# Ptes attending PLQ



## Sig_Des (30 Nov 2005)

> CANLANDGEN 007/05
> 221822Z NOV 05
> SUBJ: PLQ (L) SUP - AUTHORITY TO LOAD PTES
> REFS: A. CANLANDGEN 023/03 27 1405Z OCT 03
> ...



What are everyone's thoughts on this...Ptes on PLQ?


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Nov 2005)

Ever hear of the DAPS program?

Delegated Accelerated Promotion System - 1980s

COs could place a Pte on JLC/ISCC and then approve their promotion/appointment direct to MCpl once qualified.

I remember a time when some troops felt that anyone who couldn't make MCpl before they were promoted to Cpl were below par.

In fact, it's still possible:

CFAO 49-4 -- CAREER POLICY NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS REGULAR FORCE
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/049-04_e.asp



> ANNEX B -- ACCELERATED PROMOTION
> 
> GENERAL
> 
> 1. A CO may nominate for accelerated promotion members with outstanding ability, leadership, or supervisory potential. Accelerated promotion to Cpl must be in recognition of demonstrated outstanding performance as a tradesperson, whereas nomination for accelerated appointment to MCpl or above must also recognize leadership potential. *A Pte may be nominated for accelerated promotion to Cpl or appointment to MCpl *but a member of the rank of Cpl or above may be nominated for accelerated promotion only to the next higher rank, including appointment to MCpl.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (30 Nov 2005)

How do we feel about it? Its already a reality in the reserve world.

Im course loaded to begin PLQ on the 20th of December, and im just due to be promoted to Corporal any day now.
From my company, there is myself, another guy who got in on the same bmq I did, one corporal about 3 years, and 5 privates who just finished BIQ in august.

But what can you do when the regiment has a massive shortage of corporals? My company has like 30 privates, 4 corporals, 2 master corporals and 2 sergeants, and already 12 new recruits.... 26 of the 30 privates just finished course in august. What other option does anyone have? There really isnt one, and on the bright side, the young privates cant come out the other end of the course any worse of a soldier and in all likelihood they could learn quite a bit.


----------



## Sig_Des (30 Nov 2005)

Mack674 said:
			
		

> How do we feel about it? Its already a reality in the reserve world.



Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a bad idea, and may actually be doing my PLQ this summer in Shilo.

Generally with the PLQ (L) that's run at the Com Res School, people who successfully pass the course teach one of the basics at the school as soon as they're done.

I know Ptes hav been loaded previously, I was wondering what people thought of the idea, and then I saw the CANLANDGEN


----------



## Pikache (30 Nov 2005)

^Perhaps they'll know more, but do they have the ability to 'lead' at the end of PLQ?

You gotta know how to be a private before you know how to be a corporal or a master corporal.
BIQ taught you the basic skills needed to be a private. Only experience and time in will teach how to be an effective private.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (30 Nov 2005)

RoyalHighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> ^Perhaps they'll know more, but do they have the ability to 'lead' at the end of PLQ?
> 
> You gotta know how to be a private before you know how to be a corporal or a master corporal.
> BIQ taught you the basic skills needed to be a private. Only experience and time in will teach how to be an effective private.



Oh im completely in agreement, but how do you make a bad situation less bad?

the fact of the matter is, the company must send x number of soldiers to fill the PLQ course load and the only troops we have are privates.

We have enough of the right guys currently to keep our heads above water.... there arent any of these young guys who literally just got here leading anybody around yet, but we're one guy getting out or going on call out/regF away from having that happen.

Gotta start somewhere, and I dont like it either.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Nov 2005)

Just because you pass PLQ, doesn't mean you 'will' get promoted.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (30 Nov 2005)

75% of the guys we send on PLQ never go anywhere, they just need to fill the quota.

Thats still the idea... we just dont have the manpower. But hey, if a private or two comes out the other end and did really well and we struck oil somewhere, then all the better.

Like I said, they cant come out any worse. My only fear is that guys start getting bumped up and promoted simply out of a total lack of MCpls.

Another company in my battallion was run strictly against that policy for years... the last 2 years they havnt had any master corporals and refuse to promote or recommend anyone to be promoted that doesnt fit the bill.

Its a tough situation but what else can you do about it other than send the ptes on PLQ and hope for the best?


----------



## PhilB (30 Nov 2005)

I think that this is utter bs for several reasons. 
1) there is no "quota". A unit is allocated positions on a course, it is not a requirment to send someone. If they are unable to fill the slot the position gets sourced to other units.
2) It is bad for other, experienced, troops on that course. The experienced soldiers end up carrying these relativly new privates through the course.
3) Although having the course isnt a gurantee for promotion, if units are desperate enough to send these troops on the course I dont see their leafs being withheld for that long
4) Shitty leaders breed shitty troops. This is just the start of a viscous downward spiral. 
5) Inexperienced troops get less out of the course. They do not have the experience to completely understand what is being taught on the course.

Sorry rant off. I know there are going to be a lot of differed opinion on this topic, just my 2 cents


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (30 Nov 2005)

PhilB said:
			
		

> I think that this is utter bs for several reasons.
> 1) there is no "quota". A unit is allocated positions on a course, it is not a requirment to send someone. If they are unable to fill the slot the position gets sourced to other units.


Thats exactly my point. The units around here are competitive, and our higher ups would rather send ptes on the course than lose the spots on the next go around.


> 2) It is bad for other, experienced, troops on that course. The experienced soldiers end up carrying these relativly new privates through the course.


Yup. It blows. Whats the alternative?


> 3) Although having the course isnt a gurantee for promotion, if units are desperate enough to send these troops on the course I dont see their leafs being withheld for that long


Think again.In my unit, just because you have mod 5 and 6 doesn't mean a thing. If you don't perform, you don't get promoted. 95% of the time, that's been the case since ive been here.


> 4) Shitty leaders breed shitty troops. This is just the start of a viscous downward spiral.


Absolutely, but we still do have a few good leaders, just barely enough to keep everything above water... ideally, these guys stick around long enough to be replaced, and we arent forced to put someone in charge who has no idea what theyre doing.*Ideally*


> 5) Inexperienced troops get less out of the course. They do not have the experience to completely understand what is being taught on the course.


Of course, but they at least learn something. Would you instead of sending brand new out of the box fresh privates, send nobody?

Im not arguing with you guys. Its a shitty situation, but there isnt much you can do about it. We can't make wine out of water.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Nov 2005)

Nothing wrong with aiming for a "fuhrerheer"....


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Nov 2005)

> You gotta know how to be a private before you know how to be a corporal or a master corporal.



Ahmen.

There are some privates who can get out there who do the course without any problems. I've even seen them get top candidate. There are just some reallly good privates out there.

As a rule though I think you should only send corporals. And not just send someone who wants a few months class B or volentell them to go, I'm talking about soldiers who ASK for the course. 

Soldiers NEED to know how to be a good private before jumping into a leader position. The same way they need to know how to be a good corporal before they are a leader. You can see it when you train with them. They have the book smarts to teach classes and their dressed nice but the minute they have to rely on any experienced their screwed- because they have none. They lack the confidence of being around a while and making mistakes.
How can you stand infront of a class and say "In my experience" with 2 or 3 years in the army.

The rank of corporal is given out WAY to easily (in the reserves) to the point where corporals are lacking some very serious basic soldiering skills.

good thread.


----------



## GerryCan (30 Nov 2005)

You have an excellent point there Ghost. It is hard for troops to want to listen to a guy with just a little more time in than them, and with maybe the same amount of experience. But in that sense, a lot of it is all about right place, at the right time, as with any army course. We send a lot of ptes on PLQ. Some of which may not be the best suited, but along the way may pick up one or two really good abilities, thus improving them as a soldier over-all. Or they may never let any of it sink in and stay a cpl forever, either way i don't think it's a bad idea to send Ptes on the course. I think a Pte can go on a leadership course and use the skills they learn on it in other areas than just leading, maybe it will even boost their confidence and make them want to lead, who knows. Again like what was already said, it doesn't mean they're moving straight to MCpl once they pass the course.


----------



## shaboing (30 Nov 2005)

i'm a pte in the res and i'm thinking about starting my leadership courses next summer. personally i think its a golden opportunity for pte's that can handle a leadership position, obviously its not everyones ability to be a natural leader but i know some people have it. i dont believe that sending privates who aren't going to get anything from the situation or arent going to step into the leadership roles when they get back. however there are cpl's that are exactly the same way.... i have been in the army for a year now and there are still plenty of cpl's out there that arent the greatest troops and people fresh off my biq/dp1 inf/whatever they are gonna call it tomorrow are better soldiers. thats about all i can think of at the moment, head cold effecting my point thinking up, haha, i will add more if i think of it


----------



## PteCamp (30 Nov 2005)

I'm a reservist, and after reading this I'm not really sure about how I feel about Ptes going on their PLQ.
I know some people just have that "natural" ability to lead, but there are also some people who are severely lacking at it, and I think it Ptes its hard to tell which one you are so early on in your career. As a Pte you don't get much of a chance to show and grow your leadership abilities. I know as a new Cpl sometimes it's even hard. I know PLQ helps teach you leadership skills, but somethings just can't be taught and are something you just either know or don't. Every leader is different, but I don't think a PLQ course is going to be particularly useful for Ptes.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (30 Nov 2005)

I can't see many privates who only have like, 7 months - a year in could be very successful ... 

A PLQ course is supposed to make leaders out of already experienced troops who are ready and willing to take the next step... you have to learn to crawl before you can walk or run, and most of the guys going on this course are barely out of diapers. Theyre all gung ho and think they are totall capable of being a MCpl.... 

"Do you even know how to set up an arctic tent?"
".... whats an arctic tent? A mod tent?"

"You don't even have any QL4s...."
"What's a QL4?"

Seriously.... im not criticizing any of these guys' ability to perform, and in a few years some of these guys will probobly be pretty good, but the fact of the matter is that if you just learned how to play yesterday, you can't be team captain, im sorry.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (30 Nov 2005)

This is an interesting thread.

I was a private when I attended my block 1 CLC and then a year later, I went to the block 2 as a Cpl.   By the time I finished the CLC, I had two and half years time in service and had been on numerous exercises and felt that I had a fair bit of experience.   I did not excel at the block 2 although I was able to get through it without any major difficulties.   I can't say that I learned much about leadership though.   I am told today's curriculum is far better at teaching leadership attributes and techniques than back in 1991/92.   One thing the CLC taught me was that I needed a lot more book knowledge and even more practical experience in order to graduate in the top ten per cent or to be an effective leader.   I then took it upon myself to get the knowledge and get the experience since I didn't want to be one of those other MCpls who didn't have a clue....20 year-old MCpls who left their brains home who thought wearing the leaf exhonorated them of all failings.

I am of the opinion that Privates' with less than two years in should not be sent to a leadership course.   Just becuase they are keen, good shooters and can dig a trench in record time does not constitute the ability to lead troops.   Units should exercise careful screening of candidates for leadership training.   Unfortunately, many units just want to fill the vacancies while others feel pressed to get their people promoted   due to a lack of MCpls.   This is dangerous to both the morale and junior leadership of the unit.

I had the unfortunate pleasure of having to work for and deal with a product of the accelerated Pte to MCpl in two years type.   The soldier in question was keen, book smart, great dress and deportment but just did not have the leadership ability needed to look after his troops or his gear.   The effect of this was disastrous.   No one wanted to work for him and no other MCpls wanted to work with him.   After a few years, the unit was having difficulty with his performance, and so, being at the right place at the right time, he was promoted to Sgt.   The storie could go on forever.   He eventually was pressured to get out of the reserves, partially through his own will and partially through the rest of us making sure his every screw up was reported to the highest authority in the unit.   It took nearly six years to get rid of this guy but the damage to the unit was done.   We lost an awful lot of good soldiers due to his inability to lead effectively.

While on the CLC block 2, we had a few Privates who we had to carry through while one or two others were golden children that everyone loved.   It's been my experience that many of those who moved up fast, didn't have the staying power of others.   Five years and then they're out.   This leaves the unit with a leadership experience gap and thus begins the vicious cycle of fast promotions and a fast exit.

I've seen some of the same things in the Marines.   A devil dog with nine months time in service promoted merritoriously to Cpl (like a junior MCpl) because he can shoot good, run fast, can spew out Marine Corps knowledge faster than a broadband modem but with no man management ability or life experience to back him up.   After four years, they get out thinking they achieved greatness but in fact they were only able to play the system.   Experience and maturity is everything when it comes to leadership.

You can't teach leadership in a 8 or 10 week course.   You can only give them the tools for their tool box.   Leadership is developed over time and time equals experience.

Ask yourself this question before recommending a young private to a leadership course:   Would you want to follow him into combat and trust his judgement to get you through the battle?

PJ D-Dog


----------



## buzgo (30 Nov 2005)

We have a hard enough time getting people on the PLQ BEFORE they are MCpls in my trade, now they are going to make it HARDER by filling them up with privates? Seriously, I haven't seen too many cpls go on the PLQ lately...

Mabye this will work for the infantry, but I would be concerned that it may 'weaken' the chain of command.


----------



## Jay4th (1 Dec 2005)

I met a REAL junior leader the other day.   A 24 year old US Army Sgt with 2 tours in Afghan and 2 in Iraq.  He has the experience to be an NCO at that young age.  NO reserve Pte and no Reg pte can compete.  We have all seen what happens when you send young inexperienced Ptes on leadership courses. They DO get promoted, we do have to work for them, and everything they know about leading they learned from Full Metal Jacket.  If anyone needs lil old me I'll be be in an old quonset hut out of sight out of mind called:
 " The CPL 4th center for obscure weapon systems that no one remembers anymore."  BTW I have no JLC and I am pouting.


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Dec 2005)

Wanna buy my JLC? Never did me any good...


----------



## HADES 1962 (1 Dec 2005)

In response to Pte's on PLQ courses, well if their supervisors feel that they are capable of performing at the next rank level then why not place them on it.
I have written pers on Pte's and Cpl's and if the Pte shows will, determination and desire to achieve the next level, then the Pte will be course loaded before the Cpl.
As for MCpl's going on a PLQ after they are promoted, IMHO they should be qualified before they get promoted.
The rank of Cpl should be earned not given out so easily. After all the forces should be a career not a job.
When I joined the forces way back when, I was placed on a CLC course with less than 3 years in, after my course I did the position of the MCpl before I was promoted, yes I was DAPed, then I did the position of the Sgt.
Took a VR in 86, got back in 89 Nov was promoted again in 91, Remusted in 00 and was promoted again in 04.
Now looking at QL 6 in about 6 months or a year.
I have seen the career Cpl's who are quite happy sitting back and collecting the pay check, not wanting to achieve a higher rank, then that would mean that they have more responsibilities.
Lets face the facts if a Pte out performs the Cpl then why not course load him?


----------



## PJ D-Dog (1 Dec 2005)

If the Pte is to out-perform a Cpl, then the Pte needs to have been placed in some sort of leadership role to begin with and not just show up on a regular basis with a nice uniform.   He needs to have proven that he can perform to the next highest rank level.   Just because they want it doesn't mean they should get it.   Again, a lot of careful consideration needs to be exercised in the selection process.



> A 24 year old US Army Sgt with 2 tours in Afghan and 2 in Iraq.   He has the experience to be an NCO at that young age.



This is the norm in some of the US forces.   The three Sgts in my shop are 24, 25 and 26 years-old.   Between the four and six year mark, they usually pick up Sgt, that's the average, at least in the Marines.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Dec 2005)

"In response to Pte's on PLQ courses, well if their supervisors feel that they are capable of performing at the next rank level then why not place them on it."

The next rank level for a Pte is Cpl, isn't it?  How can someone show leadership potential with 2 years in the army?  He hasn't even mastered unsupervised shovel cleaning yet, let alone leading troops.  NOMEX undies donned, flame away...


----------



## Matt_Fisher (1 Dec 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> How can someone show leadership potential with 2 years in the army?



Why don't you ask a 2nd Lt?  While they may not have a wealth of experience, the system deems that they've exhibited the necessary qualities to be put in a leadership position within 2 years of joining the army.


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Dec 2005)

Because a 2 Lt is inundated with leadership training from day one, and weeded out accordingly.  He has not spent his 2 years bouncing around in an APC, or lifting heavy things.  Apples and oranges...

Edited to add:

In my beloved Regiment, unless things have changed, the only thing a subby leads is the occasional PT class.  They mostly wander around the hallways bumping into things.


----------



## BKells (1 Dec 2005)

OK I'm going to respond to this because I find it rather pertinent to myself.. I am a private, and I'm on PLQ right now. We started two weeks ago.

I don't see any problem with it, because..let's be honest.. Mods 1-4 don't have any spectacular demands that being a senior CPL allows you to meet. Seriously.. Mod 1 you don't do because it's PT and for the reg force, Mod 2 is teaching in the classroom. Mod 3 is range safety and Mod 4 I forget right now but really, it's not that difficult of course material.

I know I'm not going on Mod 6 until I'm a CPL and probably another year in, but my unit needs me to teach on courses. Mod 2 allows me to do that. As a result of LFRR, we need to expand by a whole  new company. That means we need instructors. Badly.


----------



## Pikache (1 Dec 2005)

BKells said:
			
		

> OK I'm going to respond to this because I find it rather pertinent to myself.. I am a private, and I'm on PLQ right now. We started two weeks ago.
> 
> I don't see any problem with it, because..let's be honest.. Mods 1-4 don't have any spectacular demands that being a senior CPL allows you to meet. Seriously.. Mod 1 you don't do because it's PT and for the reg force, Mod 2 is teaching in the classroom. Mod 3 is range safety and Mod 4 I forget right now but really, it's not that difficult of course material.
> 
> I know I'm not going on Mod 6 until I'm a CPL and probably another year in, but my unit needs me to teach on courses. Mod 2 allows me to do that. As a result of LFRR, we need to expand by a whole  new company. That means we need instructors. Badly.


No one is blaming you for taking the courses.
We just question people like you's ability to lead because of lack of experience.

You might turn out to be a real good leader. But odds of producing better leaders comes with more experience. 
Mistakes that experience could have prevented and end up being detrimental to a recruit's or a young private's exp in the army might occur due to your lack of experience. 

Good luck on your PLQ. I don't have much experience either, but one thing was pounded into me when someone decided to put me on the spotlight: take care of your troops and lead by example


----------



## HADES 1962 (1 Dec 2005)

Again we come to the point of Pte in a leadership role.
I can speak of only my former trade I have used a Pte (gunner) as a 2ic of a gun det with the TSM's approval because we felt that the Pte could handle the position. Some of the Cpl's did not want to do the position because that meant extra work on their behalf. (Not all Cpl's were like that, but a certain number were.)
I have witnessed Ptes briefing OC's on the use of indirect fire for its maximum effect.
As for the Pte advancing to the next rank level, well yes it would be a Cpl, But alas he has already proven to understand and do the role of a MCpl then why not promote him to it.
IMHO leadership is a natural trait of personality, there are natural born and then there are those who need to be groomed.
Just because the Cpl has 4 years and 3 days total service and the Pte has 3 years and 2 days service both have the same qualifications but the Pte shows more desire to achieve higher rank, then I say let the Pte attend the course.
It basically comes down to just because a person has the qualification on paper can he really perform.
We have all witness this the person who has the qualifications but could not lead sheep out of a garden.
But then this is only my 2 cents.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (1 Dec 2005)

Leadership without experience is a dangerous mix.

  2Lts get to do leadership jobs within two years because they are surrounded by experience NCOs some of which are MCpls. Those people will be the advise givers if the MCpl is also young and inexperience just imagine the trouble a troop could get into.

   IMHO that was some of the problems the leadership had in the 90s too many inexperienced Ptes accelerated to MCpl in the early 80s who then got promoted to Sgt and then WO with little time in and no skills just book smart, keen and looked good. I found a greater burden fell on the Capt rank to teach things that a young officer should have leaned from interacting with old well grizzled experienced NCOs. I can remember second guessing the advise I got from Snr NCOs for fear they were inexperienced, it was so much easier with my old Vietnam vet or Congo medal wearing MWO. As a young officer how could you go wrong with all that talent around you, my first TSMs and BSM had about 30 years in each thats 90 years to help me.


----------



## buzgo (1 Dec 2005)

I have to agree with Kat Stevens, it seems crazy to send someone on a PLQ when their job has been:

50 point checker
canvas slinger
radio-checker
coffee-maker
truck driver

 (these are sigop privates in the brigade HQ, generally)

Maybe, just maybe, the system is screwed up (!!) and the PLQ is a WASTE of time. Maybe we should go back in time a little bit, even to the two phase JLC... or as far back as the CLC.

It seems to me that they have gone with this PLQ system in order to get more people qual'd, but like I said, we are still sending jacks on the course, and some of them have had the rank for 2 or 3 years. 

At the bare minimum, a soldier should be QL5 qualified before going on the PLQ, and in the regular force I would have to really really think about recommending a private for the course.

Oh, in my experience: 2Lts spend a lot of time doing OJT with more senior officers, and sometimes even get put to work with the troops so that they get a broad base of knowledge and skill before being promoted to a leadership role (and rank - Lt)


----------



## 3rd Horseman (1 Dec 2005)

I dont know about Sigs but in the combat arms the 2Lts lead right out of the gate.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (1 Dec 2005)

BKells said:
			
		

> .... but my unit needs me to teach on courses. Mod 2 allows me to do that. As a result of LFRR, we need to expand by a whole   new company. That means we need instructors. Badly.



This is not directed at you personally, I just want to use the example you sited to illustrate my point.

Just because someone is qualified to teach, does not mean they are good instructors.   Good instructors are develped over time and time at the podium gives us experience and we all have to start somewhere and roll with the punches as we go.

I understand the demand the unit has for instructors of any sort, but the more time one spends in the military, and the more military courses they attend, the more they are exposed to varying instructional techniques.   As a result, when you become an instructor, you can draw on that experience as a student and incorporate the various techniques to help you out.   You can also remember what motivated you to learn as a student and use that too.   If the only experience you have in the military is basic training, trades training and then intructional techniques, then that leaves a very shallow pool to draw from.   

If you are lucky enough to have a more experienced instructor mentor you as you progress at your unit, then that will work to your advantage.   It helped me out an awful lot.   If not, then one needs to be both creative and intuitive enough to seek guidance and try to improve.   I knew very few privates who, when assigned with a task to instruct, would even bother to seek advice from anyone. They ultimately bomb at the podium.   Seeking information is part of leadership and it needs to be exercised all the time when you are an instructor.

I have been teaching in the military for the last 13 years and I still consult with my Gunny or other instructors on how to teach certain subjects.   Even though some of my fellow Marines have far less experience than I do, they do have expertise in some subjects and often have good ideas based on their experience.   It helps out a lot.

Now, there is more to being an instructor in the military than just knowing the subject matter and conveying it to the students.   One needs to have some troop leading ability.   Contrary to some people's belief, leading troops is not done exclusively by using a check list.   It is done by using judgement.

I'll use the example that I am currently living at the moment.   The Marines are leaving the Cadre program.   Since my location is a joint service location, I have a US Air Force Staff Sgt taking over.   We sent him to the Marine Corps Security Forces school where he attended the five week instructor course.   His MOS is Air Force security forces (police work/guard duty).   He is in his mid thirties and has been in the Air Force for five years.   He is now the chief instructor for the program.   Not only is he responsible for scheduling and other course administration duties, but he also has to teach classes.   My role in all of this, is to assist and guide him in the performance of his duties as part of the hand-over.

Up until August, he had zero instructing experience.   Since graduating the MCSF instructor course in September, he has not given any classes.   This is his first course.   I've sat through his classes and he is a good instructor, has a mastery of the mechanics of the classroom and is very knowledgeable.   Where he falls down is his troop handling ability, getting the students ready for the next class or the next day's classes, leading PT etc...These are all leadership activities which go hand-in-hand with being an instructor.

The last sentence of the above paragraph is the point I am trying to make.   To be an instructor you have to be a leader.   How can someone with limited military experience be effective?   This guy has five years worth of time in.   These are the types of things that are bound to take place with Pte's in these roles, not that I am comparing him to being a Pte, but I'm sure you understand the point I am making.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Dec 2005)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> I dont know about Sigs but in the combat arms the 2Lts lead right out of the gate.



Not in the Engineers, they don't, unless things have changed radically in the three years since I pulled pin.


----------



## buzgo (2 Dec 2005)

I've had 2Lts working for me as a det member, and I've seen them 'tailing' the troop OC, but never working as the troop OC.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (2 Dec 2005)

Not to pick fly crap out of pepper but....

The rank of 2Lt out ranks you (by your profile) so I would suggest that he was not working for you in your det but was probably working within his Sqd to attain knowledge and skills that your det had and he needed. If for some poor leadership reason a senior Officer told you he was working for you....well he needs his head read. In the event that a poor leader gave you that understanding you should not look upon that experience as he worked for you but more that you were teaching your superior skills and knowledge that he needed to better lead your unit when he is given the opportunity. All this is a mute point if he was an untrained Zulu waiting release. 

  I stand corrected on the Engrs as I forgot they are now part of the Cbt arms for the young officer in the Engrs I would assume that you need a certain level of training to lead a Engr troop due to the technical nature of the tasks not the leadership aspect.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Dec 2005)

How long have you been out?  That little backhanded shot didn't go unnoticed, the Engineers were returned to combat arms status over 15 years ago.  A long overdue redress of an unforgivable insult, in my book.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (2 Dec 2005)

Well not that long don't I feel the fool for forgetting that in my post!

  but I did forget my humblest of apologize it was in no way meant as a back hand insult. Having the Engrs named as Cbt Arms was well deserved and they were always really a part of the Cbt Arms if not in name then in spirit.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Dec 2005)

Already forgotten.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Dec 2005)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Not to pick fly crap out of pepper but....
> 
> The rank of 2Lt


Not to pick fly crap out of pepper but.... 

In most cases the 2 Lt, and for that fact the Lt, fresh out of the school did not command right away, but was an "Understudy" to a Troop/Platoon Warrant Officer.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (2 Dec 2005)

It would appear we are picking fly pepper,

  I beg to differ 2Lts don't understudy Snr NCOs or NCOs they under study Officers. Subtle but important difference.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Dec 2005)

Sorry.  I do disagree.  Different corps than yours, but I am sure others are just as likely to have followed the same practice in the CA as opposed to those in the CS and CSS.


----------



## scaddie (2 Dec 2005)

Just a question; I always thought you had to have another course in addition to your DP1 (Driver Wheel, 2A's, Coms) in order to go on your PLQ? Is this false information?


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (2 Dec 2005)

Scaddie said:
			
		

> Just a question; I always thought you had to have another course in addition to your DP1 (Driver Wheel, 2A's, Coms) in order to go on your PLQ? Is this false information?



That's to get promoted to corporal... or at least its supposed to be im sure..thats how it used to be/sometimes is at my unit. I dunno if its an official requirement or not but the guys with QL4s obviously get promoted faster.

It would seem logical that somebody going on a leadership course should have more than just biq.... and thats all the guys going on the PLQ course with me... theres me, one other corporal, and 6 guys who finished course 3 months ago. I wish that I had another year or two down before I went at this but its too late now... these guys dont know what an arctic tent is  :-\


----------



## Pikache (2 Dec 2005)

In res world to get promoted to corporal you need DP1 plus 2 yrs since your swear in date plus CO's recommendation. Some units take CO's recommendation seriously (IE not promoting bags of hammers) while others it's a gimme thing.

I have seen people w/o DP2A (is Alpha denomination necessary now that DP2B is scrapped?) get on PLQ to take DP2A afterwards. They just can't be promoted MCpl without DP2A plus PLQ.


----------



## reccecrewman (3 Dec 2005)

At the same time, while the initial idea may be enough to cause a shudder, It has to be recognized that if a Unit is looking to send Privates on a PLQ, they are not going to send just any Private.  They are going to (hopefully) scour their Coy's/Sqn's looking for those bright, shiny stars that have leadership potential and have already separated themselves from their peers as a soldier.  The other thing to look at here is suppose a Unit sends a Private and still has non-PLQ qualified Corporals, that says that the Unit recognizes the fact that this Private has a more positive upside than the Corporal's that don't have it.  Should this be the case, kudos to the leadership for not sending a sub-standard Corporal on the course and not rewarding some plug Corporal that doesn't deserve it.


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Dec 2005)

Then the "plug Cpl" will fail the course, having no leadership potential.  His PER, or whatever the acronym du jour is, will reflect this, and he will be career restricted until completion of said course.  This brings up a question for the Adm gurus;  If a Pte is sent on leadership course and fails, is he career restricted, ie Pte for life?


----------



## WogCpl (3 Dec 2005)

Did my JLC/JNCO with a Pte a while back, keen guy, did very well. If you have the leadreship ability and people skills, why not do this course while your still very much "into" the military and still excited about doing your job. I have seen to many guys on this course that are bitter, broken and could not lead by example if their lives depended on it.


----------



## KevinB (4 Dec 2005)

The Artillery is totally different that the rest of the (real) combat arms.

 I was both a Gunner and then a Patricia and I have a pretty good idea of the grooming concept for young officers.

Arty - arrives follows the TC's and CPO. GPO etc around  it is tech trade not one that require real leadership beyond what is done by the NCO's (this is not a dig at Arty officers for I know a lot more of them that I like than Patricia officers ...)  The TechWO and in the FOO Parties the tech will sometimes help the young officer along with his skills but bot the same way as the other Arms.


Infantry (and from what I have seen of the combined arms the Engineers and Armoured are the same)  2LT arrives meets OC - given a Platoon - introdced to Warrant and told to listen...   See's OC for O groups and that is it -- unlike the Artillery there are no other officers to hang around (or rely on) with in the field.   

Now back to the topic in question  ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Dec 2005)

I wanted to reply to this before the week-end so I'm going to back track a little.

There is a big difference between an NCM/NCO with a year or two in the army "leading" and a 2nd LT.
A young officer has a very difficult job, there is no doubt about that.  A platoon commander however deals mostly  (right?) with the platoon warrant and section commanders.  These guys have a good deal of experience to draw from. If the platoon commander makes a mistake or some there there is a good chance one of the NCOs will catch it.
NCOs have to deal with brand new soldiers who don't know that you can't drink your canteen all at once on a long march. Not to skip meals because they don't feel hungry or don't like the ration they got.  

An NCO NEEDS to have spent time as a soldier so they understand how the things they are going to be teaching works. Anyone can be taught how to make lesson plans then put in front of a class and taught how to rhyme it off.  Corporals and master corporals (and privates with their leadership course) need to understand what their teaching so if a slower learning recruit doesn't understand whats being taught the instructor can use a different approach OR use terms that the recruit can understand and relate too. To do that you have to have experience. Passing a leadership course doesn't give you that experience.

Imagine a 17 year old takes his drivers licence test and passes doing very well.  Would you turn around and have him teach defensive driving to other drivers with barely any driving experience himself? No way. He needs time behind the wheel to understand what he will be teaching others.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (5 Dec 2005)

Basically, the universal concept here is that soldiers without any experience can not make good leaders. Period.
Putting them on a leadership course, while it will give them the ideas and tools in which to use in practice, it will not teach them how to use them expertly or even proficiently, as this can only be gained with experience.

I like Ghosts' analogy:

If youve just gotten behind the wheel for the first time, you are in no place to teach others how to drive.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Dec 2005)

I'll be honest I haven't kept up with this thread for a while so my thoughts may be out of place here.

That said the current Mods 1-6/PLQ can be passed by a trained monkey.
Point 2 is that my BN now have Mcpl's that can't do the job because they got promoted before they had a chance to learn what the Cpl did.   Not the members fault just the system needed the numbers quickly.


----------



## Jay4th (5 Dec 2005)

CFL, same in my BN. Too young, too inexperienced but they were here when the courses ran and we were in theater. Now they will write my PER this year.  Next year it will be written by guys who stayed home from this tour and went on course instead.  While we were on BTE, they were on 1-5.  Nuff said.


----------



## KevinB (5 Dec 2005)

Have a good one Jay  

Just remember to be in the bitter Cpl's club - you need to be a bitter Cpl...

If they promoted you they'd need to find a new bitter Cpl - and then who would teach .50 to the new M/Cpl's that never saw it before...

You wouldn't as you be teaching other stuff to young troops ;D ;D


----------



## Bobbyoreo (12 Jan 2006)

Just thought this was funny. I was talking to guys from 2VP today that are on their way to do PLQ mod6 (field part) and they told me that Privates are now on the course!!!!! What happened to the quality??? Just dont think Privates have enought time in to learn or be taught how to be a MCPL.

Is this normal or is this the first most of us have heard of this?

thx


----------



## axeman (12 Jan 2006)

yup its starting to be the norm now sigh .. i remember when if you did not have 6 + yrs in forget it .


----------



## Bobbyoreo (12 Jan 2006)

Wow,

I hope this does not effect the quality of the leader...or is that just another standard to be lowered?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Jan 2006)

Do to the short comings in the ranks they are now pushing for Pte's to get their leadership.  Kinda like in the 80's.  There was a thread on this somewhere about reintroducing this kind of thing.

P.S.  IMO its not working so well.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (12 Jan 2006)

Sad...os very sad. Wait till they deploy these 2 yr MCPL's .....see what happens then or I'd rather not....ouch :-[


----------



## MJP (12 Jan 2006)

What's wrong with it?  Ptes use to be course loaded all the time on JNCO and ISCC courses. All it means is that someone saw leadership potential in the troops in question and decided to develop them.  They are usually quite motivated and keen individuals that make up for their lack of experience with drive.  




			
				Bobbyoreo said:
			
		

> Just dont think Privates have enought time in to learn or be taught how to be a MCPL.



What utter tripe!!  Ever hear of knowing the job two levels up?  Being able to step up to the plate when asked/told to?  I guess gathering from your statement that the Pte that did the 2IC role for me last year shouldn't have been there?  Get your head out of the sand and look at reality, we are constantly short trained soldiers at all levels and we will always have soldiers in roles that generally they wouldn't have.  It's a fact of being in the army.  A good Sect Comd/2IC should be training his guys to be able to replace him if necessary.....



			
				CFL said:
			
		

> P.S.  IMO its not working so well.



Meh.....How is it not working?  Power trips? lack of experience? shutting 'er down?  Cause I tell ya bud I see just as many "old Cpl" bad leaders as I do young Pte/Cpl ones.  It has more to do with the quality of an individual soldier in question than their time in IMHO.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Jan 2006)

"All it means is that someone saw leadership potential in the troops in question and decided to develop them.  They are usually quite motivated and keen individuals that make up for their lack of experience with drive."  

Quantity not quality.  Guys that get loaded my be fit or what not but there are few in my opinion that have grasped the basics let alone go on higher.  I have no doubt there are some that are extra special but that is few and far between.


"Meh.....How is it not working?  Power trips? lack of experience? shutting 'er down?  Cause I tell ya bud I see just as many "old Cpl" bad leaders as I do young Pte/Cpl ones.  It has more to do with the quality of an individual soldier in question than their time in IMHO."

More so lack of experience.  There are guys that are promoted Mcpl and Sgt that shouldn't have passed Cpl's.  With the course now a day's a trained monkey can pass it with minimal effort (and yes that is looking at it as staff as well as talking to people that have taken it).
There are shitty Cpl's out there and they are noramlly relagated to postions where they have minimal influence/negative impact.  The problem with Mcpl's that can tell their head from their ass is that they are the buffer between you and the Sgt.  Also they can influence one's standing and career by writing the PDR's and PER's which could be a bad thing if you point out his error's/shortcomings albet in a professional manner.  Becoming a Jack puts a lot of pressure on these guys and they want to perform well which can result in bad leadership because they have no experience.  MJP I know you don't really give a shit but if you really care PM me.
In closing of this ramble there are shit pumps at all levels.  The difference is that the higher you go the more impact they can have.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (12 Jan 2006)

I dont belive that leadership is learnt ...well not that fast anyways. You take a guy who just got off basic now BMQ(not sure) then trades training. All he has done is learned his job. Now throw him on another course. I just dont see hom you can get him to the leadership levels. I know that some people can do this, but in a whole I dont belive it is a good thing. Yes there are alot of BAD cpls and old habits..ie bad habits but time in is experince(most times). I guess you've just seen the good side of this...I have not. 


What's wrong with it?  Ptes use to be course loaded all the time on JNCO and ISCC courses. All it means is that someone saw leadership potential in the troops in question and decided to develop them.  They are usually quite motivated and keen individuals that make up for their lack of experience with drive.  
o do.  quote

I've never seen ANY Ptes course loaded that is why I asked the question. Where ever I worked there was enough SNR CPLS trying to get spots.


----------



## BKells (12 Jan 2006)

There's a whole thread entitled "PTEs on PLQ"

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36941.0.html

*LOCKED*. Just kidding, I don't have that kind of authority.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Jan 2006)

Its one thing to have the course and then be given time to mature into your role.  Its totally another thing to get the course as a Pte and then get promoted to Jack.  There are certain things that are learned through normaly career progression that aren't necessarily taught as per a lesson plan.  No one should be promoted under normal circumstances until they have grasped the basics of their current load station and preferably on above them.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (12 Jan 2006)

Tried to find it....kind of bad with the search stuff..thx Ill read up...


----------



## MJP (12 Jan 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> "All it means is that someone saw leadership potential in the troops in question and decided to develop them.  They are usually quite motivated and keen individuals that make up for their lack of experience with drive."
> 
> Quantity not quality.  Guys that get loaded my be fit or what not but there are few in my opinion that have grasped the basics let alone go on higher.  I have no doubt there are some that are extra special but that is few and far between.


How many Ptes did get course loaded?  I know the numbers from the 1st and 3rd but not the 2nd?  



> More so lack of experience.


 
Experience comes with time.  I'm not saying just because they have the course they should or deserve to be promoted, just that they now have skillsets and knowledge to build on to be good leaders.  The problem we face is we are in an expansion phase right now...CMTC, JATF(or whatever it is this week) etc etc has or will be taking our trained leaders out of the line Bns and we need to train more.  Coupled with the supposed 5000 + troops that are coming we need to have leaders at some point so it makes sense to me to start developing them now.  Of course they might not be good at the job, that's the risk that we run by placing them on those course early in their careers.  But if they are professional and stay motivated they should learn and overcome any deficiencies.



> There are guys that are promoted Mcpl and Sgt that shouldn't have passed Cpl's.


 
That's a unit and how they merit and all that BS and you know it.



> With the course now a day's a trained monkey can pass it with minimal effort


I won't speak for other courses but I watched trained monkeys fail mine........



> There are shitty Cpl's out there and they are normally relagated to postions where they have minimal influence/negative impact.


My bad I didn't explain that one well.  I meant that I have seen just as many bad "old Cpls" as MCpls as I have in comparison to young Ptes/Cpls.



> The problem with Mcpl's that can tell their head from their *** is that they are the buffer between you and the Sgt.  Also they can influence one's standing and career by writing the PDR's and PER's which could be a bad thing if you point out his error's/shortcomings albet in a professional manner.


  
That seems to be the exception not the rule.  A good Sect Comd/Pl Wo and Pl Comd should be honest brokering a young NCOs writing and ensures its in-line with a soldiers actual performance.  If they aren't then they aren't really doing their job either.



> Becoming a Jack puts a lot of pressure on these guys and they want to perform well which can result in bad leadership because they have no experience.


Agreed and that is where the Sect Comd and Pl Wo put heir guide hands (or foot) on the Young MCpl and show him the way.



> MJP I know you don't really give a crap but if you really care PM me.



No need bud unless you have something to add.  We both know each other personally we have discussed this before IIRC.  You have your opinions and I have mine.  



> In closing of this ramble there are crap pumps at all levels.  The difference is that the higher you go the more impact they can have.


Yup!


----------



## rifleman (12 Jan 2006)

Just remember that some senior Cpls are senior because they aren't going any higher.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (12 Jan 2006)

True true true....so true....point and match!!!! ;D


----------



## dutchie (12 Jan 2006)

I don't think there shoud be a rule against Ptes on PLQ, but I would agree that many (or most) would not be ready to assume a leadership role (2IC, Sect. Cdr) upon completion. But so what, let then learn on course, and then learn on the job, be mentored, and I think you'll find that those who went through the process become good leaders in time.

In our unit (Seaforth Highlanders) one of our Sgts was a Pte when he went on ISCC (and topped the course, IIRC). He went on to Croatia shortly thereafter, as a Jack, and was a 2IC of a section. By all accounts (I wasn't there) he did quite well. He has gone on to be an excellent NCO, probably the best in our unit. In his case the course obviously was at the right time. He probably had natural leadership abilities, and I'll bet it had a lot to do with his nomination. 

My point is this: it matters less the rank and more the person. This Pte (above) did exceptionally well with little experience as a soldier. He was thrown in to a Operational leadership role not long after finishing his course on a pretty 'hot' tour, and again did very well. Some Cpls at my unit, despite adequate TI, have failed to even finish Mod 5/6 (due to 'family issues' apparantly). 

If the soldier is not ready, don't send him. If he is, send him. The rank matters little. If a unit is getting cocky, immature, tyranical douchbags back, then the nomination system needs to be looked at.


----------



## muffin (13 Jan 2006)

I find it strange that there are Privates being sent when there is such a backlog of MCpl's who have not had PLQ yet. You would think, since it is a manditory career course, that the people nominated would be those who have been waiting longest ( assuimng no operation requirement for that personnel) - Once the Acting/Lacking MCpl's are all caught up and the up and coming Cpl's - then I can see making concessions for the "gifted" privates. There are so many other courses they could take first - apprentice and journeyman level quals. 

I wonder if some of these privates aren't remusters or CT's - who have more time in than most privates. 

Maggie


----------



## MJP (13 Jan 2006)

Muffin your post would be true if it was applied to the army as a whole.  But the original Canforgen only applies to certain trades that were deemed short of the MCpl rank.  

A. APPLIES TO ARTY, ARMD, INF, CBT ENGR, LINEMAN AND RAD OP TRADES  

As you see it is mostly combat arms guys that it applies to and for the most part they tend not to acting lacking their Cpls up to MCpl.  Not to say it doesn't happen but generally it is the support trades that have the majority of the A/Lacking MCpls.  As well in the infantry we don't have any other trades on our Mod 6 sothere may be room for Ptes if they meet all the prerequisite's.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (13 Jan 2006)

Now I know thats not true. I know the Inf have their own ICC or what ever it is called this week, but I know of people that have been on mixed courses and our heading off to mixed courses. Inf Amrd....arty...everything even a few support people, regs and res...Its becoming one...hehe

 :threat:


----------



## Mineguy (13 Jan 2006)

Sorry boys busy day in iraq.

Theres nothing wrong with a Pte on a PLQ if the individual has been closely observed and meets all the requirments prior. Depends on if youre stuck in the old past CF peacetime army thinking mode or not. This is the way it used to be done anyhow before CF intergration of all three Forces before progressivly alot of deadwood started gathering at the top and people on the higher levels slipped into a peacekeeping only peacetime army, peacekeeping only mindset rut. Im sitting here next to a guy who did his INF Battle school back in 1964 in germany were the purpose of the course was to make you fail and they didnt care if you passed. After that  it was a huge series of hoops to jump through before years, not 5 or 6  you were a Sgt, not the 9-10 year WO like we see today in some places. This is too fast even in peacetime in some trades with for example many many battle task standards to master both in trng and operationally! 

He said ref the PLQ of today and sending ptes thats the way it was as per normal back then, even if you got your PLQ like today a s a pte or were even acting in an acting lacking post like lance sgt used to be you ddint even get paid and that was somthing you "had" to do so it was no big deal. So what is the problem with kicking back into a real army and recgognizing potential leadership capability early!..it saves the time as when there is positions people are already qual, eliminates or minimizes ahead of time alot of the old boys club type stuff keeping people down and gives people some incentive to stay in and not see themselves as in a rut while they undertake the huge long arduous task of gaining that much needed experience! So, im not surprised that the wheel looks like its being reinvented again to some people but this is not a new invention. 

I believe the brits and yanks have been doing this for years! They probably never stopped doing it! and why? because it makes sense, and will continue to make even more sense after we get the army back on track as an operation army in world sense which in the past was a capability we lost!


----------



## dutchie (13 Jan 2006)

Lurking Kuna: please use paragraphs, it makes it easier to read your post.


----------



## rifleman (13 Jan 2006)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Lurking Kuna: please use paragraphs, it makes it easier to read your post.



And here I thought it was one big run-on sentence.

But seriously, there should be no problem with sending Ptes on a PLQ, if they have leadership potential. The problem lies with the CF's inability to separate being qualified and being competent to proceed being appointed MCpl.


----------



## Arctic Acorn (13 Jan 2006)

I think its completely understandable that some folks would feel strongly one way or the other about this. I think it would be a rare person who, as a corporal, wouldn't have _some_ strong feelings with someone junior to them bypassing them. However given the rate of expansion we're in the process of undergoing, I really can't see any other way of doing the stated force generation targets. We're going to need a lot of NCOs (junior and senior) to make this expanded CF work, and I'm sure there will be ample opportunity for suitable Privates and Corporals to progress in the ranks. 

To my mind (twisted though it may be...) for any sort of accelerated promotion program to work effectively two conditions have to be in place: 

1) Effective mentorship within the chain of command. (this goes without saying and is just good leadership practice, but with effective mentorship I see no problem with anyone taking a leadership role, whatever their rank)

2) Just spitballing here, but say for the Army (the air force and navy would doubtless want to do their own flavour of this) you stand up an Army leadership school. Call it the "CF Army Leadership Academy" or something. Staff it with solid, experienced NCOs and Warrant Officers from across the army (CS and CSS trades), and mandate that all reg and reserve candidates must go through there for Leadership training. (run serials during the summer for reservists, but they can attend any serial any time of the year as it is the same course & the same standard) There you could have your CF PLQ, PLQ Land, and PLQ Infantry (possible ILQ as well). 

Voila, a centre of excellence for Army leadership training. One that raises the standard for everyone, both regular and reserve.  You eliminate the backlog of A/L Master Corporals, and you have an impartial, knowledgable staff to train you. This is a big point for me as, speaking as a reservist...don't get me wrong here, I had some great instructors on my PLQ, but some were only there for the summer employment and didn't a flying f*&^ about their candidates. (then again, I am sure that is a consistant feature of most any reserve-run course) 

 :dontpanic:


----------



## sophia (9 Mar 2006)

Wow! This is soo messed. I don't understand how a Pte can possibly be promoted to MCpl in less than a year because of shortages in manning. So does this mean that if you are a MCpl and want to be the Chief, it will take 2 mths of trg and you're there if they don't have enough people? Ridiculous. I've wasted my time. I should have waited until 2006 to join. The guy who joins this year will be where I'm at after 5+ years. Not cool. This may call for some stress leave lol  
As for the PLQ in Shilo, yes, they give you the option to stay and teach the Basic course for the summer after you graduate, 
regardless of your leadership talents.  The standards have officially been lowered. 
I think the old-school way was so much better, because as a rank was earned, it was greater appreciated and fulfilled. If the promotion is given out of desperation to fill numbers, it will be very evident in the quality of soldiers trained.

 :-\


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Mar 2006)

In 1984, as a Private, I attended a "CLC" - Combat Leaders Course at the PPCLI Battle School in Wainwright.

I'm not sure now (in retrospect) that it was a good idea - but my superiors at the time saw "something" in me.

I did OK - but it sure was difficult with the staff AND your fellow candidates gunning for you.


----------



## dredwulf (25 Mar 2006)

I was a private, when I was selected to go on ISCC (Infantry Section Commander Course).  My unit ran a two week pre-course of about 8 people to determine who would fill the 4 slots available.

At the time, I had 3 years in, and looking forward to finally getting a QL4 course, (ANY QL4 ) so that i'd qualify for corporal.  When I was told that i'd be trying out for the ISCC I thought I lacked the experience required.  I idolized the Mcpls I knew, and didn't see myself as being cut from the same cloth. 

They did however, as it was one in particular, a newly minted sergeant who recommended me.  I had been a bit of a 'grey man' until then, but he'd seen my potential.

I earned my spot, beating out a few corporals, who had been around for a while, (though truth be told, I don't think a couple of them really wanted to go anyway.)  ISCC was pretty hard-going.

On that course I was one of three privates.  By mid course, we had lost so many candidates that we had to amalgamate with another course just to have the numbers required to perform section attacks.

Towards the end, the staff found out that I didn't have a QL4 yet.  Apparently it was a requirement of any private who had been loaded.

Due to my performance thus far, I was given a waiver.  Something to the effect of 'get a QL4 within X number of months of gradutating, or the ISCC qualification is null and void.'

After surviving that course, I was loaded onto the next available QL4; Comms.

I was DAP'd to Master Corporal four months later.

During the ISCC I had felt like I was drowning.  Even with 3 years as a private, I was drinking from the proverbial fire hose.  I credit the skill of my instructors in force-feeding me the info, and my own stubborness for getting me through.

I have been a very successful leader, (not to honk my own horn, but my PERs will have to attest) but in retrospect, I subsequently resisted attempts by my unit to send privates to subsequent JLC courses. I wanted to spare them the 'sink or swim' situation I was tossed into.  I was always of the opinion 'Give Pte Bloggins another year.  If you think he's ready and might pass now, then with another year to mature, he might top the course.'

After becoming a sergeant, I instructed a young soldier on her JLC.  In her case, she had finished her basic training, and almost immediately was sent on her JLC as a private.   Within a couple months of passing that course, I met her again at the RCR Battleschool in Meaford.  She was slated as my 2ic, instructing on QL3 Infantry.  Just prior to the course starting up, she got her DAP to Master Corporal.

Many of the other instructors despised her.  1) She was so young, and promoted way too fast. (one of the candidates on the course had trained aongside her the previous year, before having been medically RTU'd)
2) She was a female.

The consensus seemed to be 'she should NOT be here.  Let's watch her go down in flames.'

I could not let this happen.  I sat in on most  lessons she taught, just to make sure that she taught the troops properly.  Experience was a big part.  When teaching the C9, it became aparant that she'd passed her handling test, but had never actually acted as a C9 gunner on any exercise for instance, so she was unclear on the best methods to handle the weapon.

I mentored her, and tried to make her the best NCO and instructor she could be.  Given smashed eggs...you try to make an omelette.

She went on to eventually become a sergeant, though there are various opinions on how effective she was in the role.

I think i'm digressing.

My point is that some privates will have what it takes, others wont.  Some will go through and pass...but this should be considered a 'learners permit'.  They may need mentoring by others to grow into becomming effective leaders.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (25 Mar 2006)

Well, I'm not quite sure what my take is on Pte's attending PLQ is... except that it seems that a lot of Ptes end up quitting, and sending them on PLQ might simply be a waste of funds. Furthermore, I also believe it hurts cohesions when a Pte, who has a worse attendance record than his buddy in the unit who he did basic with, gets to do PLQ and ends up two fundamental ranks higher than his buddy.


----------



## QV (25 Mar 2006)

I agree.  Tossing Privates into an ISCC or PLQ with the sink or swim mentality is not fair for the Private.  But at the same time (and I have personally seen this) loading broken and unmotivated Corporals who have repeatedly failed this course before is also a mistake, when you have highly motivated Privates chomping at the bit.  If they would continue to run PLQ or ISCC pre-courses and load them with both Corporals and Privates that have shown potential then at least if the Private passes the pre-course there is a reasonable chance of success on the real course - like in your case.  But as we know not all units run pre-courses.  Also, I have noticed that in non-combat arms trades it is very normal for a person not to see the leadership course until after already being promoted to MCpl, and sometimes these ones fail - which I have seen first hand as well (I still havn't seen one lose their leaf as a result yet either- ).


----------



## orange.paint (26 Mar 2006)

I don't think its a sink or swim mentality now as the course is designed to disseminate the info, and for the candidate to pass if he can comprehend the information.Pte/tpr's on PLQ is by far not a new idea and is in my opinion a good idea to a degree.

If the pte displays good initiative,job knowledge and leadership,should he be put ahead of guys in the trade for a while? sure.If he is ahead of these people in these fields there is no reason not to send him.

Does this piss people off? for sure.People look at these guys as lower in the food chain,and not deserving.If these pte's can't control their new power afterwards then they should be stopped in their tracks (i.e fighting in messes etc due to basically abusing their powers)

Fast tracking members also keep keen soldiers interested in the trade they are in, once they realise they are not going to be "fry guy" forever.It will also promote young guys striving for higher levels in themselves once they see guys around them getting rewarded for good work.

On a closing note I don't believe they should be sent just due to the unit having no one else to send.That bugs me.Nothing worse than a keen Pte in one company getting nothing cause their platoon sent their quota and the shitty cpl in another getting on because his company has no one else left...and it happens! you all know.

thanks


----------

