouldn't be able to judge, although I picked up a fair few spelling mistakes proof-reading things for officers (of both tribes) which I delighted in pointing out! Is the ring-knocking worth the 40k per person per annum? I can't say I saw any evidence of it, or anything to justify the 'mystique' that RMC seems to have within the military.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Nov 2017)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> My humble 2c......
> 
> I worked with a great deal of awesome officers during my short time in the CF, on par with any I worked with in the British Army (products of Sandhurst). And of course, some absolute duds.
> 
> Was there a noticeable difference between RMC grads and non-RMC grads? Professionally, I'd say no. Academically, I wouldn't be able to judge, although I picked up a fair few spelling mistakes proof-reading things for officers (of both tribes) which I delighted in pointing out! Is the ring-knocking worth the 40k per person per annum? I can't say I saw any evidence of it, or anything to justify the 'mystique' that RMC seems to have within the military.




Based on experience, Mil Coll was an excellent way to guarantee that you made it through CTC at Gagetown  

Also, ever notice the percentage of CF generals that are Mil Coll grads?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Nov 2017)

Journeyman, don't you know by now that the purpose of an action plan is to be able to produce a couple of 30 seconds ads with snazzy pictures that make you feel good and claim that everything good under the sun is the result of your action plan?

 :sarcasm:

There's a question I have about the OAG report that I can't find the answer to: When it claims that graduating an officer from RMC costs $40K more than an average "small" university, do they consider the extra cost of taking DEOs from such a civilian university and qualifying them as commissioned officers in their calculation of comparable costs? I can't find the answer to that one. The report makes the claim that RMC is the most expansive way of generating commissioned officer, ou of the various streams, but it does not provide any background supporting the statement.

Now, back to sarcasm:

I think the OAG report reaches the wrong conclusion because it starts from an incorrect premise:

At section 6.32, "why this finding matters", the report states:

_*This finding matters because National Defence must ensure that its spending is cost-effective and focuses on National Defence’s priorities.*_ 

Now, when on earth has this been an objective of Canada's national defence  ;D.

If they had stated the "true" purpose from the start, their findings would have been that RMC is doing a marvellous job. That "true" purpose would of course be stated this way:

*This finding matters because National Defence must ensure that its huge amount of spending is spread out across the country in the least effective way and focuses on the current party in power's priorities in maximizing the political benefits of such spending for the next election cycle. *


You see: Stated that way, everything falls into place. /SARC OFF


----------



## McG (22 Nov 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> All this talk about Sandhurst, that's great but the CAF is a joint force and RMC is a joint College.


I understand that Britannia Naval Academy provides an 8 week Army-like training crucible to forge RN officers.  If “JArmy” works there, why not here?

I would suggest Journeyman has hit on a key idea in that recruits are different today.  We may need a Royal Military Academy as a officer forge regardless of if they also pass through RMC or not.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Nov 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> If the CAF wanted to create a Sandhurst, it would need to also create a Britannia Naval Academy and RAF Academy.



Easy, just add Mahan and Douhet to the curriculum!

MCG has a point, all this talk of "Sandhurst" as some sort of magical fix is missing the point by seeing problem A and promoting solution Z without considering B-Y.

Before considering any solution, the CAF and the DND must ask if (1) the military needs to be in the undergraduate business and (2) the military needs to take direct responsibility for four years of an officer cadet's life while (s)he completes an undergraduate program (as opposed to indirectly through an alternative pipeline such as the Reserves).

If the answer is yes, then solution "Sandhurst" isn't really in the mix.  If the answer is no, then the CAF needs to re-evaluate its commissioning pipelines and come up with solutions, to which a year-long "finishing school" like Sandhurst is one possible solution.  But until that is thought through, one can't argue that "Sandhurst" is automatically the viable fix for RMC's woes.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Nov 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> *Now, if I was cynical.....*
> Will anyone wonder (out loud): "RMC used to produce military leaders; there has been no significant change to the MilCol programme, but now it doesn't work;  what's different?  Oh, the raw materials."  No child left behind. Everyone gets a participation ribbon. Drool running from their mouths as they're glued to cell phones.
> 
> People are surprised that so many Cadets show up self-entitled, illiterate, socially helpless.... and RMC is supposed to magically fix that (without speaking harshly or releasing anyone)?   :
> ...



Pretty much nailed it JM


----------



## Infanteer (22 Nov 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Will anyone wonder (out loud): "RMC used to produce military leaders; there has been no significant change to the MilCol programme, but now it doesn't work;  what's different?  Oh, the raw materials."  No child left behind. Everyone gets a participation ribbon. Drool running from their mouths as they're glued to cell phones.
> 
> People are surprised that so many Cadets show up self-entitled, illiterate, socially helpless.... and RMC is supposed to magically fix that (without speaking harshly or releasing anyone)?   :



The only reason I'm skeptical of this statement is that the argument that the current generation is less suited for military service old and repeated by every generation.  I honestly think I remember reading a section from Caesar's Gallic Wars or some other Roman work on how new recruits to the legions weren't like the older generation.  I have a hard time believing that the cell phone is leading to the demise of youth resiliency...30 years ago, people were saying "video games" and "nintendo" were doing the same thing.

In response to the statement that _"RMC used to produce military leaders; there has been no significant change to the MilCol programme, but now it doesn't work;  what's different?"_, I'd ask (1) Is it not working?  Or is it working as well as before but we aren't paying as much attention to the people doing well? and (2) Is it working like before, but the school is less able to keep the spotlight off of its problems?


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (22 Nov 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> Good god no.
> If you want a race car, you don’t try to get it by converting your Cessna. You start new.
> 
> If Canada wants an officers academy, then it should create something new at a location with appropriate training real estate.
> ...



Seems a bit wasteful to close down a campus they just spent 200 million renovating only to open another campus somewhere else.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (22 Nov 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> There's a question I have about the OAG report that I can't find the answer to: When it claims that graduating an officer from RMC costs $40K more than an average "small" university, do they consider the extra cost of taking DEOs from such a civilian university and qualifying them as commissioned officers in their calculation of comparable costs? I can't find the answer to that one. The report makes the claim that RMC is the most expansive way of generating commissioned officer, ou of the various streams, but it does not provide any background supporting the statement.



My take on the OAG report is that they answered that question primarily in paras 6.49 to 6.54 including Exhibit 6.4 and in the synopsis of RMC expenditures in Exhibit 6.3.   That 40k difference is based on a comparison of subsidizing a ROTP student at RMC vice a civvy university.  I assume (yes, I know . . . but the OAG is usually thorough in its analyses) that there is no mention of additional costs in getting officers to OFP because their analysis is based solely on getting potential officers to meet the educational requirement of an undergrad degree and their remit was not to look at the costs of specific occupational training.  However, since civilian ROTP students and RMC ROTP students would be doing the same MOC/OJT training during school breaks, costs for those periods would be the same; the main variant would be civvy uni tuition cost versus RMC operating cost.

Even though half of officers are sourced from DEO (according to the report), my expectation is that there will continue to be a requirement to subsidize undergrad education in order to attract potential officers.

For that additional 40k a year (though I would dispute the full amount) the only additional benefit that I can see is providing (and kinda, sorta ensuring?) an environment that promotes second language ability and hopefully a culture of physical fitness/sports.


----------



## observor 69 (22 Nov 2017)

Pre-flight said:
			
		

> That has been the best suggestion I've heard.
> 
> RMC has been a lackluster academic institution for a long time. Per student the cost is double other universities and it rates pretty low on academics.
> 
> Personally I'd think the best way forward is everyone gets their degrees from better universities and then go to RMC for a year of finishing and "officership" training.



There's one just across the river.


----------



## Strike (22 Nov 2017)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> In response to the statement that _"RMC used to produce military leaders; there has been no significant change to the MilCol programme, but now it doesn't work;  what's different?"_, I'd ask (1) Is it not working?  Or is it working as well as before but we aren't paying as much attention to the people doing well? and (2) Is it working like before, but the school is less able to keep the spotlight off of its problems?



Perhaps the problem is then specifically that the MilCol program hasn't changed.  There have been massive changes in society, technology and therefore to the CAF as a whole in how we work, where and when and with what as well as the people who are joining.  The MilCol system has made some changes, yes, but those are arguably more in the social construct and its composition.  I couldn't actually speak to whether or not the military pillar has changed, but if the assertion that the programme hasn't had any significant changes in who knows how long, then likely that's the problem.


----------



## McG (22 Nov 2017)

Pre-flight said:
			
		

> Seems a bit wasteful to close down a campus they just spent 200 million renovating only to open another campus somewhere else.


Don’t get emotionally attached to sunk costs. The type of crucible training that occurs at Sandhurst or Britannia has been something that happened in Canada at locations other than RMC.  BOTC was run in Chilliwack (a location with much better training real estate) until the base was closed and a much reduced course (perhaps another element of the problem) was launched in St Jean. If you fixate on the idea the the current geography must define the solution, then you are already situating the estimate.  But to placate your concern for sunk-costs anyway, closing RMC does not have to mean divesting the infrastructure.  Any number of other institutions could be moved there (maybe CFC?).  And I have not come to the conclusion that RMC should be closed.  Maybe we need both an academy and a college? Maybe we need neither?

Back in the old Cold War days, if you did not pass BOTC, you did not get to RMC.  What if we built a program somewhere between those of Samdhurst and Brittania as a common gateway for both DEO and ROTP? Maybe it is ~20 weeks long and covers everything of BOTC, CAP and duties of a BDF platoon command?


----------



## Lumber (22 Nov 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> Don’t get emotionally attached to sunk costs. The type of crucible training that occurs at Sandhurst or Britannia has been something that happened in Canada at locations other than RMC.  BOTC was run in Chilliwack (a location with much better training real estate) until the base was closed and a much reduced course (perhaps another element of the problem) was launched in St Jean. If you fixate on the idea the the current geography must define the solution, then you are already situating the estimate.  But to placate your concern for sunk-costs anyway, closing RMC does not have to mean divesting the infrastructure.  Any number of other institutions could be moved there (maybe CFC?).  And I have not come to the conclusion that RMC should be closed.  Maybe we need both an academy and a college? Maybe we need neither?
> 
> Back in the old Cold War days, if you did not pass BOTC, you did not get to RMC.  What if we built a program somewhere between those of Samdhurst and Brittania as a common gateway for both DEO and ROTP? Maybe it is ~20 weeks long and covers everything of BOTC, CAP and duties of a BDF platoon command?



All good ideas but what were still trying to get at is "what's the purpose of officers earning degrees at RMC vice civi-u"? What's the real benefit?


----------



## Underway (22 Nov 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> All good ideas but what were still trying to get at is "what's the purpose of officers earning degrees at RMC vice civi-u"? What's the real benefit?



There isn't as much requirement as there used to be.  If they actually aligned the degree courses with career advancement I could see a better use from an undergrad perspective.  Post grad, research and other important functions of a milcol are good enough reasons to keep the institution IMHO.

Suppose you were granted a PLAR for all of your CSE applications courses if you went to milcol (which is only partially done currently because of lack of coordination).  Then you could start your phase VI training 6-8 months before Civi U students who didn't have those courses.  Big advantage to go to RMC and for the navy as they have qualified officers 8 months faster.

With some clever maneuver on behalf of RMC and the training system there could be plenty of similar cross overs.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Nov 2017)

Underway said:
			
		

> Suppose you were granted a PLAR for all of your CSE applications courses if you went to milcol (which is only partially done currently because of lack of coordination).  Then you could start your phase VI training 6-8 months before Civi U students who didn't have those courses.  Big advantage to go to RMC and for the navy as they have qualified officers 8 months faster.



Not faster.  DEO remains much faster from enrol to OFP.


----------



## observor 69 (22 Nov 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> All good ideas but what were still trying to get at is "what's the purpose of officers earning degrees at RMC vice civi-u"? What's the real benefit?



That question I am unable to answer. But I have taken courses at RMC as a NCM and from Queen's U.
My vote is for a ROTP program with candidates attending a reputable Canadian university for their undergraduate degree.


----------



## Lumber (22 Nov 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not faster.  DEO remains much faster from enrol to OFP.



Ugh, yea, but, DEO officers are the _worst_! At least for the first few months/years...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Nov 2017)

All of this talking and I get the feeling JM was right, this has about as much traction as he thought.  Three articles on the news and not a peep more  ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Nov 2017)

Pre-flight said:
			
		

> Seems a bit wasteful to close down a campus they just spent  spend 200 million renovating only to open anynother campus somewhere else when we have shortages in things like army boots, flight suits, and NCDs


...

 8)


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (23 Nov 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> 8)



Agreed, but it happened and is done now.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (23 Nov 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> All good ideas but what were still trying to get at is "what's the purpose of officers earning degrees at RMC vice civi-u"? What's the real benefit?



Exactly.


----------



## medicineman (23 Nov 2017)

Pre-flight said:
			
		

> Seems a bit wasteful to close down a campus they just spent 200 million renovating only to open another campus somewhere else.



In the day, a major capital expenditure was usually the pre-cursor to a closure on a base...

MM


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (23 Nov 2017)

medicineman said:
			
		

> In the day, a major capital expenditure was usually the pre-cursor to a closure on a base...
> 
> MM



A bit cynical, but none-the-less accurate. I remember a nice bit of renovations and construction at CFS St. John's right up to the day they flattened the place and made an armories.


----------



## medicineman (23 Nov 2017)

Pre-flight said:
			
		

> A bit cynical, but none-the-less accurate. I remember a nice bit of renovations and construction at CFS St. John's right up to the day they flattened the place and made an armories.



Happened at Summerside, Calgary and the odd other place during my time...became a standing joke when I was in Kingston, since it was on the chopping block when I got posted there in '95, just ahead of the Calgary closure after something like $16m on some regimental infrastructure for the PPCLI.

MM


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Nov 2017)

We used to say : "If they fix the roof, your doomed as you now have cost them money"


----------



## stoker dave (23 Nov 2017)

Underway said:
			
		

> Post grad, research and other important functions of a milcol are good enough reasons to keep the institution IMHO.



I did my master's degree in engineering at RMC (albeit quite a while ago).  It was a really poor program and I have seen no evidence of improvement since.  I am not convinced that is a reason to keep RMC as it is, although there may be other reasons.


----------



## Journeyman (23 Nov 2017)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The only reason I'm skeptical of this statement is that the argument that the current generation is less suited for military service old and repeated by every generation.


I would agree.....except...

I'd argue that there has been a massive societal shift from my having grown up, playing outside constantly, and a generation that sits at a computer for their entertainment.  Also, it's brutal seeing the level of literacy of these supposed high school graduates, which would have been painfully addressed (literally) by my school teaching grandmother. 

:dunno:


----------



## McG (23 Nov 2017)

I think it is fair to say that every generation is different than the ones preceding it (and some are more different than others). “Different” always includes both better and worse (but there is a tendency for older generations to see the worse more clearly).

If the current generation is substantially different than its predecessors, then maybe the officer production system also needs to be different to accommodate the new “production materiel”.


----------



## Gunner98 (23 Nov 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> I think it is fair to say that every generation is different than the ones preceding it (and some are more different than others). “Different” always includes both better and worse (but there is a tendency for older generations to see the worse more clearly).
> 
> If the current generation is substantially different than its predecessors, then maybe the officer production system also needs to be different to accommodate the new “production materiel”.



I think the current generation's needs have to be addressed not only at RMC but all training establishments.  Isn't that why the CAF created the TDO occupation, which of course was filled with some of our brightest minds :sarcasm:


----------



## Remius (23 Nov 2017)

Entitlement is likely the biggest difference in North American/western society.  The concept of starting at the bottom and working your way up, actually failing at something and learning from it, the need for instant gratification, how easily anything can be replaced rather than be repaired or recycled, or how you can just move to something else if you don't like what you are doing now, etc etc etc.

My grandparents lived through a depression and a world war.  My parents grew up with those hard lessons learned from theirs and benefited from their hard work and strived to make their kids' lives easier.  The kids of those kids have a carefree attitude mostly because their parents never faced real adversity so they never even witnessed it.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Nov 2017)

I would not damn this generation wholesale.

I have two boys in their early 20's. I got engaged with their sport activities (Hockey for one, curling of the other) and their friends. While there is a big difference in their level of physical activities compared to my generation (but then again, what else were we going to do with our time?), I found that their attitude towards the world, hard work and reaching for higher objectives is not that much different from ours. it is just expressed differently because of the social/virtual environment they live in.

I'd like to ask the Senior NCO's and Warrants out here (PO & CPO of us naval people): Do you think the young tradespeople you have seen lately are less willing to work hard and learn than say ten years ago? I bet the answer is: no.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Nov 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I'd like to ask the Senior NCO's and Warrants out here (PO & CPO of us naval people): Do you think the young tradespeople you have seen lately are less willing to work hard and learn than say ten years ago? I bet the answer is: no.



Overall, I would have to say 'yes' but...I've also changed trades and environments.  I find they are generally less disciplined (i.e. "do the right thing, the right way, at the right time, even when no one is looking") and more mentally fragile than when I was that age and in uniform.  They tend to see themselves "ill treated" for no reason, and don't seem to grasp the concept of "not everyone is equal"...because we aren't, not when we are doing the business a military does.  When I was a Cpl/Tpr I didn't expect the same...professional liberties a Sgt or WO got.  Not so much today, IMO.

That is a very general, overall answer from what I've seen over the past decade.  In 2007 I was on staff at CFLRS, today I am the immediate superior to a handful of fairly young Avr's and Cpl's who are recent products of the training systems in the RCAF.


----------



## Loachman (23 Nov 2017)

Pre-flight said:
			
		

> A bit cynical, but none-the-less accurate. I remember a nice bit of renovations and construction at CFS St. John's right up to the day they flattened the place and made an armories.



Brand-new hospital in Lahr...


----------



## dapaterson (23 Nov 2017)

New CFSME and 1 CER facilities at Chilliwack...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Nov 2017)

$11 million all-ranks mess in Summerside...


----------



## Underway (23 Nov 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not faster.  DEO remains much faster from enrol to OFP.



That is true, but ROTP Civi U to ROTP milcol is what we are comparing here.  DEO is an entirely different and cheaper option for the military.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Nov 2017)

Underway said:
			
		

> DEO is  an entirely different and cheaper option for the military.



There. _ THAT _should ensure that the only Officers the CAF gets from here on in are thru DEO.    ;D


----------



## McG (23 Nov 2017)

Underway said:
			
		

> That is true, but ROTP Civi U to ROTP milcol is what we are comparing here.  DEO is an entirely different and cheaper option for the military.


You are situating the estimate.  Maybe we don’t need ROTP of any sort?  If DEO with a big signing bonous can be both cheaper and as effective, they why have ROTP?


----------



## Strike (24 Nov 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> You are situating the estimate.  Maybe we don’t need ROTP of any sort?  If DEO with a big signing bonous can be both cheaper and as effective, they why have ROTP?



Because then you are then also eliminating all those who would not be in a position to pay for their post-secondary education for whatever reason.  Either they don't qualify for enough bursaries or scholarships and/or they are in that grey zone where their parents make too much to allow them to qualify for government aid like OSAP but not enough to pay for schooling.

Not trying to start a debate about how they can get loans like DEOs did.  Just using this as an example.  With ROTP you get someone starting their military career without having to worry about the mountains of debt that can result from a post-secondary education and so they have one less thing to worry about.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (24 Nov 2017)

Strike said:
			
		

> Because then you are then also eliminating all those who would not be in a position to pay for their post-secondary education for whatever reason.  Either they don't qualify for enough bursaries or scholarships and/or they are in that grey zone where their parents make too much to allow them to qualify for government aid like OSAP but not enough to pay for schooling.
> 
> Not trying to start a debate about how they can get loans like DEOs did.  Just using this as an example.  With ROTP you get someone starting their military career without having to worry about the mountains of debt that can result from a post-secondary education and so they have one less thing to worry about.



I mean ROTP through a civilian university is still a thing.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Nov 2017)

Strike said:
			
		

> Because then you are then also eliminating all those who would not be in a position to pay for their post-secondary education for whatever reason.  Either they don't qualify for enough bursaries or scholarships and/or they are in that grey zone where their parents make too much to allow them to qualify for government aid like OSAP but not enough to pay for schooling.
> 
> Not trying to start a debate about how they can get loans like DEOs did.  Just using this as an example.  With ROTP you get someone starting their military career without having to worry about the mountains of debt that can result from a post-secondary education and so they have one less thing to worry about.



Right, it's just the mountains of debt from bad car loans and giant mess bills they'll have to worry about


----------



## Infanteer (24 Nov 2017)

Strike said:
			
		

> Because then you are then also eliminating all those who would not be in a position to pay for their post-secondary education for whatever reason.



If the DND needs to be in the tuition subsidization business, there are easier ways to do it than running its own university.


----------



## CountDC (24 Nov 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Overall, I would have to say 'yes' but...I've also changed trades and environments.  I find they are generally less disciplined (i.e. "do the right thing, the right way, at the right time, even when no one is looking") and more mentally fragile than when I was that age and in uniform.  They tend to see themselves "ill treated" for no reason, and don't seem to grasp the concept of "not everyone is equal"...because we aren't, not when we are doing the business a military does.  When I was a Cpl/Tpr I didn't expect the same...professional liberties a Sgt or WO got.  Not so much today, IMO.
> 
> That is a very general, overall answer from what I've seen over the past decade.  In 2007 I was on staff at CFLRS, today I am the immediate superior to a handful of fairly young Avr's and Cpl's who are recent products of the training systems in the RCAF.



I have to agree.  I see so much sense of entitlement that wasn't there in the past, crying every time someone says something they don't like and orders them to do something. 

Why are so many Generals RMC grads - because they are part of the ring knockers club which takes care of their own?  ie Johnny you are not as good as Ralph but hey you got the ring so I am giving you a higher PER?  just a possible guess as I really can't thing of any other reason right now because I don't see anything else to make them stand out but have seen the club banding at some events.


----------



## Strike (24 Nov 2017)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> If the DND needs to be in the tuition subsidization business, there are easier ways to do it than running its own university.



I was referring more to the thoughts of ROTP being eliminated.


----------



## Lumber (24 Nov 2017)

CountDC said:
			
		

> I have to agree.  I see so much sense of entitlement that wasn't there in the past, crying every time someone says something they don't like and orders them to do something.
> 
> Why are so many Generals RMC grads - because they are part of the ring knockers club which takes care of their own?  ie Johnny you are not as good as Ralph but hey you got the ring so I am giving you a higher PER?  just a possible guess as I really can't thing of any other reason right now because I don't see anything else to make them stand out but have seen the club banding at some events.



I can assure you this does NOT happen. 

RMC grads all KNOW each other; not all RMC grads LIKE each other.

What's far more likely is two officers are friends, but one is ahead of the other, and the senior one gives his friend higher PER scores, or fights harder for him on the merit board. This nepotism has nothing to do with the two of them coming from RMC; it's far more likely they did their subbie tour together and got sh*t faced on George street together.

I personally think the reason there are a larger portion of RMC grads at the top (compared to DEO and civi-U) is because we attend RMC in our formative adult years, and it builds into us a real sense of belonging and ownership over this organization. The idea that we are "soldiers" vice civilians who are working a job as soliders is stronger within RMC grads than it is with the rest. It's not that RMC grads are in any way better that civi-U grads, we're just more invested.

 :2c:


----------



## Blackadder1916 (24 Nov 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> . . .  we're just more invested.



Oh, I thought the bottom line of the OAG report was that "Canada had more invested in RMC types" and hadn't seen a comparable return on that additional investment.


----------



## Remius (24 Nov 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I can assure you this does NOT happen.
> 
> RMC grads all KNOW each other; not all RMC grads LIKE each other.
> 
> ...




Interesting.  How many join for the free education? How many stay on once they graduate? How many then stay on past their first engagement?  I’m curious to see what the breakdown by degree type and profession matches up to that.  Most people I dealt with when they applied for RMC were interested in the free tuition, how long they had to serve after and the doors an RMC degree might open. A few were I interested in careers and I don’t  doubt their investment but I found the DEOs more interested in a career.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (24 Nov 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I personally think the reason there are a larger portion of RMC grads at the top (compared to DEO and civi-U)



Does anyone have stats to back up this assertion?  I know a few Generals who were OCTP......



> because we attend RMC in our formative adult years, and it builds into us a real sense of belonging and ownership over this organization.



I don't know where to start with this one.  Just about all members of the Forces join in their "formative adult years", but only an RMC Grad would express a sense of "ownership over the institution".  Others, like me, actually believe that we serve the organisation (and more importantly its soldiers) vice the other way around.



> The idea that we are "soldiers" vice civilians who are working a job as soliders is stronger within RMC grads than it is with the rest.



Really?  Based on what?  Your couple of years experience in the Navy? Do you even realise how arrogant that sounds?



> It's not that RMC grads are in any way better that civi-U grads,



On this one, we are in full agrement



> we're just more invested.



Sure......


----------



## Lumber (24 Nov 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Does anyone have stats to back up this assertion?  I know a few Generals who were OCTP......
> 
> 
> I don't know where to start with this one.  Just about all members of the Forces join in their "formative adult years", but only an RMC Grad would express a sense of "ownership over the institution".  Others, like me, actually believe that we serve the organisation (and more importantly its soldiers) vice the other way around.
> ...



Let's take it down on a notch there, PPCLI Guy.



First, I started with "I personally think...". The rest is a personal opinion, not based on facts, but just on a gut feeling attempt to explain why a disproportionate number of senior officers are milcol grads.

Second, it's from the report that says that 62% of senior officers are milcol grads.

Third, and most importantly, I'm not painting everyone with the same brush. I _did not_ say the inverse, which is that "non-RMC grads and not invested in the institution". All I said that, across the board, they are getting more officers with a sense of investment from RMC than from civi-U and DEO. How much of a difference? The report says that retention rates among RMC grads are about 10% higher than civi-U and DEO officers. That's it. 10%. That's it. That means that the vast majority of the civi-U and DEO officers are just as invested and committed to the CAF as the RMC grads. I'm simply trying to answer, why even the small the difference?


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Nov 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Let's take it down on a notch there, PPCLI Guy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Based on my unofficial survey during my time at CTC, it's definitely better for your career, as an Infantry Officer anyways, if you're either from Mil Col, or a Franco. 

You can still be awful, and pass. RESO and DEO? You generally have to be twice as good to get half the credit, and they'll still fire you more often


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (24 Nov 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Let's take it down on a notch there, PPCLI Guy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most of the recent RMC grads I've talked to feel more bitter and cynical about their time at RMC than invested in the CAF. It's not a good vibe coming out of that school, your personal attachment aside.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (24 Nov 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Let's take it down on a notch there, PPCLI Guy.



Hmmm.





> First, I started with "I personally think...". The rest is a personal opinion, not based on facts, but just on a gut feeling attempt to explain why a disproportionate number of senior officers are milcol grads.
> 
> Second, it's from the report that says that 62% of senior officers are milcol grads.



Over the last 35 years, what percentage of officer intake has come from MilCol vice other entry systems?


----------



## Infanteer (24 Nov 2017)

I have never once seen consideration of academic background (MilCol/CivU) as a factor in performance/merit discussions.  I'm willing to bet money that "ring-knocking" as a systemic phenomenon is a myth.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Nov 2017)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I have never once seen consideration of academic background (MilCol/CivU) as a factor in performance/merit discussions.  I'm willing to bet money that "ring-knocking" as a systemic phenomenon is a myth.



Well, I know it's only the Washington post, but this guy seems to think differently .... about West Point and other similar US institutions anyways:

"The service academies — the U.S. Military Academy for the Army (West Point), the U.S. Naval Academy, the U.S. Air Force Academy and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy — promise to educate and mold future officers charged with leading the enlisted members of the military.

But they are not the hallowed arbiters of quality promised by their myths. Their traditions mask bloated government money-sucks that consistently underperform. They are centers of nepotism that turn below-average students into average officers. They are indulgences that taxpayers, who fund them, can no longer afford. They’ve outlived their use, and it’s time to shut them down."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-dont-need-west-point/2015/01/23/fa1e1488-a1ef-11e4-9f89-561284a573f8_story.html?utm_term=.9ec5804859a1


----------



## Infanteer (24 Nov 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Well, I know it's only the Washington post, but this guy seems to think differently .... about West Point and other similar US institutions anyways:



Irrelevant.  That's the US military.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (24 Nov 2017)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> daftandbarmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wouldn't say it is totally irrelevant to the discussion since it appears that National Defence's inclination is to make a comparison to foreign military academies when responding to one of the recommendations in the OAG report.



> 6.44 National Defence should explore ways to reduce the Royal Military College of Canada’s operating cost per student and consider reducing the number of programs offered. (6.34–6.43)
> 
> National Defence’s response. Agreed. National Defence recognizes and accepts that there is a premium associated with producing a Royal Military College of Canada graduate. *Our preliminary initial comparison with other allied military institutions indicates that the costs per student are similar to, or less than, those of allied military educational institutions*. We agree that additional review and analysis is required.
> 
> The Special Staff Assistance Visit report recommended targeted investment in key areas. Through further analysis, we will assess the cost structure at the Royal Military College of Canada to ensure it is appropriate given its mandate as a military academic institution.


----------



## ballz (24 Nov 2017)

On RMC helping your career...

RMC does tend to get them while they're super young, which in general helps your career. A second language definitely helps your career, and I don't think any universities outside of RMC literally force you to learn french. I would like to see statistics on how recruitment numbers compare to how many Colonels or Generals come from each entry plan. I suspect the numbers between 18 yr old ROTP Civie U grads and 18 yr old RMCs grads would pan out to a proportional number of generals.

I don't think such a large percentage of people brought through RMC is necessarily good for the CAF at large.... the military, and perhaps even more so in small military's, is an inbred organization. In the private sector, you can have mid-level managers all the way to executives come from completely different industries, and I think this is a positive for any organization. We don't have that benefit in the military (and I'm not saying we should), which causes us to be pretty inbred. I personally don't think it benefits any organization to have too many people that essentially lived life through one perspective from cradle to grave (in terms of their career... 18 being cradle and grave being retirement). For the military, by its very nature, has an astoundingly high amount of leadership whose careers from cradle to grave were in one organization. We train people to drink the kool aid through things like Mil Cols, and I don't think kool aid is good for us.

On getting rid of ROTP altogether...

I think this would be a bad idea. ROTP gives us access to a whole lot of people who come from lower income families. Personally, I think the more of our senior leadership who came from humble beginnings and had to get their hands dirty, the better off we're going to be for it. ROTP gives us a competitive edge from an HR perspective.... there are a lot of people who would not consider the military without it, and while some may see that a slight on those who "just want free tuition," I tend to like attracting people that are willing to get their hands a bit dirty to get something they want. I also believe I did see some numbers at one time that showed a pretty good retention rate for people after they finished their 5-years obligatory service.

Random tangent... I find it pretty frustrating how their seems to be very little data on this stuff. Can we seriously be not monitoring it?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Nov 2017)

The advantage of the MilCol system is a bureaucratic one.  You get four years of French Training which gives you extra points at the boards, you also used to get almost completely trained before you were finished your academic studies which would give you a couplw of extra years in your 20s for career courses, appointments, etc.  

The advantage RMC offers is those who want it gain additional time to complete the requirements of their development periods.  

When we still had OPMEs, I had all my OPME's completed and a BBC French Profile prior to even showing up at Regiment.  This gives RMC cadets a leg up because our meriting system is designed as such.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Nov 2017)

So perhaps we need to radically rethink official bilingualism, and align occupational training to meet the schedules of ROTP - Civ-U students over the summers.  (Which would also align with the P Res training needs).


----------



## Blackadder1916 (24 Nov 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> . . .  I also believe I did see some numbers at one time that showed a pretty good retention rate for people after they finished their 5-years obligatory service.
> 
> Random tangent... I find it pretty frustrating how their seems to be very little data on this stuff. Can we seriously be not monitoring it?



There is likely more current research but this is available for discussion sake.

Review of Attrition and Retention Research for the Canadian Forces
DRDC CORA TM 2008-030 October 2008

http://cradpdf.drdc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc78/p530400.pdf


> 4.2.4 Commissioning Plan
> A 1993 study (Bender et al., 1993) indicated that retention by officers commissioned through the
> Officer Candidate Training Plan (OCTP) was generally higher than for the ROTP or the Direct
> Entry Officer (DEO) plan. Since the CF decided to move towards a degreed officer corps in
> ...


----------



## McG (24 Nov 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> On getting rid of ROTP altogether...
> 
> I think this would be a bad idea. ROTP gives us access to a whole lot of people who come from lower income families. Personally, I think the more of our senior leadership who came from humble beginnings and had to get their hands dirty, the better off we're going to be for it. ROTP gives us a competitive edge from an HR perspective.... there are a lot of people who would not consider the military without it, and while some may see that a slight on those who "just want free tuition," I tend to like attracting people that are willing to get their hands a bit dirty to get something they want.


Are you saying ROTP is the only answer to attracted low income officers?  Have you considered a RESO stystem where officers are put into the PRes and paid when training.  Four months of summer training plus a few evenings and/or weekends a month will go a long way to covering the costs of university.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Nov 2017)

You guys are really shooting blind here....



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I think this would be a bad idea. ROTP gives us access to a whole lot of people who come from lower income families.



Hasty generalization.  Do you have a breakdown in economic background of ROTP candidates to back this claim up?  I ask, because the claim is being made that ROTP = more chances for lower income Canadians to receive a subsidized education.  You could also generalize that most ROTP cadets at RMC are from middle class backgrounds and made a non-economic choice to attend RMC.



> Personally, I think the more of our senior leadership who came from humble beginnings and had to get their hands dirty, the better off we're going to be for it.



Hasty generalization.  What evidence is there for links between competent senior leadership and one's social-economic background?



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> You get four years of French Training which gives you extra points at the boards,



Not completely accurate, as the extra points only come if that training is properly utilized.  I've seen people arrive from RMC with lower profiles (AAA, BAA, etc) while others have come out of local SLT courses we BBB/CBC profiles.



> you also used to get almost completely trained before you were finished your academic studies which would give you a couplw of extra years in your 20s for career courses, appointments, etc.



While true, this "age" advantage is something that ROTP Civilian University also have, as well as those who go through the Reserve system and transfer to the Regular Force after they get their undergraduate degree, so this isn't an specifically an "RMC advantage."



> When we still had OPMEs, I had all my OPME's completed and a BBC French Profile prior to even showing up at Regiment.  This gives RMC cadets a leg up because our meriting system is designed as such.



I was at that point 6 months after arriving at my first Regimental tour, so that leg up doesn't really last for too long.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (24 Nov 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The advantage of the MilCol system is a bureaucratic one.  You get four years of French Training which gives you extra points at the boards, you also used to get almost completely trained before you were finished your academic studies which would give you a couplw of extra years in your 20s for career courses, appointments, etc.
> 
> The advantage RMC offers is those who want it gain additional time to complete the requirements of their development periods.
> 
> When we still had OPMEs, I had all my OPME's completed and a BBC French Profile prior to even showing up at Regiment.  This gives RMC cadets a leg up because our meriting system is designed as such.



I appreciate you note the advantages are beaurocratic but I would add careerist as a better descriptor. 

Completing OPMEs and having a french profile only benefit the individual and not the larger force. If there is no clear stat showing that having RMC actually improves leadership or military performance than how can the expenses be justified? As an example- the RMC sports budget for this FY is $1.3 million. 2 PPCLI's budget is $620,000, so RMC athletics (which are terrible) is worth twice as much than 2 VP (and all the other 1 CMBG units). 

From my instructor days at the RCAS I noted that there was no real difference between RMC and DEO in either performance or maturity.


----------



## ballz (25 Nov 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> Are you saying ROTP is the only answer to attracted low income officers?



No.

However, if you look at the retention rates noted earlier, 40% of ROTP pers planned on leaving after their obligatory service, but in reality only 9% left.... That indicates that the 5 years of obligatory service probably has a huge effect on retention.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Hasty generalization.  Do you have a breakdown in economic background of ROTP candidates to back this claim up?  I ask, because the claim is being made that ROTP = more chances for lower income Canadians to receive a subsidized education.  You could also generalize that most ROTP cadets at RMC are from middle class backgrounds and made a non-economic choice to attend RMC.



I don't even need one for this assertion. If I choose to sell guitars, I have access to the guitar market, regardless of it's size. If I don't sell guitars, I don't have access to that market. Regardless of the demographics that actually take advantage of the ROTP, there is a portion of population, debateable about how large, that cannot afford university. By having the ROTP we have access to that market.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Hasty generalization.  What evidence is there for links between competent senior leadership and one's social-economic background?



I'm not sure about direct links to social-economic background but there is plenty of evidence that a diversity in demographics tends to make organizations more effective. However, what I offered was my personal perspective from my personal experience which was clearly articulated when I disclosed that "Personally, I think..." I don't need to cite literature or a study to express my personal thoughts, if I was citing a reference I wouldn't disclose that the damn assertion is my personal thought. Feel free to not be convinced, feel free to dismiss it as not substantiated, but perhaps you should spend more time at Wilfred Laurier if you think the only discussion points that can be said outloud need to be from peer-reviewed academia. Get off your high horse.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Nov 2017)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I have never once seen consideration of academic background (MilCol/CivU) as a factor in performance/merit discussions.  I'm willing to bet money that "ring-knocking" as a systemic phenomenon is a myth.



I actually only ever saw an "active Ring-Knock" from a DEO bubba from Guelph U, who had a nice ring, but mis-understood that ring-knocker reference/bias/profiling.  There were a bnch of CMC grads (all three) around him, and none was a dick or showed attitude. 

I'd buy what you're selling, Infanteer.

I've seen more dicks associate with them being just that, dicks, at heart, than what military/undergrad finishing school (or not, for OCTP) they attended.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (25 Nov 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I appreciate you note the advantages are beaurocratic but I would add careerist as a better descriptor.
> 
> Completing OPMEs and having a french profile only benefit the individual and not the larger force. If there is no clear stat showing that having RMC actually improves leadership or military performance than how can the expenses be justified? As an example- the RMC sports budget for this FY is $1.3 million. 2 PPCLI's budget is $620,000, so RMC athletics (which are terrible) is worth twice as much than 2 VP (and all the other 1 CMBG units).
> 
> From my instructor days at the RCAS I noted that there was no real difference between RMC and DEO in either performance or maturity.



You'll get no argument from me, I believe in merit based on who you are and what you offer, not the cloth you're cut from.  

RMC gives career advantages, whether it should or not is an entirely different debate.

If we keep RMC, there are significant enhancements that could be made to the program that would have minimal cost and fill out the M part of RMC.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Nov 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> Random tangent... I find it pretty frustrating how their seems to be very little data on this stuff. Can we seriously be not monitoring it?



The folks in DGMPRA have a lot of I/O psychologists - military, retired military, and civilians - who study a bunch of things.  They have much more data (of varying qualities, admittedly) than they will ever be able to assess.  On an annual basis, all the CAF (and DND as well) submit requests for research; they produce reviews & reports that are distributed to sponsors.  There's also a large library available.  Some of it is material only available in one official language, which can cause problems, but there is an index available from them (at least, that's what I recall - I'd have to check in with the Director General there, an officer of The RCR turned PSel, now a "LCol (ret'd), MSc, PhD").


Some of the research is inferential.  So, for example, I doubt there is any comprehensive data on socioeconomic status of ROTP enrolees.  However, using the Canadian postal code of their address on enrolment, coupled with census data by postal code might permit some inferences, given a large enough sample size.  (This is me spitballing near midnight on a Friday, so there's not a whole lot of academic rigour right now).


----------



## Journeyman (25 Nov 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> (This is me spitballing near midnight on a Friday, so there's not a whole lot of academic rigour right now).


That's OK, there's no shortage of people here stating "I think" when it's obvious they mean "I choose to believe."   


/my 'opinion vs _informed_  opinion' hobby-horse


----------



## kev994 (25 Nov 2017)

Some universities are cheaper than others, should we contract to the lowest bidder? Maybe everyone should get an online degree from the University of Phoenix.  Better yet, I got an email from a guy who will sell me a genuine degree based on life experience for $100. #leadingchange


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (25 Nov 2017)

kev994 said:
			
		

> Some universities are cheaper than others, should we contract to the lowest bidder? Maybe everyone should get an online degree from the University of Phoenix.  Better yet, I got an email from a guy who will sell me a genuine degree based on life experience for $100. #leadingchange



My brother has a doctorate in divinity that he paid $25 dollars for, he is allowed to marry people in Louisiana.  Padre material  ;D



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> That's OK, there's no shortage of people here stating "I think" when it's obvious they mean "I choose to believe."
> 
> 
> /my 'opinion vs _informed_  opinion' hobby-horse



That's because nobody on either end of the opinion spectrum wants to do the Mission Analysis/Estimate.

Mission of RMC:  "The mission of the Royal Military College of Canada (RMC) is to produce officers with the mental, physical and linguistic capabilities and the ethical foundation required to lead with distinction in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF)"

We can start by quantifying what exactly we mean by mental, physical, linguistic and ethical foundation.

RMC is my alma matter so I would prefer it doesn't close; however, I acknowledge that the program in its current state needs to be looked at.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Nov 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> My brother has a doctorate in divinity that he paid $25 dollars for, he is allowed to marry people in Louisiana.  Padre material  ;D
> 
> That's because nobody on either end of the opinion spectrum wants to do the Mission Analysis/Estimate.
> 
> ...



Wait now.  Are you implying that we create mission statements and credos that we actually have no intention of living up too ?


----------



## Infanteer (25 Nov 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> Get off your high horse.



It's not a high horse.  You made two claims: that ROTP is useful as tuition subsidization and that socio-economic status has some sort of effect on leadership.  It doesn't matter if you offer the defence of "it is my personal opinion" or not, the claim is either grounded in some sort of fact or its not.

I've seen enough poor decisions made in this military by people relying on opinion, and its bigger brother, "experience."  Like Humphrey mentioned, in any real estimate, we need to start with the facts.  Everything else is static.


----------



## Gunner98 (25 Nov 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Some of the research is inferential.  So, for example, I doubt there is any comprehensive data on socioeconomic status of ROTP enrolees.  However, using the Canadian postal code of their address on enrolment, coupled with census data by postal code might permit some inferences, given a large enough sample size.  (This is me spitballing near midnight on a Friday, so there's not a whole lot of academic rigour right now).



Some data could be quickly gathered by comparing the number of current Col/GOFO who have RMC undergrad degrees with the number who are DEO/ROTP/OCTP.  One Source: http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/about-army/leadership.page, maybe someone else wants to search RCAF and RCN - for giggles.  

CDS over last 35 years:

Gen Vance - RRMC 1986
Gen Natynczyk - RRMC/CMR - 1979
Gen Hillier - allegedly rejected by RMC, went to MUN, grad 1975
Gen Lawson - RMC 1979
Gen Henault - not RMC
Gen Baril - UOttawa 1964
Acting CDS- VAdm Murray - not RMC
Gen Boyle - RMC 1971
Gen de Chastelain - RMC 1960
Adm Anderson - UBC
Gen de Chastelain - RMC 1960
Gen Manson - RMC 1956
Gen Thériault - Sir George Williams University (now Concordia University)
Gen Ramsey Muir Withers - RMC 1952

Some other notables: 
LGen Beare - RMC 1983 - former Comd CEFCOM
LGen Leslie - UOttawa - former Chief of Transformation as well as Chief of Land Staff
LGen Devlin - UWO - 1978 - former Chief of Land Staff 
MGen Howard - RMC 1984

Here is the Army - Current Senior staff of 10 GO - 5 RMC/CMR including:
Army Comd Lieutenant-General P.F. Wynnyk - RMC 1986, 
DComd MGen Turenne - CMR 1989, 
Army COS Brigadier-General M.A.J. Carignan - RMC 1990
2 Div Comd Brigadier-General J.P.H.H. Gosselin - CMR 1988 
4 Div Comd Brigadier-General S.M. Cadden - CMR 1989, 

Major-General S.C. Hetherington - Commander Canadian Army Doctrine and Training Centre Headquarters - Oakville, PoliSci - not RMC
Brigadier-General S. Kelsey - Chief of Staff Army Strategy - OCTP 1988
Brigadier-General R.R.E. MacKenzie - Chief of Staff Army Reserve - UBC 1989
Brigadier-General Trevor Cadieu - Commander 3rd Canadian Division - No info available
Brigadier-General D.A. Macaulay - Commander 5th Canadian Division - OCTP 1989


----------



## McG (25 Nov 2017)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Some data could be quickly gathered by comparing the number of current Col/GOFO who have RMC undergrad degrees with the number who are DEO/ROTP/OCTP.  One Source: http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/about-army/leadership.page, maybe someone else wants to search RCAF and RCN - for giggles.


That raw data is barely a start point.  How do you normalize it against the original inputs ... for whatever percentage of today’s generals are RMC grads, what percentage of officer production was RMC (or other mil col) when today’s generals were themselves in the training system?

Raw numbers have a dangerous ability to facilitate confirmation biases or to just simply lead to wrong conclusions.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Nov 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The folks in DGMPRA have a lot of I/O psychologists - military, retired military, and civilians - who study a bunch of things.  They have much more data (of varying qualities, admittedly) than they will ever be able to assess.  On an annual basis, all the CAF (and DND as well) submit requests for research; they produce reviews & reports that are distributed to sponsors.  There's also a large library available.  Some of it is material only available in one official language, which can cause problems, but there is an index available from them (at least, that's what I recall - I'd have to check in with the Director General there, an officer of The RCR turned PSel, now a "LCol (ret'd), MSc, PhD").
> 
> 
> Some of the research is inferential.  So, for example, I doubt there is any comprehensive data on socioeconomic status of ROTP enrolees.  However, using the Canadian postal code of their address on enrolment, coupled with census data by postal code might permit some inferences, given a large enough sample size.  (This is me spitballing near midnight on a Friday, so there's not a whole lot of academic rigour right now).



Slight tangentially, socio-economically, the CAF Officer Corps is far less diverse than the British Army IMHO. I find this deliciously ironic, of course, as we are supposed to be the great 'social melting pot'.

For example, I had a guy in my intake at Sandhurst whose Grand dad owned the Bank of Scotland, as well as a guy who had been a bouncer in Glasgow nightclubs. We even had red heads (e.g., Prince Harry). This socio-economic diversity helps make the British Army a more 'wholly owned' subsidiary of the British people, of course.

Canada? I don't see many kids joining up who are connected to the various seats of industrial and political power in this country. No one I know who could be classified as a 'socio-economic elite' would ever counsel their kids to join the CAF, sadly. 

This is a leadership failure of the highest order, of course, which only serves to further distance a military from its most important support base: the people it serves.


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Nov 2017)

In general you are correct, although there are a few exceptions. I once was introduced to an officer in the reserve battalion of the Royal Highland Regiment of Canada named Redpath. In the regular force there was a Patricia officer whose family owned (I think) Sobeys and whose father had been the CEO of British Aerospace while Andrew Leslie, whose two grandfathers both had served as MND, is a gunner.


----------



## GR66 (25 Nov 2017)

My uncle (son of an orphaned, immigrant Scottish baker) served in the Black Watch before and during WWII with Bill Molson.  My Dad remembers Bill visiting the house before the war.  The class distinctions didn't seem to matter.

Maybe part of the difference between the Canadian and British Armies is the difference of class mobility between the two countries.  Canada has very few true "old money" families.  In days past I think you did see members of those families (like in Britain) serving in the military as it was seen as an "honourable" profession.  

Perhaps because the "nouveau riche" don't have a "family name" to uphold they don't view military service in the same way.  And since Canadian society is in general much socially mobile than in Britain you don't see the same type of class differences.


----------



## BC Old Guy (25 Nov 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> Are you saying ROTP is the only answer to attracted low income officers?  Have you considered a RESO stystem where officers are put into the PRes and paid when training.  Four months of summer training plus a few evenings and/or weekends a month will go a long way to covering the costs of university.



RESO was implemented as a replacement for the previous Canadian University Officer Training Corp (COTC) at various universities.  

1.   The concept of establishing a COTC type of training has been discussed in at least 2 articles:

a. Spring 2004  - An Officer Training Corps for Canada -  http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo5/no1/doc/ot-fo-eng.pdf  

b.   Apr 2010 - Will Universities salute a new campus corps? - https://www.universityaffairs.ca/features/feature-article/will-universities-salute-a-new-campus-corps/  

Both provide interesting views.  So far the CAF has not seen fit to follow-up on these ideas. I've worked with and for individuals that came through the COTC system, and appreciate the dedication that graduates of the COTC have for the program.  Some followed up their COTC program to serve with a Reserve unit, or to become a Reg F officer.  Most did not.  

-Care would be needed in setting up a new COTC-like program, to meet the requirements for officer production.

2.     As a former RSS officer, (3 years, Ont, early 80s) and as a leader in a Reserve unit (5 years, BC, mid-00s), I would have concerns about adding to, or depending on, RESO to provide the officers required for the CAF.  

- Reserve units have a lot on their plate, and their ability to deliver quality programs, for their own soldiers depends on dedicated and willing leadership.  

-Currently, most units have a limit of 2 vacancies per year for officer intake.   This intake is required to build the leadership for the future especially at the Captain and Major level.  It takes a great deal of effort to select, train, and retain leaders in the Reserves, so any effort in this area needs to have payback  in the form of leadership that stays with to plan, organize, and lead,  interesting and challenging training for the unit's members, in a resource constrained system.

-With care, effort and resources, the program could be made to work.  However, I am skeptical about CAF leadership devoting the people, time and equipment and funding needed to set up the system, so it would successfully meet the requirements currently met by ROTP (civvy-U and RMC).

(edited to completed my discussion - seems I don't contribute enough!)

BCOG


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Nov 2017)

Interesting discussion.The US armed forces uses the following sources for officers military academy,ROTC, OCS and direct appointments. Those with a college degree but didnt attend ROTC can apply for OCS.


----------



## ballz (26 Nov 2017)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It's not a high horse.  You made two claims: that ROTP is useful as tuition subsidization and that socio-economic status has some sort of effect on leadership.  It doesn't matter if you offer the defence of "it is my personal opinion" or not, the claim is either grounded in some sort of fact or its not.



Actually, I made about three actual "claims" and gave three personal thoughts in that one paragraph. I'm not particularly sure why you have chosen the one claim or the one particular thought out of the bunch to be calling "hasty generalizations" over the others.

I've addressed the one that's an actual claim of fact. You spotted it, questioned it, and I provided reasoning. If you need empirical data to confirm for you that "ROTP gives us access to a whole lot of people who come from lower income families" that we would otherwise (barring some other subsidized education plan) not have, then that's your prerogative, it's up to you to set your own standards for what it takes to be convinced. However, the post was not a persuasive essay, I didn't write it with the intention of persuading anybody and I couldn't care less if you are not convinced by the reasoning alone.

As for the second point you picked out, "my personal opinion" was not meant as a defence, if you think I feel the need to defend myself for stating an opinion after explicitly stating that it just that, you're very much wrong. I just thought you must have missed the part where it was explicitly stated that it was just a personal thought of mine, based on you interpreting it as a "claim." But sure, if it settles this banter, it is not a thought I have formed based on hard empirical evidence or statistical analysis. Again, it was not meant to be an assertion of fact, if it was I wouldn't have said that it's just a personal thought.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> The folks in DGMPRA have a lot of I/O psychologists - military, retired military, and civilians - who study a bunch of things.  They have much more data (of varying qualities, admittedly) than they will ever be able to assess.  On an annual basis, all the CAF (and DND as well) submit requests for research; they produce reviews & reports that are distributed to sponsors.  There's also a large library available.  Some of it is material only available in one official language, which can cause problems, but there is an index available from them (at least, that's what I recall - I'd have to check in with the Director General there, an officer of The RCR turned PSel, now a "LCol (ret'd), MSc, PhD").
> 
> 
> Some of the research is inferential.  So, for example, I doubt there is any comprehensive data on socioeconomic status of ROTP enrolees.  However, using the Canadian postal code of their address on enrolment, coupled with census data by postal code might permit some inferences, given a large enough sample size.  (This is me spitballing near midnight on a Friday, so there's not a whole lot of academic rigour right now).



While the topic at hand turned to demographics and such... but what I was thinking when I had said that are stats on the various entry plans and their successes / failures etc. Or for example, 1 out X recruits makes it to OFP, 1 out of Y recruits from ROTP / RMC / DEO / etc, retention rates, etc., historical intake through each plan, etc... I would think this kind of data is well-tracked by the HR pers.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Nov 2017)

Attrition rates are tracked through the pers production pipeline,  although you need to be precise in any request; someone whose pilot career ends when their final landing does not include lowering gear may shows up in the report as a successful PAO, for example.


----------



## Lumber (26 Nov 2017)

Pre-flight said:
			
		

> Most of the recent RMC grads I've talked to feel more bitter and cynical about their time at RMC than invested in the CAF. It's not a good vibe coming out of that school, your personal attachment aside.



lol. That's not a recent thing; it's part of the experience. Misery loves company and create lasting bonds.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter if you offer the defence of "it is my personal opinion" or not, the claim is either grounded in some sort of fact or its not.



I respectfully disagree. This is a complex issue, and not every issue can be firmly solved by facts; this is socio-economics and psychology, and a lot of "opinion" (supported by facts) goes into these field. 

You're right that "that's my opinion" is not a valid defence if I am asserting something to be true, and not inviting others to question my assertions. However, if I acknowledge (either explicitly or implicitly) that I am merely making my best guess at presenting a root cause to a complex problem, then hells yes I can say "this is my opinion".

"Based on my experience and what facts I do have, I posit this to be a potential cause. Please, let's discuss." In my opinion , that's a perfectly acceptable way to discuss things, and that's essentially what half this thread has been. The other half has been criticisms of those opinions, not so much on their merits, but on the basis that we're not all physiology experts with a treasure trove of empirical HR data. 

If I had said "More senior officers are milcol grads because RMC produces better officers, and I don't care what the report says about officers of various intake streams being equal in performance metrics, that is just my opinion", then you can come down hard on me, because I'm clearly stating a rejection of verified and available facts on the basis that it is my opinion. If we don't have enough facts, we're just going to have to keep guessing and debating.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (26 Nov 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Slight tangentially, socio-economically, the CAF Officer Corps is far less diverse than the British Army IMHO. I find this deliciously ironic, of course, as we are supposed to be the great 'social melting pot'.
> 
> For example, I had a guy in my intake at Sandhurst whose Grand dad owned the Bank of Scotland, as well as a guy who had been a bouncer in Glasgow nightclubs. We even had red heads (e.g., Prince Harry). This socio-economic diversity helps make the British Army a more 'wholly owned' subsidiary of the British people, of course.
> 
> ...



Agreed. Case in point, myself. Joined the British Army at 21 with a smattering of Grade 11 credits (no grade 12). Someone noticed some potential during my initial training and recommended me for the Regular Commissions Board, I did the pre-board, and was placed on a 12 week Potential Officers Course at Worthy Down with another Canadian High School dropout, an Australian Guardsman, a South African from the Adjutant General Corps, a "braveheart" jock from the Kings Own Scottish Borderers, and a number of other 'Other Ranks' for a grooming course for Sandhurst. Admittedly, my heart wasn't in it and I didn't do well enough at RCB to go onto Sandhurst but a number of my peers did, the other Canadian dropout is now a Major and OC of one of the EOD Squadrons in the Royal Engineers, the aussie went on to be a Major in the Aussie Army. Point being, I didn't see that level of class mobility in the CF, yes there is the UTPNCM program but I don't recall seeing anyone actually get accepted, and I only saw one CFR, equivalent to the UK's Late Entry commission. The lunacy of the Canadian commissioning system is that other Canadian cannot move home and conduct a lateral transfer......he doesn't have a degree..... But I may be digressing.


----------



## Lumber (26 Nov 2017)

Now, once again, I will state my opinion on the senior leadership question. 

The report claims that 50% of the _current _ intake is from DEO officers. This means that today, some level less than 50% is made up of RMC grads and the rest are ROTP civi-U, CFR, UTPNCM, and CEOTP. It will be interesting to see in 20 years what portion of our senior officers are RMC grads.

Alas, to answer why 62% of our _current _ senior office corp is made up of milcol grads, we need to look into the past, and I wish we had the data for this. I imagine that when we had 3 milcols open before 1995, that the proportion of the officer corps made up of milcol grads was higher than it is today. Whatever the number was 20-25-30 years ago, if it is less than 62% (which I suspect it was), then a disproportionate number of the senior officer corps came from milcols. 

If, as the report suggests, both milcol grads and officers from other entry schemes perform at the same level, than I can only imagine the reason for the disproportion is either:
A. Milcol grads enjoy being in the military more (or the inverse, that is, non-milcol grads dislike being in the military more);
B. Nepotism.

Now, I've seen examples of nepotism in the military, but as I've said earlier, the examples I've seen have been between friends, and not everyone who went to milcol together are "automatically" friends, nor do we automatically look out for each other. 

So, I would say it is more likely A. Everything we do in life is based on self-interest, and apparently, if you rule out milcol centric nepotism, it has been in the self-interest of a greater number of milcol grads to stay in the military than non-milcol grads. Why is this? You could isolate their self-interest a number of ways. Why do they enjoy the military more? Do they get along with people in the military more? Do they see greater opportunity for career growth? Do they feel more a part of the institution? Do they get more respect for having gone to milcol? Do they find it easier working in the military structure? Do they find it easier to socialize, network, and work with the rest of the military community? 

It could be one, or more, or all of these, but _my opinion_ is that whatever the prime reason or reasons, they stem from the influence RMC (or CMR or RRMC) had on them, and more specially, I believe that milcol had a greater influence on their sense of belonging to the institution than going to civi-U (either ROTP or DEO), and this sense of belonging is further reinforced by the social aspect of having attended milcol; we run into former cadets all the time, and this reinforces our sense of belonging to this "community".

For those who may find my words insensitive, I once again stress that I am *not* saying that _non-milcol_ grads lack a sense "immersion" or "belonging" with the CAF. Across the board, there are those that do, and those that don't, and I'm just saying that a small percentage more were milcol grads.

This is my opinion, and I'm leaving it open for debate. It's based on whatever I could glean from the report, my experience, and whatever logical and rationale I could throw in.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Nov 2017)

Interesting.  Is it possible that non-MilCol (DEO, ROTP-Civy U) individual have greater mobility due to a greater social network built outside the CAF?  Or, in other words, MilCol are not necessarily more vested, but less connected and less able to transition out?  Is it that they belong to the CAF, or that they don't belong to other, larger groups?

There are implications to that suggestion - a risk of increased dislocation between the CAF and Canadian society writ large.  Risk that rather than obtaining the best and brightest to command, that we're getting those with the least ability to cope outside a heavily regimented organization, with the least visibility and awareness to introduce transformational change.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (26 Nov 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Now, once again, I will state my opinion on the senior leadership question.
> 
> The report claims that 50% of the _current _ intake is from DEO officers. This means that today, some level less than 50% is made up of RMC grads and the rest are ROTP civi-U, CFR, UTPNCM, and CEOTP. It will be interesting to see in 20 years what portion of our senior officers are RMC grads.
> 
> ...



Although you make a few decent inferences, I think that you are misreading the available factors.

The stat you have is that 62% of the senior officers are MilCol grads. While all senior officers have clearly stayed in the CAF beyond the nine-year mark, not all officers who stay for 20+ years become senior officers. The stat you have has nothing to say about retention or motivation. I think that much of your post is you thinking aloud to defend your university. 

We will see variation in population percentages due to variances in past intakes (I call it the pig in the python) as the present military population is a prisoner of past decisions. We didn;t have enough Sgts/Capts in 2006 because we didn't enrol them as recruits in 1994. Of course we overcorrected with hiring/promotions. Park that. When I was a new subbie at the Regiment (1997) virtually all the officer intakes of the early/mid-nineties had been ROTP (to keep the Colleges open), so virtually all of the subbies were MilCol/ROTP officers. By 2005 it was more mixed with closer to a 50/50 split between ROTP/DEO. Nevertheless, when I was a senior officer at the Regt in 2012 virtually all of my fellow officers were MilCol/ROTP as the eligible population was still that one from 1997. The proportion will change as the population split moves through.

The report on RMC might make you uncomfortable - that's OK. 

Cheers,

T2B


----------



## Infanteer (26 Nov 2017)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> When I was a new subbie at the Regiment (1997) virtually all the officer intakes of the early/mid-nineties had been ROTP (to keep the Colleges open), so virtually all of the subbies were MilCol/ROTP officers. By 2005 it was more mixed with closer to a 50/50 split between ROTP/DEO. Nevertheless, when I was a senior officer at the Regt in 2012 virtually all of my fellow officers were MilCol/ROTP as the eligible population was still that one from 1997. The proportion will change as the population split moves through.



Oh man.  Someone introducing evidence....


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (26 Nov 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Interesting.  Is it possible that non-MilCol (DEO, ROTP-Civy U) individual have greater mobility due to a greater social network built outside the CAF?  Or, in other words, MilCol are not necessarily more vested, but less connected and less able to transition out?  Is it that they belong to the CAF, or that they don't belong to other, larger groups?
> 
> There are implications to that suggestion - a risk of increased dislocation between the CAF and Canadian society writ large.  Risk that rather than obtaining the best and brightest to command, that we're getting those with the least ability to cope outside a heavily regimented organization, with the least visibility and awareness to introduce transformational change.



An interesting question. Can someone without experience outside the CAF, particularly RMC grads who may never have even worked a civilian job, be transformational? Does this then have the potential to add to organizational issues such as op honour? If I remember correctly there were issues with a speaker at RMC and the "Hop-onher" issue. Of cadets have issues at that age than can they be a xpected to change to reflect society? 

I am a DEO and admittedly glad to be so. My university days allowed me to meet a wide swathe of people and form distinct opinions. I wonder if RMC students have the same opportunity and if having a large percentage of our senior officers of the future taken out of the society they serve doesn't hurt their ability to understand that society.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Nov 2017)

GR66 said:
			
		

> My uncle (son of an orphaned, immigrant Scottish baker) served in the Black Watch before and during WWII with Bill Molson.  My Dad remembers Bill visiting the house before the war.  The class distinctions didn't seem to matter.
> 
> Maybe part of the difference between the Canadian and British Armies is the difference of class mobility between the two countries.  Canada has very few true "old money" families.  In days past I think you did see members of those families (like in Britain) serving in the military as it was seen as an "honourable" profession.
> 
> Perhaps because the "nouveau riche" don't have a "family name" to uphold they don't view military service in the same way.  And since Canadian society is in general much socially mobile than in Britain you don't see the same type of class differences.



I would say this has more to do with the Regular Force having little to do with this segment of society.  We don't engage them so they don't engage us.  We would rather have Rick Mercer as an honourary than somone with some actual money and power.

Plus flaunting the family name is very uncanadian.


----------



## mariomike (27 Nov 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Can someone without experience outside the CAF, particularly RMC grads who may never have even worked a civilian job, be transformational?



Should the CAF be the second ( third, fourth... ) career of an individual?
I ask because the PRes was my first and last part-time job, and my career was my first and last full-time job. 

Are young people with limited life experience more easily "moldable", and less likely to question authority, than older individuals?

By hiring younger people, perhaps the CAF secures more chances that those individuals will have accumulated less "baggage" than older recruits.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (27 Nov 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Is switching from job to job always seen as a positive?
> I'm asking because the PRes was my first and last part-time job, and my career was my first and last full-time job.
> 
> Should the CAF be the second ( third, fourth... ) career of an individual?
> ...



I believe that life experience, particularly life experience within the culture and society is neccessaryparticularly for a career military person and that a lack of understanding of the society one lives in can have significant issues for the organization. Where this becomes an issue is in the growing civilian-military gap, which admittedly has largely been studied/discussed in the US vice Canada. However, shades of the gap can be seen in our own military (arguably are more apparent with the difference in cultural views of military service). The attached links provide some reading material of much that is available.

The gap has roots in both military and civilian sides. As noted by Lt. Gen Dave Barno, "“troops and their families live and work on massive military bases, separated geographically, socially, and economically from the society they serve.” He also stated that “the military’s self-imposed isolation doesn’t encourage civilian understanding, and it makes it difficult for veterans and their families to navigate the outside world.” Moreover, as the members of the military are self-selecting, they tend to have a sense of moral arrogance and moral superiority (http://taskandpurpose.com/building-connections-conversation-review-new-film-civilian-military-divide/). This sense of exclusivity and being "special" further creates a divide between the military and civilian classes.

On the flip side, the lack of military presence in civilian universities, including Harvard and Columbia, when ROTC programs were cancelled in the 1960's has created a situation where the academic divide between the military and civilian academia grew. 

In terms of the CAF, the demographics of the force must also be considered. It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that the CAF continues to be largely a white male dominated institution with numbers far outside the society. To this end, in 2008 85.3% of the total force was male and only 6.4% of the forces were visible minority (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2008107/pdf/10657-eng.pdf). The reserves had a larger proportion of minorities, which is not surprising, meaning the regular force had a total of 4.5% visible minority, with only 3.4% of officers being visible minorities at that time. The bulk of the majority come from rural or small urban centres (Tracey Wait, Canadian Demographic and Social Values at a Glance: Impact on Strategic HR Planning (Ottawa, Canada: Department of National Defence, 2002) so tend to be more homogeneous in thought than those from larger urban centres with more exposure to different cultures. So, with the volunteer force it is arguable whether the CAF has ever been truly reflective of Canadian society due to the recruiting patters of the force.

So, how does this all apply to RMC? The segregation of military leaders, who by our own leadership doctrine we want to be _transformational_ has the double edged sword of removing persons from that society at a young age and indoctrinating them into the military way of thinking. On the surface this would seem to be a largely positive thing. However, this contributes to further distancing the future officers from the population that they represent and creating a "warrior caste". Further, as noted, the majority of the force is still represented by a relatively homogeneous group within Canadian society who largely have similar socio-economic backgrounds and belief systems. This further separates the officer corps from society, particularly when they are grouped together to reinforce the beliefs that they arrived to RMC with. As the individuals are _generally_ from the same background and have the same beliefs than how can they be expected to represent the larger Canadian society? How can they be expected to be transformational and move the CAF to represent a society they themselves largely don't understand since they spent the bulk of their time isolated at RMC and Gagetown/Borden/Portage-la-Prairie/Esquimalt? And conversely, how do we expect the larger society, including academic society, to understand the military when there is little to no presence on civilian campuses? Situations like the WLU one seen recently are the flip side of the isolation of ideas and I would argue a similar dynamic in RMC, where a feminist presenter can be booed and harangued by a largely male audience with little to no ramifications (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/royal-military-college-cadets-struggled-with-questions-of-sexual-consent-educator-1.3083831). So, do we want future leaders who can be "molded" into the military or do we want future leaders who understand their society and can make decisions based on life experience? I argue the latter. Having officers, and by extension, a CAF that reflects Canadian society we strengthen the military, reduce the civilian-military divide, and improve our effectiveness by drawing in more diverse groups. This must be seen as a positive. I dont believe that we will ever get there by segregating the bulk of the officer corps in one institution.

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo8/no3/jung-eng.asp

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/287817-the-overlooked-civilian-military-divide

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-warrior-main-20150524-story.html#page=1

http://taskandpurpose.com/unpacking-civilian-military-divide/


----------



## mariomike (27 Nov 2017)

For reference to the discussion. Does not say what the average age of CAF recruits is in 2017.

"In 1981, the average age of a CF recruit was 20; in 1999 it was 23; in 2002 it climbed to 24.5 As a result, as of April 30, 2004, only 802 of 8155 Regular Force members at the Private Recruit and Private Basic level, and only 403 of 1780 Regular Force Officer Cadets, were under the age of 20."
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=new-compulsory-retirement-age-for-the-cf/hnocfnhk

One thing I would say about starting the CAF, or any career, while young. The sooner you can max-out your pension, the sooner you can get out.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Nov 2017)

[quote author=mariomike]

By hiring younger people, perhaps the CAF secures more chances that those individuals will have accumulated less "baggage" than older recruits.
[/quote]

I'd argue schools today (specifically what teachers seem to push on students) seem to have younger people graduating with quite a bit of baggage already.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/j5jzvp/laurier-university-apologizes-to-ta-for-jordan-peterson-censorship-drama


----------



## mariomike (27 Nov 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'd argue schools today (specifically what teachers seem to push on students) seem to have younger people graduating with quite a bit of baggage already.
> 
> https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/j5jzvp/laurier-university-apologizes-to-ta-for-jordan-peterson-censorship-drama



Perhaps uniformed "in house" training by the employer may not be such a bad idea?


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (27 Nov 2017)

Personally I have a belief that most of the issues stemming from "the new generation" is older folks with preconceived notions of how bad the new generation is.

In my previous army NCO life, I had a troop of almost 50. Except for a few I could count on one hand, they were exceptionally hard working, intelligent and all in all excellent workers. The majority were in their early 20s so basically all "millennials". They nearly all were very mission/goal focused, it was a hugely high tempo section in a high tempo unit, and worked as a team, independently and approached problems with a strong desire to "do the job right".

Maybe my experience was abnormal, and I just lucked in 50 times over, or maybe I treated them like people, gave feedback and didn't dismiss them all just because of their birthdate.  

Same goes for RMC, when I worked there the cadets I did talk to seemed very motivated, they seemed quite accomplished for how young they were and really did seem like the all in all excellent officer candidates. Personally from my view, it wasn't the quality of the candidate coming out of the recruiting system that was the problem, it was dated mentalities and a lack of focus on how they wanted to train these cadets.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Nov 2017)

My observation of millennials is that the motivated ones are very, very switched on, far more than my generation. However the ones that are not are really bad. There seems to be very little "middle ground" which my generation was the majority.


----------



## Remius (27 Nov 2017)

Pre-flight said:
			
		

> Personally I have a belief that most of the issues stemming from "the new generation" is older folks with preconceived notions of how bad the new generation is.
> 
> In my previous army NCO life, I had a troop of almost 50. Except for a few I could count on one hand, they were exceptionally hard working, intelligent and all in all excellent workers. The majority were in their early 20s so basically all "millennials". They nearly all were very mission/goal focused, it was a hugely high tempo section in a high tempo unit, and worked as a team, independently and approached problems with a strong desire to "do the job right".
> 
> ...



The traits you describe are actually attributed to them.  However, there is the generation me aspect as well the demand for work versatility and flexibility and more work life balance that might account for those perceptions.


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Nov 2017)

There is nothing wrong with seeking a work-life balance.  In fact, the CAF genrally encourage it.  Yes, they may seem "needy" but if you, to some extent, cater to their needs, you generally get more from them than what you had to give.

It goes back to taking care of your people.  It is just that how your people are and what makes them tick changed.


----------



## ballz (27 Nov 2017)

Since we're on this tangent, I think Simon Sinek has figured out a very key piece of this puzzle... the instant gratification and convenience that our advanced technological world provides... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hER0Qp6QJNU


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Nov 2017)

Part of the issue is not the kids, but the education systems, listening to teachers and kids today, a A mark was a C in previous generations, kids are totally unprepared for university or higher skill functions. Teaching style is geared to girls and not boys. Out here in BC we are teaching a generation that for the most part will end up working for immigrants, because the immigrants have better education and harder work ethic, along with better access to starting capital.


----------



## Lumber (29 Nov 2017)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Although you make a few decent inferences, I think that you are misreading the available factors.
> 
> The stat you have is that 62% of the senior officers are MilCol grads. While all senior officers have clearly stayed in the CAF beyond the nine-year mark, not all officers who stay for 20+ years become senior officers. The stat you have has nothing to say about retention or motivation. I think that much of your post is you thinking aloud to defend your university.
> 
> ...



For the bit in yellow, I never actually said anything to defend RMC, or milcols in general; all I've been doing is trying to come up with a reason that 62% of senior officers are milcol grads.

To _that _end, your post just highlights the lack of hard data on this, and my own lack of experience to speak authoritatively on the matter, and therefore I will differ to your experience. If you're saying that in the mid 90s the proportion of officers who came from milcols was _greater _ than 62%, then we have the opposite result; a disproportionate number of non-milcol grads making up the senior ranks. Although I have to admit, I didn't really follow your first paragraph; if we're trying to examine the path from enrolment to senior officer rank between intake streams, what does the number of career captains matter?


----------



## Lumber (29 Nov 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I believe that life experience, particularly life experience within the culture and society is neccessaryparticularly for a career military person and that a lack of understanding of the society one lives in can have significant issues for the organization. Where this becomes an issue is in the growing civilian-military gap, which admittedly has largely been studied/discussed in the US vice Canada. However, shades of the gap can be seen in our own military (arguably are more apparent with the difference in cultural views of military service). The attached links provide some reading material of much that is available.
> 
> The gap has roots in both military and civilian sides. As noted by Lt. Gen Dave Barno, "“troops and their families live and work on massive military bases, separated geographically, socially, and economically from the society they serve.” He also stated that “the military’s self-imposed isolation doesn’t encourage civilian understanding, and it makes it difficult for veterans and their families to navigate the outside world.” Moreover, as the members of the military are self-selecting, they tend to have a sense of moral arrogance and moral superiority (http://taskandpurpose.com/building-connections-conversation-review-new-film-civilian-military-divide/). This sense of exclusivity and being "special" further creates a divide between the military and civilian classes.
> 
> ...



It sucks having the last post on a page; this was a great post and I don't think anyone has paid much attention to it.

I'm not sure where to start. I was going to first counter that, as a member of the Navy, the navy isn't isolated, we work and live in cities (Victoria, Halifax), and not on large isolated basis in the sticks of Manitoba. However, then I thought about it, and as far as major Canadian cities go, they are pretty homogeneous (7% and 10% visible minority populations, respectively). For comparison, the Canadian average is 19.1%. So, being in the Navy doesn't help with our experience much.

As for the rest, I think these are two separate issues. According to your numbers, the CAF has trouble hiring anything but white males; closing RMC wouldn't solve this. 

So, either close RMC and send all our white males to civi-U and hope that they acclimatize themselves to other cultures; or
Figure out how to hire more women and visible minorities, and send them to RMC (and civi-U) and hope that their unique perspectives change the mold at RMC; or
Figure out how to hire more women and visible minorities, AND close RMC.

Maybe I'm just getting more conservative in my old age, but I'm not sure I want the military to change _that_ much. While I agree, our members need to be more representative of the Canadian population, I must ask, does our military culture need to be more representative of the Canadian culture? Or, are we suppose to have a culture that is different from the mainstream culture, and that is more concrete and unchanging (aside from eliminating aspects of discrimination, and any other negative traits that come up). 

People said on here have said that the predominant up and coming culture in Canada is self-entitled snow-flakes who don't want to work and expect to get everything. If the CAF is supposed to be "representative of the Canadian population", then shouldn't we _allow_ our military culture to evolve similarly?


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (29 Nov 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> People said on here have said that the predominant up and coming culture in Canada is self-entitled snow-flakes who don't want to work and expect to get everything. If the CAF is supposed to be "representative of the Canadian population", then shouldn't we _allow_ our military culture to evolve similarly?



People on here say a lot of things. Personally I think there's a group of dinosaurs that are disappointed they can't (mis)-treat their people in the same manner they were. I don't think it's a problem with the "new generation" but with those dinosaurs who really have no idea how to motivate and lead people, and what's worse, have convinced themselves that everyone else is wrong and their leadership style isn't the problem.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Nov 2017)

Pre-flight said:
			
		

> People on here say a lot of things. Personally I think there's a group of dinosaurs that are disappointed they can't (mis)-treat their people in the same manner they were. I don't think it's a problem with the "new generation" but with those dinosaurs who really have no idea how to motivate and lead people, and what's worse, have convinced themselves that everyone else is wrong and their leadership style isn't the problem.



Yup there's some old and new dinosaurs for sure. There's also a group of leaders who actually give a shit about both the establishment and new members coming in to replace the old who have, through instructing on various courses, watched the changes in the quality and attitudes of new members and speak to it. That doesn't make them power-abusing dinosaurs. 

I've personally seen at least two future officers throw away their potential careers because they had their cell phones taken away during training.  I trust you don't consider that mistreatment  or abuse by instructors do you? 

As well some of the students I had from RMC reported being told by officers there to absolutely not trust or listen to NCOs. I can't imagine that being helpful.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (29 Nov 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> It sucks having the last post on a page; this was a great post and I don't think anyone has paid much attention to it.
> 
> I'm not sure where to start. I was going to first counter that, as a member of the Navy, the navy isn't isolated, we work and live in cities (Victoria, Halifax), and not on large isolated basis in the sticks of Manitoba. However, then I thought about it, and as far as major Canadian cities go, they are pretty homogeneous (7% and 10% visible minority populations, respectively). For comparison, the Canadian average is 19.1%. So, being in the Navy doesn't help with our experience much.
> 
> ...



I think that the recruiting and RMC issue are one and the same. Having the future leader's segregated at a young age and not largely involved in the larger mosaic of society can be seen as a detriment to their personal development of people. However, as I noted, the reverse is also true- not having those officers in civilian institutions also robs those places of contrary and different points of view. Unfortunately in Canada we'll never have enough bulk to have ROTC cadres like in many US universities, but having a military presence to speak for military issues can only help in the discussion and help to offset the overly liberal environments in some places. Like a cultural and academic exchange, which is what universities are supposed to be.

As for representation, there's a way for the military to appeal to people outside of the traditional recruiting base while maintaining military virtues and values. IMHO, closing places such as Calgary, Kapyong Barracks in Winnipeg, Downsview, and London were huge mistakes that were undertaken with little foresight. If we had done the opposite- keep isolated places such as Petawawa and Shilo as training areas and keep garrisons in larger urban centres we would benefit from massive advantages in civilian support (imagine how much easier mental health support would be in metro areas), recruiting (one key reason why minorities don't enter is that they have strong family connections largely rooted in major centres, notably Vancouver and Toronto), and overall visibility. If we maintained a military presence in the larger cities, offset with military presence in universities than we could benefit from the immersion in Canadian society as an institution and perhaps Canadian society could benefit from exposure to military culture. As it is now, we isolate ourselves in our own versions of enclaves.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Nov 2017)

The whole RMC makes you disconnected from society is such a load of baloney it isn't even funny.  It's a stupid argument lacking any sort of substance or facts to back it up.  

Maybe we all just need to go to Queens University, have our parents pay for everything, snort some cocaine at Stages on Monday, and call it a day!?  This sort of lifestyle will definitely produce a superior officer  :nod:.   Lets not pretend that the life skills we are holding up as the reason RMC should be closed are hard to learn or some sort of "voodoo magic".

I've met very few people outside the military that even know how to turn an iron on, much less use one.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Nov 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I've met very few people out*inside* the military that even know how to turn an iron on, much less use one.



#WelcomeToNDHQ


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Nov 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> ...So, how does this all apply to RMC? The segregation of military leaders, who by our own leadership doctrine we want to be _transformational_ has the double edged sword of removing persons from that society at a young age and indoctrinating them into the military way of thinking. On the surface this would seem to be a largely positive thing. However, this contributes to further distancing the future officers from the population that they represent and creating a "warrior caste". Further, as noted, the majority of the force is still represented by a relatively homogeneous group within Canadian society who largely have similar socio-economic backgrounds and belief systems. This further separates the officer corps from society, particularly when they are grouped together to reinforce the beliefs that they arrived to RMC with. As the individuals are _generally_ from the same background and have the same beliefs than how can they be expected to represent the larger Canadian society? How can they be expected to be transformational and move the CAF to represent a society they themselves largely don't understand since they spent the bulk of their time isolated at RMC and Gagetown/Borden/Portage-la-Prairie/Esquimalt? And conversely, how do we expect the larger society, including academic society, to understand the military when there is little to no presence on civilian campuses? Situations like the WLU one seen recently are the flip side of the isolation of ideas and I would argue a similar dynamic in RMC, where a feminist presenter can be booed and harangued by a largely male audience with little to no ramifications (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/royal-military-college-cadets-struggled-with-questions-of-sexual-consent-educator-1.3083831).



Amongst many others, two things to consider:

1) Does Society have an obligation to provide a breadth of its young members to the military if it wishes to be appropriately supported, or must the military force through whatever means, participation of demographics to feed the CAF that would support Society's demands for the military's understanding and support; and 

2) Would it be considered acceptable for a (any) guest speaker to specifically accuse all of the male cadets as being potential rapists, during opening statements?  How privileged should the guest speaker's 'privileged platform' be?  Could not such unjustified accusations in and of themselves be considered sexual harassment and is that acceptable, whether the speaker is "trying to make a point?"  Just wondering.

:2c:

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Journeyman (29 Nov 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> It's a stupid argument lacking any sort of substance or facts to back it up.


#WelcomeToMILNETdotCA...... where simply saying "I think" means:

a)  it's unlikely that the poster is, and 
b)  facts are unnecessary (often because those pesky facts are contrary to the poster's ill-informed opinions)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Nov 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> #WelcomeToNDHQ



:rofl:

that and shoe polish, atrocious dress and deportment at that place.  



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> #WelcomeToMILNETdotCA...... where simply saying "I think" means:
> 
> a)  it's unlikely that the poster is, and
> b)  facts are unnecessary (often because those pesky facts are contrary to the poster's ill-informed opinions)



The worst part about this whole thing is the actual Cadets at RMC get repeatedly thrown under the bus by every arm chair quarterbacking, soapbox standing, RRB SJW out there.  90% of Cadets are just young Canadians that were interested in a military career and signed up.  Not only do they need to worry about enfilade fire from the above groups, they also need to worry about friendly fire from every other member of team blue.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Nov 2017)

I never knew SJWs and radio rebroadcast capabilities.  I thought they just used Twitter...


----------



## medicineman (29 Nov 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I never knew SJWs and radio rebroadcast capabilities.  I thought they just used Twitter...



Twitter is an RRB capability if people keep Retweeting stuff...whether it's truthful or not.

MM


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Nov 2017)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Twitter is an RRB capability if people keep Retweeting stuff...whether it's truthful or not.
> 
> MM



This is my point  ;D

Leading the free world, one tweet at a time  :


----------



## ballz (30 Nov 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where to start. I was going to first counter that, as a member of the Navy, the navy isn't isolated, we work and live in cities (Victoria, Halifax), and not on large isolated basis in the sticks of Manitoba. However, then I thought about it, and as far as major Canadian cities go, they are pretty homogeneous (7% and 10% visible minority populations, respectively). For comparison, the Canadian average is 19.1%. So, being in the Navy doesn't help with our experience much.



*Disclaimer, the following post contains a personal opinion based solely on personal experience. No apologies will be offered if you choose to read it*

Honestly, no matter where you're at in the military, I think most people are kind of isolated from the civilian world to some extent and most don't even realize it. When you're posted to a base in a big city, if you don't have a robust network of family and friends there (and my impression is most people don't when they are posted) you kind of end up with most of your interactions being with DND folk.

My first posting was to Gagetown and I lived in Fredericton for 5 years. I had a civilian girlfriend who grew up there, but outside of that all of my friends naturally became my peers in the Battalion. When I had a release in and was looking to land a job at an accounting firm and started to realize how important networking is in today's labour market, I quickly realized I was actually living in a complete military bubble for the previous 5 years. It was pretty eye-opening.

Now I'm in Edmonton and it's not much different. The one nice thing is the BJJ club I go to 2-3 times a week is almost all civilians as opposed to the one in Fredericton which was mostly CAF members... but ya... mostly military interactions around here for me, even though I do have some family in the city and friends from high school here.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Nov 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> *Disclaimer, the following post contains a personal opinion based solely on personal experience. No apologies will be offered if you choose to read it*
> 
> Honestly, no matter where you're at in the military, I think most people are kind of isolated from the civilian world to some extent and most don't even realize it. When you're posted to a base in a big city, if you don't have a robust network of family and friends there (and my impression is most people don't when they are posted) you kind of end up with most of your interactions being with DND folk.
> 
> ...



I've lived in Victoria for over 20 years and the only time I ever see the Navy in town is Remembrance Day.


----------



## FSTO (30 Nov 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I've lived in Victoria for over 20 years and the only time I ever see the Navy in town is Remembrance Day.



And BOA in May.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (1 Dec 2017)

Stand By to Stand By!

MinDef is in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu this afternoon, at CMR, allegedly (local news radio) to make an announcement about university level training: Read between the lines: CMR is going back to full university status. After all, why correct a mistake (Auditor General Suggests RMC Not Working) when you can compound it!

Allegedly, a second part of the announcement will address a CAF medical facility of some sort also.


----------



## Gunner98 (1 Dec 2017)

The re-opening of CMR is part of the mandate given to MND by PM JT.  The Medical facility will be the similar in nature to what put in place at RMC effective 1 Sep 17.

The re-opening was confirmed on 17 Feb 2017:  http://natoassociation.ca/saint-jean-royal-military-colleges-return-to-university-status/

Sajjan made the announcement during Question Period on Parliament Hill by responding to a question from Liberal MP for Saint-Jean, Jean Rioux  “Today, I have the honor of announcing my intention to return the Royal Military College in Saint-Jean to full university status.” 

It was part of 2015 Conservative Election Platform as well - http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/defence-primer/


----------



## dapaterson (1 Dec 2017)

Strong Secure Engaged initiative #3:

3. Restore the Collège militaire royal in St-Jean as a full degree-granting institution to help prepare the next generation of Canadian Armed Forces leaders.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (1 Dec 2017)

Don't get me wrong, I knew that it was part of the Liberals plan/platform. My point is just, again for that MinDef apparently, a question of timing.

You just got blasted by the Auditor-General about the one college you actually run because it's not working nor economical. Yet, instead of fixing that one first, then moving on to another one, you just go and open a second one right away, with fanfare.

Aren't you setting yourself up for a line of questioning in the House along the theme: "Madam Speaker, the Minister can't run the one college he has properly and now is opening another one. What makes him think he is going to do better with that one?" or "Mister Speaker, when the Minister opens a second university facility right after being told by the AG that the one he already has costs too much and doesn't provide the military with the officers it needs, is the Minister just checking off items from his to-do list for pure political expediency at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer or does he really have a plan to make this one work?"

That's all I am saying (which is why I put the point in this forum).


----------



## captloadie (1 Dec 2017)

Traditionally both CMR and RRMC were more "military" minded than RMC. If, and it is a big if, they return to something similar to the old model, where CMR runs non-engineering programs and devotes more time to the physical fitness and Military pillars of the ROTP program, we may see a better product coming out.

Or we may prove that nothing will change.


----------



## McG (1 Dec 2017)

Why would we restore CMR to being a full university on the heels of the AG saying that the system is twice as expensive for no better an end product?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (1 Dec 2017)

That's exactly my point, particularly as regards the timing of such an announcement. I mean, do the Libs really want their DefMin crucified?  ???


----------



## McG (1 Dec 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That's exactly my point, particularly as regards the timing of such an announcement. I mean, do the Libs really want their DefMin crucified?  ???


... again

But they probably don’t have to worry because I imagine the Conservatives will suppprt this.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Dec 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> ... again
> 
> But they probably don’t have to worry because _*I imagine the Conservatives will support this*_.




I suspect you're quite right ...


----------



## dimsum (1 Dec 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I've lived in Victoria for over 20 years and the only time I ever see the Navy in town is Remembrance Day.



Yep, and when I was in the Navy in Victoria, I could count on one hand the non-Navy (I didn't know any RCAF or CA folks then) folks I hung around with.  

While BirdGunner's comments re: bases would definitely help, it's true that we pretty much self-segregate unless we really make a push to get "out there", be it sports, hobbies or whatever.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (1 Dec 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Amongst many others, two things to consider:
> 
> 1) Does Society have an obligation to provide a breadth of its young members to the military if it wishes to be appropriately supported, or must the military force through whatever means, participation of demographics to feed the CAF that would support Society's demands for the military's understanding and support; and
> 
> ...



1. In terms of the former, the society feeding a breadth of pers to the army, the only means to do that would be through conscription. If you read the links I posted, or many of the others that are of the same "military-civilian divide" the main premise of many is that a key drawback of the professional force is the loss of diversity and the creation of a warrior caste (which is a seperate debate point). However, at a hypothetical level you could argue that either: A) neither case need be true- some form of mutual understanding and promotion would allow more exposure to the military and could increase recruitment amongst different segments of society. Neither side in this case forces anything. or B) The CAF represents Canadian society and not vice versa. A military that believes that society should resemble it has historically been a dangerous thing and has led to military coups. Personally, I go for A, which was the original point. Some form of mutual engagement, even in "soft" ways of just having civilians see military pers regularly and talk over a coffee would be beneficial. The ability for this to occur in the largest Canadian urban centres is minimal. For example- years ago I was working at the booth of the Royal Winter Fair in Toronto. On the way to the Ex I got free coffee at a Timmy's because the worker thought my Navy DEUs (AB at the time) were Metro Police, who got free coffee. At the fair I got multiple surprised people who thought we didn't have a navy and a couple who didn't think we had a military. I also had an 8 year old ask me if I was a veteran (it was remembrance day) so that they could finish a project. Take into account things like the police being called because of reservists doing a BFT and it's clear that the CAF is an alien concept to the GTA and Southern Ontario, which makes up 30% of the Canadian population. How can these people support something in any meaningful way, let alone understand it, if they have zero exposure to it?

2. If Mrs Lalonde started her conversation with an accusation, at what point does that condone RMC cadets, ie- the future leaders of the CAF, acting like a*&holes, stating that alcohol related rape was the woman's fault, telling her that they might listen to her if she "wasnt a woman and a civilian", and cat-calling her LITERALLY RIGHT AFTER THE DESCHAMPS REPORT. i have talked to RMC pers who were there and heard that she was provocative at the beginning, but I disagree that that gives anyone any licence to act the way they did. There were multiple ways they could have dealt with this. The fact that they referenced alcohol related rape and the woman/civilian divide could be seen as a symptom of the larger sickness RMC was being accused of at the time. They had a choice and made the poorest one. Finally, how can we expect civilians, who only get their information and opinions from media and read this article to maintain a positive view of the military as accepting of women. Quick story- when Maj Gen Whitecross came through a co-worker described how her mother cried when she enlisted saying, "you're going to be raped". Is this an isolated case or a wider issue? the fact that several women in the audience had similar stories leads me to believe that it is likely more widespread than we think.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (1 Dec 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I've met very few people outside the military that even know how to turn an iron on, much less use one.



You clearly hang out with either very privileged people or people who purchase wrinkle free pants and shirts. I've met many people in the military with so few life skills that I wonder how they survive and had a Sgt once who had such poor eating and life habits that I felt bad when he was released because I knew he wouldn't find a job in civy world (he didn't). 

To note- I dont believe that RMC makes people isolated from society. I think that having the majority of pers in one area leads to groupthink and ingrained opinions which dont push the organization forward. As the articles say, having military pers on civilian campuses is good for those campuses as well- it's mutually beneficial. I personally feel that RMC would be more beneficial as a Masters to PhD level institution which also housed the CFC and had more of an emphasis on military though and doctrine development. We should be looking for the next Mahan (though his doctrine is largely outdated and ineffective when it was applied) it allowed for thought and discussion on military matters.


----------



## FSTO (1 Dec 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> 1. In terms of the former, the society feeding a breadth of pers to the army, the only means to do that would be through conscription. If you read the links I posted, or many of the others that are of the same "military-civilian divide" the main premise of many is that a key drawback of the professional force is the loss of diversity and the creation of a warrior caste (which is a separate debate point). However, at a hypothetical level you could argue that either: A) neither case need be true- some form of mutual understanding and promotion would allow more exposure to the military and could increase recruitment amongst different segments of society. Neither side in this case forces anything. or B) The CAF represents Canadian society and not vice versa. A military that believes that society should resemble it has historically been a dangerous thing and has led to military coups. Personally, I go for A, which was the original point. Some form of mutual engagement, even in "soft" ways of just having civilians see military pers regularly and talk over a coffee would be beneficial. The ability for this to occur in the largest Canadian urban centres is minimal. For example- years ago I was working at the booth of the Royal Winter Fair in Toronto. On the way to the Ex I got free coffee at a Timmy's because the worker thought my Navy DEUs (AB at the time) were Metro Police, who got free coffee. At the fair I got multiple surprised people who thought we didn't have a navy and a couple who didn't think we had a military. I also had an 8 year old ask me if I was a veteran (it was remembrance day) so that they could finish a project. Take into account things like the police being called because of reservists doing a BFT and it's clear that the CAF is an alien concept to the GTA and Southern Ontario, which makes up 30% of the Canadian population. How can these people support something in any meaningful way, let alone understand it, if they have zero exposure to it?
> 
> 2. If Mrs Lalonde started her conversation with an accusation, at what point does that condone RMC cadets, ie- the future leaders of the CAF, acting like a*&holes, stating that alcohol related rape was the woman's fault, telling her that they might listen to her if she "wasnt a woman and a civilian", and cat-calling her LITERALLY RIGHT AFTER THE DESCHAMPS REPORT. i have talked to RMC pers who were there and heard that she was provocative at the beginning, but I disagree that that gives anyone any licence to act the way they did. There were multiple ways they could have dealt with this. The fact that they referenced alcohol related rape and the woman/civilian divide could be seen as a symptom of the larger sickness RMC was being accused of at the time. They had a choice and made the poorest one. Finally, how can we expect civilians, who only get their information and opinions from media and read this article to maintain a positive view of the military as accepting of women. Quick story- when Maj Gen Whitecross came through a co-worker described how her mother cried when she enlisted saying, "you're going to be raped". Is this an isolated case or a wider issue? the fact that several women in the audience had similar stories leads me to believe that it is likely more widespread than we think.



Horseshit. My daughter joined the Naval Reserve and I had no fear, at all, that she would be harassed. Challenged to push herself to the limits of her abilities yes, but harassed by some idiot? No way, unless he wanted a face full of knuckles followed by charge.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Dec 2017)

I suspect that, as Kirby notes, 'someone' is retaining Mil Col to make sure that we don't produce Officers with a 'Sergeant Major's pace stick in their knapsack'. Well, it seems that you don't need a special institution to do that: you need the right culture:

Canadian Army Officer Training in War

By:  Brigadier General C.L. Kirkby (Ret’d) ca. 1980

1.   After an upbringing in The Permanent Force, service in World War II and during the Korean War (minus combat experience, which is an acknowledged factor), and a normal career in the regular army, I am left with the paraphrased impression that the average Canadian officer carries a sergeant-major’s pacestick in his knapsack; as I consider it an officer’s duty to look up and ahead, rather than down and backwards, this strikes me as a Bad Thing.

2.   I have no doubt that the colonial mind lingers, hopefully not inextinguishably, in Canada and particularly in the defence establishment and this plays it part, but in war and peace Canadian officer training somehow fails all along the line to teach that the thin end of the telescope goes to the eye and that officers of every rank are paid to Think Big (or at least comprehensively), not small.

3.   Let just one continuing lacuna in operational thinking and training suffice as an example:  never or hardly ever has a clear, precise, governing context provided the kind of authoritative envelope within which that essential but rare characteristic – disciplined initiative – can develop and operate.

4.   To base a training system two ranks up, as is a necessity in any army with a clear, dispassionate view of war requirements, a primary factor is confidence:  the confidence of superiors in their own competence; the confidence of superiors in the capacity of their students.  Maybe the first is too much to expect in war, but it shouldn’t be in peace; and the second can to a large extent be imposed by the system, which can also, to a very large degree, ensure its foundations.  On reflection it was probably the lack of this kind of confidence which made the Canadian officer training system so defective in wartime, at least in my experience of it.

5.   After a few weeks in the Horse Palace on the grounds of the Canadian National Exhibition in Toronto and two months of quite conscientious basic training in Orillia, I was sent on a brilliantly conducted and administered assistant instructor’s course in Brockville, a tour de force as far as I could see, on the warrant officer, promoted to Major, who ran it.  He was a mercenary soldier in his element, passing on the knowledge and skill of a lifetime with dedication, precision and complete success.

6.   But what was I, on graduation two or three months later, in the middle of a long war, doing training officers?  Where were the experienced regimental NCOs who should have been there, whether or not they had combat experience at that point?  What I was doing was exemplifying the deliberate degradation of candidates which formed the official attitude of the place.  “I’ll break your ‘earts before you break mine” was the reiterated ultimate of the commander’s communication with the assembled cadets.  “Treat cadets like dirt”, I was ordered regularly:  I didn’t, nor did many of the other assistant instructors, but we were in defiance of the party line.  

7.   The contract between the assistant instructor’s course and the officer training course probably sprang from the fact that the promoted warrant officers who commanded both were confident in teaching NCOs and not teaching officers.  Officers and NCOs function at different levels:  to deliberately place the training and initial orientation of wartime officers in the hands of mercenary NCOs, whatever rank was thrust upon them, was a fundamental mistake, a psychological blunder which still echoes in the Army and in the most sympathetic public perception of it.

8.   Quite suddenly and most fortunately I found myself in the British officer training system.  Whatever I must then have been, however callow, however unpromising, however foreign, I was, to every element of that system, automatically a gentleman, a potential officer to be given every skill time allowed but above all to be made confidant and, subtly, an immediate colleague in the officer corps.  Misdemeanors, while bringing swift punishment, were made to seem a source of disappointment than of vindictive contempt; incomprehension and minor errors were made to seem a failure to use one’s capacity rather than inherent stupidity.  NCOs did NCOs’ work and were obviously amongst the best available:  they knew their place, did their work thoroughly and well while remaining in it and, by doing so, taught cadets the rudiments of their relative positions.  Officers were experienced, comradely and sympathetic, fellows in an honourable estate, encouraging cadets to enter it rather than eyeing them as suspicious and unworthy interlopers.  After nine months in such an environment, I was ready and eager to command soldiers in action:  a thoroughly well considered and carefully conducted system made me so.

9.   What would have been my attitude as a graduate of the Canadian system?  I can’t say and I would offer many good officers insult if I said “awful”, but I can only think it was despite the system that they were good.  On my first morning back as a “Sandhurst Officer”, (a Canadian term at the time), I was sat down in the commandant’s office, given coffee, congratulated, welcomed and assured of the earliest posting to a unit in action.  When I and three companions were shown out by the Adjutant, a large platoon of “Canadian officers”, (another term in use), was brought to attention, acknowledged by the commandant and marched back to the mess.  Our relationship can be imagined.  They loathed the army, were bored stiff by it, couldn’t wait for the war to end so they could escape it and showed no sign of any desire to command.  The system had insulted them:  having seen it in action at Brockville, I wasn’t surprised.

10.   What has periodically bothered me since is that I still hear echoes of that military failure.  While having no connection with RMC and many reservations concerning it, it does seem to provide to the cadets an officer’s environment.  But what they seem to find in the schools in the summer – when they get to soldiering, not academics, is something like my memories of Brockville.  

11.   Now when I hear someone actually considering the training of officers in a new, long war, my experience suddenly bothers me again.  If this hasty and partial paper does nothing else but alert responsible people to the fact that not everything in the Canadian war performance was good and to be perpetuated, it will be useful.  If it can indicate that in the rapid expansion of an officer corps, it is the proper ethos which must be inculcated before all else, I will be delighted, and, of course, if it implies clearly that officer ethos is an essential element of success in war, to be understood, cultivated and sustained, what more could I expect?

https://army.ca/forums/threads/58250.0


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Dec 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> 2. If Mrs Lalonde started her conversation with an accusation, at what point does that condone RMC cadets, ie- the future leaders of the CAF, acting like a*&holes, stating that alcohol related rape was the woman's fault, telling her that they might listen to her if she "wasnt a woman and a civilian", and cat-calling her LITERALLY RIGHT AFTER THE DESCHAMPS REPORT. i have talked to RMC pers who were there and heard that she was provocative at the beginning, but I disagree that that gives anyone any licence to act the way they did. There were multiple ways they could have dealt with this. The fact that they referenced alcohol related rape and the woman/civilian divide could be seen as a symptom of the larger sickness RMC was being accused of at the time. They had a choice and made the poorest one. Finally, how can we expect civilians, who only get their information and opinions from media and read this article to maintain a positive view of the military as accepting of women. Quick story- when Maj Gen Whitecross came through a co-worker described how her mother cried when she enlisted saying, "you're going to be raped". Is this an isolated case or a wider issue? the fact that several women in the audience had similar stories leads me to believe that it is likely more widespread than we think.



Did your RMC pers friends/contacts/acquaintances point out that it was in fact only female cadets who responded and challenged Ms. Lalonde (she's not a Mrs. as you incorrectly state, a detail, but there is difference in the way Mrs. and many Ms. view things) and that the responses were not to the extreme that Ms. Lalonde claimed?  For my part, through second-hand recounting of the proceedings, to include my son, several other male and female cadets I know, and a number of the college senior military staff I've known for decades, all recounted the incident without variation as described above.  That is also why the College now has an SOP of videoing all guest speakers...and it's not for posterity's sake, I would imagine (#jagrecommendations).  That said, BG45, you are certainly entitled to hold whatever impression you wish, regarding both the incident specifically, and the suitability of cadets collected from across the country to capably represent communities from...well, across the country.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Gunner98 (2 Dec 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Well, it seems that you don't need a special institution to do that: you need the right culture:



I completely agree.  Creating that culture is not accomplished with policies and institutions, rather with consistent professional leadership, freedom to report conduct violations without fear of reprisal, and good role models who mentor their peers and subordinates..


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Dec 2017)

[quote author=Bird_Gunner45] 

2. If Mrs Lalonde started her conversation with an accusation . [/QUOTE] 


> There were multiple ways they could have dealt with this.



In somewhat similar circumstances  members of my unit have taken to standing up and leaving the room when we dealing with speakers pushing "all men are abusers" type narrative.  We now no longer have civilian  speakers fromthat organization giving briefs to soldiers.


In my opinion Ms Lalonde got the exact reaction she was hoping to get to push her narrative.


----------



## mike63 (2 Dec 2017)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Horseshit. My daughter joined the Naval Reserve and I had no fear, at all, that she would be harassed. Challenged to push herself to the limits of her abilities yes, but harassed by some idiot? No way, unless he wanted a face full of knuckles followed by charge.



I'm glad you had that kind of confidence in the organization wrt your daughter.  I discouraged by daughter from ever joining, although she pretty much had her mind all ready made up on not wanting to join.  It would have pained me to hear if she would have been sexually harassed or assaulted, mainly because I couldn't have been there to protect her or at the least prevent it from happening.  That and like you, the dude would have been hurt to the point of being medically released because of it, knowing that I would have been charged, I would have made it worth my while!  But that is just a over protective dad talking.


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 Dec 2017)

Mike63 said:
			
		

> I'm glad you had that kind of confidence in the organization wrt your daughter.  I discouraged by daughter from ever joining, although she pretty much had her mind all ready made up on not wanting to join.  It would have pained me to hear if she would have been sexually harassed or assaulted, mainly because I couldn't have been there to protect her or at the least prevent it from happening.  That and like you, the dude would have been hurt to the point of being medically released because of it, knowing that I would have been charged, I would have made it worth my while!  But that is just a over protective dad talking.



I guess the show-biz industry is better.  Or the police forces.   

I think we're a cross-section of the population. The several scandals that are emerging these days just prove this.  We're no better and no worse than most civilian occupations.  We're just more concious and decided to deal with it.


----------



## mike63 (2 Dec 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I guess the show-biz industry is better.  Or the police forces.
> 
> I think we're a cross-section of the population. The several scandals that are emerging these days just prove this.  We're no better and no worse than most civilian occupations.  We're just more concious and decided to deal with it.



I agree with you but, I can't speak of those industries,  I was never part of the show-biz or police forces, I can only speak of what I have seen in my 27 year military career and the past 7 years as a public servant.  My daughter has been employed for the past 10 years at the same hotel chain and not once has she mentioned any type of harassment there, and yes, she would tell me if anything where to happen.

What surprises and angers me is all the briefings, crse's and warnings that have been in place for years now, this behavior is still going on, I have seen it where I am employed now.


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 Dec 2017)

I know several women in the military that had never anything happen to them.  Because it didn't happen to your daughter doesn't mean it didn't happen to others.

Read the news, you'll see why I used those two professions,


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Dec 2017)

Mike63 said:
			
		

> What surprises and angers me is all the briefings, crse's and warnings that have been in place for years now, this behavior is still going on, I have seen it where I am employed now.



Cigarette packages have warnings and there has been a concerted effort for years to stop drunk driving.

Some people will do what they want until they get caught, because some people are idiots.  Punish the idiots, not their whole community.

As long as we have little to no deterrent punishments for sexual misconduct or impaired driving, people will still do it.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Dec 2017)

Pamela Anderson: so right, so not going to come out well from all this due to the 'world owes me' Brigade:

“Don’t go into a hotel room alone. If someone answers a door in a bathrobe, leave. Things that are common sense. But I know Hollywood is very seductive and people want to be famous and sometimes you think you’re going to be safe with an adult in the room.”

Read more at http://www.nme.com/news/pamela-anderson-harvey-weinstein-comments-2167435#y9Thpfbi0wdg7HpP.99


----------



## mike63 (3 Dec 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I know several women in the military that had never anything happen to them.  Because it didn't happen to your daughter doesn't mean it didn't happen to others.
> 
> Read the news, you'll see why I used those two professions,



I too know many women that nothing has happened to them either, but I do know 3 that were victims, that wasn't my point.  You had posted that the military isn't the only place where this crap happens, I was merrily pointing out that my daughter, in the civie world, hadn't ran into that type of situation before.  I completely understand why you picked out those two industries, I wasn't arguing with you.

I read the PM's site once a month, on who is getting charged with what, and there is still many CAF members being charged with harassment and sexual harassment.  I would have liked to believe that with the thought of getting caught, a fine, a reduction in rank and the possibility of release with a record, that alone would stop some people...but I guess I was wrong.


----------



## mike63 (3 Dec 2017)

:cheers:





			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Cigarette packages have warnings and there has been a concerted effort for years to stop drunk driving.
> 
> Some people will do what they want until they get caught, because some people are idiots.  Punish the idiots, not their whole community.
> 
> As long as we have little to no deterrent punishments for sexual misconduct or impaired driving, people will still do it.



I agree.


----------



## sandyson (6 Dec 2017)

Forgive my crudeness but I can't resist. I found the Department responses interesting.  I was not sure if they were kissing the AG's rear or giving him a prostate examination.  After and the timing of the CMR announcement, I know now know which.  Priceless subtlety.


----------



## AKa (8 Dec 2017)

As a charm school graduate, I've never at any point believed that my military school experience made me a better officer than my DEO or ROTC civy U peers.  Actually, it's taken me decades to work through the neuroses that I developed there.  

But I did leave there with a huge network of friends and friendly acquaintances, initially within the military, and now spread throughout the military, public service, and public sector.  Throughout my career, it's amazing how often I've been able to find the SMEs across the environments that I needed to fix problems.  My civilian friends don't seem to have the same breadth of connections from their university years.  

As well, I left CMR as a bilingual Anglophone.  I do believe that CMR was the best place for Anglos to effectively learn French.

Are the military colleges value for money?  I don't think it's clear cut and I can't venture an opinion as I haven't worked with a young milcol officer in decades.  But I do think it's a valuable conversation.

Cheers,

AK


----------



## Journeyman (8 Dec 2017)

AK said:
			
		

> Are the military colleges value for money?  I don't think it's clear cut....


It seems pretty clear to the Auditor General, and to anyone actually having read the report. 

Of course, it doesn't matter since the response to RMC's failed assessment is to double-down with CMR; clearly a better investment than timely procurement.


----------



## Gunner98 (8 Dec 2017)

Sandyson said:
			
		

> Forgive my crudeness but I can't resist. I found the Department responses interesting.  I was not sure if they were kissing the AG's rear or giving him a prostate examination.  After and the timing of the CMR announcement, I know now know which.  Priceless subtlety.



The tone of their response has to do with the time between flash and bang for the AG!  Between the time that the AG started their research and they finally publicly released their recommendations the SSAV occurred.  What is evident in DND's response is - we know, we got this, thanks for stating the obvious, now get out of the construction zone!


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Dec 2017)

AK said:
			
		

> As a charm school graduate, I've never at any point believed that my military school experience made me a better officer than my DEO or ROTC civy U peers.  Actually, it's taken me decades to work through the neuroses that I developed there.
> 
> But I did leave there with a huge network of friends and friendly acquaintances, initially within the military, and now spread throughout the military, public service, and public sector.  Throughout my career, it's amazing how often I've been able to find the SMEs across the environments that I needed to fix problems.  My civilian friends don't seem to have the same breadth of connections from their university years.
> 
> ...



I went to Sandhurst, and Gagetown, and have had similar 'networking' experiences, fortunately, minus the academic trials and tribulations and a few of the psychological after effects - based on what the voices are telling me  ;D


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Dec 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Did your RMC pers friends/contacts/acquaintances point out that it was in fact only female cadets who responded and challenged Ms. Lalonde (she's not a Mrs. as you incorrectly state, a detail, but there is difference in the way Mrs. and many Ms. view things) and that the responses were not to the extreme that Ms. Lalonde claimed?  For my part, through second-hand recounting of the proceedings, to include my son, several other male and female cadets I know, and a number of the college senior military staff I've known for decades, all recounted the incident without variation as described above.  That is also why the College now has an SOP of videoing all guest speakers...and it's not for posterity's sake, I would imagine (#jagrecommendations).  That said, BG45, you are certainly entitled to hold whatever impression you wish, regarding both the incident specifically, and the suitability of cadets collected from across the country to capably represent communities from...well, across the country.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Bit of a necro-post, but the RMC pers I talked to was one of the organizers. What she told me was that there was in fact a mix of males and females with the third year session being the only one which really had a larger percentage of females than males (partially because by that point people were being warned against making a scene according to the SH rep). I'm also aware that the opinion of many was that the comments weren't as bad as what was let on and that perhaps Ms (you're quite right, she isn't married) Lalonde was likely used to speaking to like-minded persons elsewhere and wasn't used to being questioned. They were also upset about losing a weekend after having lost several leading up to this (which, tbh, is a terrible excuse but at least understandable). 

As for letting me have whatever opinion I want, that's very magnanimous of you.


----------

