# The Merits of the ROTP Program (Split from



## Lumber (25 Dec 2007)

bms said:
			
		

> Considering going through ROTP you're being paid to go to school and train, it's been going up way more than it probably should. Which is amazing in that they continue to up it despite the fact that they are paying the hefty price of an education.



Lets not forget the purpose of our acquiring a university degree. It's not simply a 'free education'; not simply a perk of choosing Officer over NCM. Our obtaining a university degree, whether at civi U or at RMC is an integral part of our training. University, any university, teaches people to be both critical and creative thinkers, among many other things. That's what the CF is looking for in Officers. The CF, or at least the brass that designed the ROTP program, is looking for Officers who can think outside the box; they are looking to develop cadets into officers who can think and react, who can adjust and adapt to rapidly changing scenarios. University education helps develop this type of midset. Our education is not simply "a free degree". As I said, it is an integral part of our training. All I'm saying is keep this in mind when considering our 'relative' pay. 

We don't get free education, we get free training, and since every other CF member receives "free training", I would say that OCdt pay during our education during ROTP is rather meager. I get by fine (well, almost fine) but if I had a private's pay, I think I'd be considerably better off, and well into starting my investments for the future.

Note: I realise training isn't free, but we don't see our pocket change diminish when we go on course. In fact, I see it go up.


----------



## Franko (27 Dec 2007)

Whoa there....you're thinking outside the box again.       

Stop acting silly and get back in the box.

Regards


----------



## Strike (27 Dec 2007)

> ...the "what I did in 3rd year" stories should be put away...



Unless they involve social activities.   ;D


----------



## Lumber (27 Dec 2007)

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> Looks like the lobotomy was successful, nearly a verbatim quote from the "degreed officer corps and reasons for thereof" literature.



Who needs a lobotomy? If I've simply been brainwashed, what could I partake to be your opinion/idea of the purpose of obtaining a degree as part of an Officers training program?



			
				CSA 105 said:
			
		

> it's funny that (from a limited perspective) it seems...



Key Word: *Limited*



			
				CSA 105 said:
			
		

> that most new RMC-ite 2Lts that arrive at combat arms units are amongst the least "critical and creative" in their thinking and often have to be pried out of their RMC cliques and made to understand there is a real army with real soldiers and real responsibilities...



Does a green private, fresh off BMQ, arrive ready to perform as an infanteer? tech? clerk? To lead a section? Some officers aren't even close to finishing their trade's training when they are finished university. They are still trying to discover the ropes of being an officer, of being part of a unit, of being part of the military (while RMC accomplishes some of this, civi Us don't do it at all). It's hard to be critical and creative when your the new guy who doesn't know what hes doing yet. The university degree prepares them to be critical thinking and creative minded, but we need to finish our trade's training to have the confidence to know what were doing first. Then we'll get critical and creative and try to act outside the box.



			
				CSA 105 said:
			
		

> I also recall plenty of folks able to be successful naval officers, command armour, infantry, artillery sub-units and units, fly planes, conduct logistics activities, etc without the benefits of a university degree footed by the taxpayer and granted to a group that has yet to prove itself in actual service.



There are plenty of folks, I'm sure, who _are_ successful naval officers, command armour, infantry, artillery sub-units and units, fly planes, conduct logistics activities, etc, without the benefits of a university degres and who couldn't handle getting a university education. Whether this is a lack of ability or simply an animosity towards school is moot. The point is, being granted the opportunity to obtain a university degree, whether off the bat with ROTP, or later on with a CFR, is incumbent upon both academic ability and military potential. 

Interesting question: Are there any cases, and if so, what were the results, of a NCM gone CFR and been unable to successfully obtain a university degree?



			
				CSA 105 said:
			
		

> I'm all for degrees - but don't think 2Lts (less doctors, dentists, padres, etc) need them.  The opportunity to earn a degree should be granted to officers and NCOs as a reward for good performance, dedication, skill and as an investment in their future, based on proven performance in the CF.



I'm all for degrees as well. Anyone, Officer, NCM, civilian, who is capable of getting a university education should do so. People should always be looking to improve themselves. Their knowledge, their cognitive abilities, their social characteretc... That's what education does, it improves you in many way. The more Officers and NCMs we have with university educations the better. I suppose, however, that the pressure is on for Officers to have university degrees because of the job they have to do. I am not saying that the jobs of those who aren't required to have a university degree are less important, but that a university degree must help officers with the type of job we will have to perform. If we must wait until we have proven ourselves before we are awarded the opportunity to pursue a university education, than the Officer Corp will be missing out on a great deal of training and experience. 



			
				CSA 105 said:
			
		

> Said degrees should be "real" and earned from actual universities inhabited by a cross-section of Canadian society, not from a quasi-military cloister on the banks of the Cataraqui.



Are you implying that the education one receives at RMC is substandard compared to that which one would obtain at a civilian university?

CSA 105, I'm not trying to spark hostilities here. I'm just trying to defend my unit and to affirm my belief that my obtaining a University education has an important and tangible purpose.


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Dec 2007)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> CSA 105, I'm not trying to spark hostilities here. I'm just trying to defend my unit and to affirm my belief that my obtaining a University education has an important and tangible purpose.



NCdt Lumber:  

I don't think (outside of the technical disciplines) that a University degree has an important and tangible purpose.  

What it INDICATES is a pliable and learning capable mind - period.  It (the attainment of an undergrad degree) is an accepted indicator that the possessor of such an education is an experienced practitioner of critical thought, and capable of absorbing new ideas  - period.  Of itself, the degree is of no value.

It is nothing more than a benchmark - which from what I've seen on this board and in real life, may be an imperfect one.  I don't have an alternative benchmark handy, so I'll continue to reluctantly accept it as such.


----------



## medaid (27 Dec 2007)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> NCdt Lumber:
> 
> I don't think (outside of the technical disciplines) that a University degree has an important and tangible purpose.
> 
> ...



How many pluses can I give you? Not enough apparently because that's the cold hard truth.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Dec 2007)

CSA 105:

Time for a "...back in the day..." story.

Back when the degreed officer corps for the Regular Force was introduced, the Minister received a nastygram from a concerned citizen.  "Why are you doing this?"  I was in ADM(Per) at the time, and saw the gent who got to write the reply.  It read something like this:

"Dear Prof Granatstein:  Because you recommended it."

And Jack's reply was a classic:

"That may be what I said, but it's not what I meant."


The post-unification manpower studies are a fascinating read for anyone who can get their hands on them. They had the concept of short service officers who would not have a degree.  They would serve for 9 years, then receive a gratuity and be let go.  A small group might be retained and sent for education.  Another, smaller group of officers would enter through ROTP / DEO streams, and would hopefully provide the senior leadership of the force - but they would not receive the short service gratuity.

Over time, of course, that was corrupted, so the 5 year MilCol program graduate would then serve four years and get a nice severance gratuity.  Conceptually, however, the original concept holds up well - we need many more junior officers than senior officers, and they are not involved in strategic decision making (perhaps a handful of captains will directly influence the operational sphere).


----------



## Rowshambow (27 Dec 2007)

In MY opinion, I think all officers should come through the ranks,  This way you can see who has some leadership potential, I have seen some officers that have boat loads of education, but still couldn't lead a horse to water! Also with our small force, we should be paying for the education of the people who will stay for the long run!


----------



## PPCLI Guy (27 Dec 2007)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> There are plenty of folks, I'm sure, who _are_ successful naval officers, command armour, infantry, artillery sub-units and units, fly planes, conduct logistics activities, etc, without the benefits of a university degres and who couldn't handle getting a university education. Whether this is a lack of ability or simply an animosity towards school is moot. The point is, being granted the opportunity to obtain a university degree, whether off the bat with ROTP, or later on with a CFR, is incumbent upon both academic ability and military potential.



A very close friend of mine managed to make it to LCol (in 15 years of Reg Force service) with just Gr 11 Quebec.  Although he was repeatedly told by the Army that he needed a degree to succeed, there never seemed to be time - as there was always a job that needed doing.  He was finally afforded the opportunity to get his degree - and spent the last 3 months of his "academic year" preparing for a tour in AStan - while studying, and writing his final exams.

The key point here is that is was certainly not "a lack of ability or simply an animosity towards school" - rather it was the exigencies of the service.

Once you have served (rather than just studied) you may understand the distinction.


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Dec 2007)

Cripes. the army was having this debate when I was commissioned and that was close to fifty years ago. Way back then I remember that a colleague who had come from RMC remarked that a very senior member of the college advisory board (or something like that) had remarked that ROTP was really created to provide federal aid to education which was and still is a provincial function. Remember that the programme was instituted in the 1950s in an era of small government, relatviely few universities and no student loans.

Originally there was a fee required to attend RMC, just like civilian universities, but the college did not grant degrees until the circa 1959-1960 time frame. There also was a scheme called the Canadian Officer Training Contingents which ran at civilian universities and granted a reserve commission. There was, as far as I know, no financial assistance except for summer employment as an officer cadet provided by it and no requirment to serve.

Back to ROTP, when the program was designed, it was accepted that a high percentage of the graduates would return to civilian life after completing their obligatory three years commissioned service even though they had received permanent commissions. This in fact was the case, which seems to support the notion of aid to education and hence nation building as at least a supporting aim. See the opening paragraph.


----------



## Lumber (27 Dec 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> In MY opinion, I think all officers should come through the ranks,  This way you can see who has some leadership potential, I have seen some officers that have boat loads of education, but still couldn't lead a horse to water! Also with our small force, we should be paying for the education of the people who will stay for the long run!



Do you recommend going from private, through Chief Warrant, to 2LT? Or simply making your way through the NCM ranks until they figure you're suitable for a CFR?

I asked a Capt(N) once why it was that Commanders, not Captains, were the COs (i.e "Captains") of our ships. He told me that it was because it takes so long to reach Capt(N), that those who have reached that point have started to lose their youth and vigour. He said to be a ship's captain you need that energy.

Now to be sure, there are those who are out there who reach Capt(N) or Col quite quickly, or those who don't but still posses their youthful energy nonetheless. But if to be commissioned as an officer one needed to work their way through the ranks, you'd have an officer corp that had a much higher average age. I can't say from lack of experience and expertise, but ill gather that the military needs some of that youth and vigour in it's officers. 

It's not as if officer don't prove themselves before being commissioned. You don't get accepted into the ROTP program without having excelled during your highschool years (showing potential at least). Most OCdts complete the majority of their phase training before commissioning, and therefore are subject to many tests of their military ability and leadership potential. Plus, it's not as if university is an easy either, it can definitely test ones resolve.

It's unfortunate that some sneak through who can't lead a horse to water.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Dec 2007)

> I asked a Capt(N) once why it was that Commanders, not Captains, were the COs (i.e "Captains") of our ships. He told me that it was because it takes so long to reach Capt(N), that those who have reached that point have started to lose their youth and vigour. He said to be a ship's captain you need that energy.



Have to address your point here. Captains(N) are in command of our 280s and have commanded our AORs. Lieutenant Commanders are in command of our MCDVs and our SSKs. If you look around at other navies for the most part Commander is the rank for most ships COs with certain exceptions.


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Dec 2007)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> It's not as if officer don't _*prove themselves before being commissioned*_. You don't get accepted into the ROTP program without having excelled during your highschool years (showing potential at least). Most OCdts complete the majority of their phase training before commissioning, and therefore are subject to many tests of their military ability and leadership potential. Plus, it's not as if university is an easy either, it can definitely test ones resolve.
> 
> ...



Emphasis mine.

You've got to be kidding.  I left school (and home at age 14) in grade 11 - with a high 90 average accomplished after only attending school for exams and handing in assignments.  Seriously - I didn't attend school most of the time during grade 10 and the 3/4's of grade 11 that I completed.  I was bored - so I left.  According to YOUR criteria, as someone who excelled in high school I was a perfect candidate for RMC.  What utter and complete nonsense.  I was an immature, headstrong, self-righteous, sanctimonious little prick.  Life quickly knocked a lot of that out of me (somewhat - I still tend to be headstrong, self-righteous, and sanctimonious, but I'm mature about it).

What you accomplished in high school, and what you are exposed to in phase training are NOT repeat NOT "experience" in the military sense.  They are merely indicators that you MAY be capable of BENEFITING from experience which you will later gain.  That's all.  That's it.  Experience comes later, when someone like PPCLI Guy gets you in Bn and based on the INDICATORS present in your file (from phase training etcetera), decides where you will be placed in the Bn to get the experience from which you will garner the most benefit.  I realize that you are a NAVAL Cadet and won't go to a Bn - but I believe the dynamic is similar in a Naval milieu.

As for university not being easy - that depends, of course, upon what you put into it, and how much you take away from it.  I put three sons through university and watched them and their friends.  One of my sons found university absurdly easy - and he liked academe, he is STILL in university, working on a PhD at Melbourne, on a scholarship.  The other two were studying technical subjects (engineering and nursing) and were made well aware (by their professors and ME) that lack of attention on their part would result in bridges falling down and lives being lost in the future.  They found university academically easy, but were completely absorbed in the experience, thus making it difficult - because they saw the real world consequences of slackness on their part and consequently poured their whole heart and soul into learning as much as they could.  I'll leave my personal experience at getting a degree out of it, as my university experience doesn't apply.  Suffice to say, in my own case, I found ATTENDING university hard - I found the actual "work" required absurdly easy.  All that to say - you're statement regarding university not being easy just tells me that you don't know what hard is.

Summing up:  Excellence at high school, completion of an undergrad degree, and completion of phase training don't military experience make.  They simply indicate your ability (or lack of it) to GAIN military (or any other professional) experience.


----------



## Strike (27 Dec 2007)

Okay guys, I hate to be the wet blanket here, but the topic at hand is "Officer Cadet Pay On the Rise?" not "The Merits of the ROTP Program."  Can we please stay on topic?  I'm sure there's another thread somewhere out there about the usefulness of OCdts, 2Lts and other junior officers that you can all continue this debate on.

Here's a good place to start: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/67766.0.html

Edited to add link.


----------



## Meridian (27 Dec 2007)

Sounds like we are headed down another "CFR" UP FROM THE RANKS! discussion.


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Dec 2007)

Strike said:
			
		

> Okay guys, I hate to be the wet blanket here, but the topic at hand is "Officer Cadet Pay On the Rise?" not "The Merits of the ROTP Program."  Can we please stay on topic?  I'm sure there's another thread somewhere out there about the usefulness of OCdts, 2Lts and other junior officers that you can all continue this debate on.



You're right.

Unfortunately, I've got to be away from the computer for a few hours.  I'll find a more appropriate thread and merge the off-topic posts when I return.


Roy Harding
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Lumber (27 Dec 2007)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Summing up:  Excellence at high school, completion of an undergrad degree, and completion of phase training don't military experience make.  They simply indicate your ability (or lack of it) to GAIN military (or any other professional) experience.



Roy,

That's why I included the part that says "showing potential, at least". Nothing one actually accomplishes guarantees that one will be successful in the future, but they do provide excellent indicators. Even under Rowshambow's suggestion (where you move through the ranks before CFRing, no ROTP/DEO etc), you're hoping and expecting that their exemplary performance as an NCM will equate to exemplary performance as an officer, but that is in no way a guarantee.

Also, I did not mean "highschool" in the strictly academic sense. This was unclear, I now realise. What I meant was everything that you did during your highschool years leading up to being accepted into ROTP. Volunteer service, cadets, reserves, sports teams, part time jobs, and of course, your academic performace. All these can serve as indicators of potential military. So if you were an "immature, headstrong, self-righteous, sanctimonious little prick", would the system not see that you were not prepared for the ROTP program, despite your academic performace, or am I just being naive?

And I'm not trying to bicker here, I am humbly dazzled and curiously seeking a professional assessment, but do we not in any way prove our military ability in our phase training? I haven't completed enough of it to get a feel for how people perform on course versus how they perform in life/in the military, but honestly, don't instructors see how someone performs on course and say to themselves and their fellow instructors, "Look at that bloke, he'll make a fine/terrible platoon commander/gunner/clerk/pilot..."?


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Dec 2007)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> Roy,
> 
> That's why I included the part that says "showing potential, at least". Nothing one actually accomplishes guarantees that one will be successful in the future, but they do provide excellent indicators. Even under Rowshambow's suggestion (where you move through the ranks before CFRing, no ROTP/DEO etc), you're hoping and expecting that their exemplary performance as an NCM will equate to exemplary performance as an officer, but that is in no way a guarantee.



My point exactly - these things are INDICATORs, not to be confused with experience.



			
				NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> Also, I did not mean "highschool" in the strictly academic sense. This was unclear, I now realise. What I meant was everything that you did during your highschool years leading up to being accepted into ROTP. Volunteer service, cadets, reserves, sports teams, part time jobs, and of course, your academic performace. All these can serve as indicators of potential military. So if you were an "immature, headstrong, self-righteous, sanctimonious little prick", I would the system not see that you were not prepared for the ROTP program, despite your academic performace, or am I just being naive?



You are correct on both points; you were unclear, and there are many factors taken into account aside from academic achievement (and I wouldn't have qualified in 1975 based on academic performance only).



			
				NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> And I'm not trying to bicker here, I am humbly dazzled and curiously seeking a professional assessment, but do we not in any way prove our military ability in our phase training? I haven't completed enough of it to get a feel for how people perform on course versus how they perform in life/in the military, but honestly, don't instructors see how someone performs on course and say to themselves and their fellow instructors, "Look at that bloke, he'll make a fine/terrible platoon commander/gunner/clerk/pilot..."?



Your phase training, like my basic training, prepares one for the environment into which one is about to be thrust.  What one does, how one leads (in your case) or follows (in my case - leadership came later), once in that environment are what is counted as "experience".  Your performance on phase training (and mine on basic) give our future leaders a good indication of our POTENTIAL, NOT our experience.


Roy


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (27 Dec 2007)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> Lets not forget the purpose of our acquiring a university degree. It's not simply a 'free education'; not simply a perk of choosing Officer over NCM. Our obtaining a university degree, whether at civi U or at RMC is an integral part of our training.



How does your view of the training system incorporate officers without a degree?  Are they less well-trained?

The need for a degree-granting military institution today is questionable at best and I am not sure if the CF needs RMC as much as RMC needs the CF.  Turn it into a leadership school for all officers (BOTC or whatever we are calling it today) and let the civilian post-secondary institutions handle academics.

To be fair, there are a couple of aspects that help the military (War Studies).  Beyond that, if we need an ROTP program to attract people with a free degree then send them to Civie U and loan them to reserve units or form "ROTP Dets" to give training during the year.


----------



## medaid (27 Dec 2007)

I think the Civi Us who do not receive any training through out the year are just a waste of the CF's time and money.

1) Put Civi Us into the closest PRes Unit and have them star their military leadership training ticky boo. Who cares if it's not an official training course, but hell, it's a start that will help them later on as they get to their phase training

2) Start their Branch history training. Most of the Civi Us are ignorant or have no clue what their branch really does, and what kind of things are within their "scope of practice" so to speak. Get a Log O into the closest Svc Bn or even any unit for that matter, if not their MOC training, get something going. 

3) PRes unit aren't perfect, but they're better then having these people sit around all day, and knows little to nothing about their career choice. Most of the Civi U's I had been in contact with have a high regard for themselves, and as a result are regarded quite poorly by their peers in the PRes and the RegF at times.

Honestly, start their training from Day 1. They should be assigned to a Unit while they go through their degree, if a PRes officer  (RESO) can study and work 1 night a week, 1 weekend a month, why can't an ROTP officer? By training, I mean real training. Not the SLJO things that are just remnants from a long forgotten era. Sure there are parts of our jobs that no one likes to do, but when my first position within the unit was the AAdjt, when all my other peers were getting Pl 2 i/c or Pl Comd positions, I was being driven up the freaking wall! 

One thing that we all realise is that young officer want to learn how to lead. They want to lead, they want to do things NOW! Now this is by no means all of the candidates I have come across, but most PRes candidates seem to have a better attitude then a ROTP candidate (sorry guys). When there's piss and drive, you let them go forth and do things, but with a short leash. Assign an experienced Sgt or WO to them, and tell them to listen to the advice of these SnrNCOs and move on with their assigned tasks. 

Nothing irked me more then when the troops were out doing things and I was sitting in an office doing an endless amount of paper work. All of my leadership training was slowly slipping from my mind! I know that leadership comes in different forms, and forms and paper work are part of an officer's job; but young officers under the rank of Lt, should not be thrown into these staff positions just because no one else wants to do it. 

Sometimes these things are what makes people disenchanted and leave their unit and regiments... not all but some good potential leaders have left because of that. 

This is just what I think... 

ROTP: Work with the PRes during their school year and the RegF during the summer. DO IT!! CHANGE IT!!


Oh and the thing about degrees? There are plenty of successful people in our society that have not ever had a degree in their lives. Degree means NOTHING, so people... PLEASE if you think this is what makes you special, or in some special way makes you a better leaders then your NCM counterparts? Get off your high horse. I'm sick and tired of hearing this argument. Where are the largest majority of hippies and idiots these days? Yeah, you guessed it at Universities and Colleges. People who are supposed to be enlightened and smarter because of the degrees... yeah right.


----------



## dimsum (27 Dec 2007)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> And I'm not trying to bicker here, I am humbly dazzled and curiously seeking a professional assessment, *but do we not in any way prove our military ability in our phase training*? I haven't completed enough of it to get a feel for how people perform on course versus how they perform in life/in the military, but honestly, don't instructors see how someone performs on course and say to themselves and their fellow instructors, "Look at that bloke, he'll make a fine/terrible platoon commander/gunner/clerk/pilot..."?



NCdt Lumber,

Before finishing your BWK training, I guarantee you'll hear this line at least twice:

"Remember what they taught you in VENTURE/HMCS (MCDV/Reg F ship)? Well, forget it...this is how we work in HMCS X."  Things change a LOT in between the VENTURE world and the ships...that's what shocks a lot of the A/SLTs and some find it easier, some find it a lot harder.  You can never really tell what it'll be like until you get out to your first MCDV for the MARS IV sea phase.

Now, on the subject of whether one needs a degree to be a good officer (general service, not legal/medical/chaplain), I know of some very competent MARS officers who have not had their degrees since they commissioned under the Naval Reserve while in post-secondary, didn't go back to school and continued sailing instead.  If they hadn't told me that they didn't have post-secondary, I would have never questioned that they had at least an undergrad.  In my experience (much less than all of the others on this thread), my undergrad didn't have a lick of influence on how I handled myself on the bridge or in admin matters.  If anything, I always joked that my essay-writing skills (so highly-perfected in civ univ) now wouldn't even pass for a Gr 7 book report!  How one performs as an officer has usually zero to do with their education.

What Medtech said about ROTP working with PRes...definitely.  Completely, 200% support it.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (27 Dec 2007)

How about some balance - this is no place to spout off wildly, about offrs or ncos with degrees or no degrees.

There are many programs to move ahead with education - anyone can get education in 4 years - it takes time to grow leadership in the officer and NCO branches of the forces. People with promise will be rewarded with greater responsibility and opportunity from wherever they come from. 

And last time I checked all Forces units represent the entire country.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (28 Dec 2007)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> How about some balance - this is no place to spout off wildly, about offrs or ncos with degrees or no degrees.



Not sure what tack you're heading on here.  Did you read my entire post?  Short version of my thesis - the CF does not need to spend the Queen's money paying for OCdts to get university degrees prior to them actually serving in the CF.  Sponsored degrees should be offered to those (officer and NCO) who have earned it and will repay the Queen's investment with commensurate performance at a level where the critical thinking skills honed by university study and a broadening of experience learned by immersion in academic fora are needed.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Dec 2007)

Which will certainly kill a few "this is what I plan to do once I have finished my mandatory service threads"....


----------



## Franko (28 Dec 2007)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Which will certainly kill a few "this is what I plan to do once I have finished my mandatory service threads"....



We can only hope....         :

Regards


----------



## medaid (28 Dec 2007)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Which will certainly kill a few "this is what I plan to do once I have finished my mandatory service threads"....



...never gonna happen  one can only hope... perhaps when monkey orbit the Ear... oh wait... DAMN!


----------



## blacktriangle (28 Dec 2007)

In my very limited experience, I have found that some of the most competent officers (at least in my opinion) have had rather useless degrees for a military setting (e.g. film/enviromental studies) but were confident, intelligent, fit and good leaders. I have also seen officers with degrees in difficult subjects, who can't even lead a platoon attack. 

However, in our society everyone thinks a degree is great, and the education system pushes youth to obtain such an education, or face poverty and a dead end job. Until society comes to view a university degree for what it really is, I don't think this will change.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Dec 2007)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> Interesting question: Are there any cases, and if so, what were the results, of a NCM gone CFR and been unable to successfully obtain a university degree?



Does not matter. An NCM gaining comission by way of CFR is not required to get a degree.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (28 Dec 2007)

My point - To unilaterally close off other areas tends to limit the strength of your good arguments.


----------



## medaid (28 Dec 2007)

Piper, good points  but I just brought it up because I was thinking about it. Not thoroughly enough as it is, but just some ideas that were thrown around. Honestly though, CiviU candidates need to do SOMETHING through out the year... their drill becomes horrible a year of no drillness ;D


----------



## medaid (28 Dec 2007)

Piper said:
			
		

> Agreed. I looked into my local unit, but the really didn't have much to do for a half-trained loggie (they're artillery) who isn't going to be around for summer training, exercises etc.
> 
> OJT is the way to go in my view. Not the stupid 'pushing paper at a CFRC Det or local Mo unit to kill time before course' that officer cadets usually get saddled with. If they really want to employ us gainfully and give us experience to use when we hit out units, toss 'em into a reg force unit/installation for a few months. The ones I were with were both 'operational' units, one of which was working up for deployment, and they had to no problem taking me in. Everyone was helpful, knowledgeable and pretty darn friendly towards me. I learned alot in both places.



Also agreed. I always wondered how a newly commissioned 2Lt or OCdt were going to tell prospective candidates which trade to go for from their VAST amounts of experience. I think gainfully employed is the key word. Going back to one of my previous posts, I think officer candidates who are filled with piss and vigor should be given the chance to put that to use, under the scornful and watchful eyes of a Sgt or WO.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (28 Dec 2007)

Piper, good post.  Definitely keeps it real for those who have been away from the training system for a while and calls a spade a spade.


----------



## medaid (28 Dec 2007)

Piper said:
			
		

> I for one don't, and I find my own OJT opportunities instead of waiting on my CoC to find somewhere meaningless to put me.



Initiative and drive mate, initiative and drive! ;D


----------



## medaid (28 Dec 2007)

Piper said:
			
		

> And some friends in high places helps a little bit too, not going to lie.



Oh oh! I'd like a few of those as well!  Need to go to exciting places and honestly... Venture just doesn't do it for me


----------



## observor 69 (28 Dec 2007)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> How does your view of the training system incorporate officers without a degree?  Are they less well-trained?
> 
> The need for a degree-granting military institution today is questionable at best and I am not sure if the CF needs RMC as much as RMC needs the CF.  Turn it into a leadership school for all officers (BOTC or whatever we are calling it today) and let the civilian post-secondary institutions handle academics.
> 
> To be fair, there are a couple of aspects that help the military (War Studies).  Beyond that, if we need an ROTP program to attract people with a free degree then send them to Civie U and loan them to reserve units or form "ROTP Dets" to give training during the year.



You mean like this:
"Sandhurst, unlike some other national military academies such as West Point in the United States, the Pakistan Military Academy, the National Defence Academy (India) or the Australian Defence Force Academy, is not a university. Eighty-five percent of entrants are university graduates, but this is not an absolute requirement.[1] This is illustrated by Prince William and Prince Harry; one a graduate, the other not. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Military_Academy_Sandhurst


----------



## medaid (28 Dec 2007)

Piper said:
			
		

> Not a fan of BC are we?



Just not a fan of Venture... I have to redo my BOTC like I whined about earlier. Thus not thrilled about Venture  would be way more thrilled about Kingston, and Quebec and then somewhere dark and air conditioned for a little bit, then somewhere bright, dusty, and hot for a long while.


----------



## McG (28 Dec 2007)

I don't have time to present my full thoughts at this moment, but I'll drop a few just to continue discussion for now.  For those who have seen it, Training Canada's Army explains the difference between training & education, and it goes into why education is important (for all ranks).  I think the arguments in that document are sound, though I don't know that RMC is achieving the stated aim.  (more on this later)

If we can agree that there is a certain point at which an officer should (not necessarily must) have a degree, then it is far cheaper to do it while paying the wages of an OCdt for 4 years as opposed to a senior captain.  However, there may be better ways to go about this.  OCdts could do two year diploma programs, complete occupational training and then go off to a job.  The worthy Capt/Maj could be selected to complete the undergrad, and worthy Maj/LCol to do a graduate degree.  The exception to this would be those professions which require the degree to complete their functions (medical, legal, engineer, etc).


----------



## armyvern (28 Dec 2007)

Piper said:
			
		

> Agreed. I looked into my local unit, but the really didn't have much to do for a half-trained loggie (they're artillery) who isn't going to be around for summer training, exercises etc.



I could have used you at my loc the past two summers. I had a NurseO OJTing at the 3ASG Det who I got to train as a Loggie. I think I almost had him convinced to switch!!  >


----------



## dapaterson (28 Dec 2007)

Let's roll CSA-105's points and Piper's points into another thought:

Why can't Reg F Capt/Majs sent on graduate studies be obliged to parade part-time with Reserve units?  Experienced leaders providing part-time support would be welcome in any Reserve unit, even if it were only for a 2 year period.  After all, many Res F officers somehow manage to balance family, studies and the military - is it too much to ask the same fro mthe Reg F?


----------



## dapaterson (28 Dec 2007)

Piper:  With 40% of P Res Capt/Majs already working full-time, units would be grateful for a little more help - even if it's just to fulfill some of the staff work that grows daily.  An extra Capt or two would help attrit some of the mounting piles of papers and electrons in every unit.


----------



## medaid (28 Dec 2007)

I will attest to dapaterson's points. We always need more officers who are experienced and can come down and lend us a hand with things. WE need more Officers...


----------



## McG (29 Dec 2007)

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> Wow, if we could sort this piece out, to include the Second Language piece, and actually provide our people the proper training and education when and where they need it, rather than setting unreasonable expectations, we could be on to something here!


It would be great if we could get there.  The the graduate degree obligatory for those going through Toronto or is it an option?  To me, that seems like the place to achieve that milestone.  If it is required earlier, then establish a mechanism to provide it earlier.  If it is not required earlier, then graduate degrees should not be a factor in merit boards.

I'm waiting for the language trg solution.  The CF has never contributed a second or a penny toward teaching me French, yet I am reminded annually that this will impair my career next to those who have been given months of CF delivered & funded second language training.

To add to my earlier thoughts, RMC would offer an intensive associate's or foundation degree in 18 months to 2 years.  This would be a multi-disciplinary program focusing on critical thinking, militarily relevant sciences, leadership, and all the junk currently stuffed into OPMEs.  Prior to attending RMC, OCdts would have completed their commissioning course at CFOCS.  Once complete the foundation degree, 2Lts would complete environmental and occupational training.  Those belonging to MOS requiring the full bachelor's degree would return to RMC (or a designated Civy U with co-located ROTP Trg Pl/Coy) at the end of environmental training & before occupational training.

After at least a one unit tour, Captains & Majors of other MOS would return to RMC to upgrade to a full bachelor's degree in 18 months to 2 years.  Once again, it would be a multi-disciplinary program designed to focus on military topics while developing critical thinking & communication skills.  

I've often heard "blind leading the blind" comments made about RMC in regards to the significant power & formative role that higher years have over those younger.  This problem would be resolved as the student leadership would now be officers with real world experience.  With the exception of (maybe) a squadron administration officer, these returning officers could also replace the requirement for many of the non-student officers currently posted to RMC.

Finally, those officers identified as suitable for unit command would be sent to complete a graduate degree (either at RMC or CFC).


----------



## DVessey (29 Dec 2007)

I'm going to jump into this. Not sure how good of an idea it is... most of the conversations of this type that I've had take place over a few brews at TGIF over summer OJT... 

From the get go, my (limited) history/experience:
Applied for ROTP civi U, got accepted for ROTP at RMC - don't regret accepting the offer at all. I got the opportunity to go on an OJT at CFS Alert for a summer, doing work completely unrelated to my job and degree. There are only two officers on station, so it was an all ranks mess - spent a lot of time talking to NCMs.
I also got to do a more regular OJT in Greenwood last summer, learning about all the stuff the WTIS sqn does on an air base. Again, spent lots of time talking to ATIS techs,



			
				Piper said:
			
		

> ....
> Unless you want to tell me smuggling booze into the RMC shacks, underage drinking, selling Mil ID's to conterfeitors to make fake ID's and bringing unconscious drunk girls back to the shacks for some 'playtime' equates to 'good officer development'? Bullocks. I'm here getting a degree because thats what I need to do to be an Army Log Officer. If I didn't need to go to school right now, lord love me I'd be gone faster then a chubby kid after a cupcake.
> 
> Just my views that I needed to pass on.



Piper: I'm not trying to pick on you, but I've seen a lot of posts where you're picking on RMC, making it sound as if we all get away with murder all the time.
Counterfeit IDs, unconscious drunk girls, etc is obviously unacceptable behaviour. I've heard rumours about these things going on, generally after it was brought to the CoC's attention - by no means am I trying to excuse this behaviour, if anything the punishments for this should be stiffer. But these aren't common occurrences either.
As for the underage drinking, I've got friends in reserves, when they were in at 16, and they drank plenty at mess dinners. Is this horrible and evil? I don't think so. By no means do I encourage underage drinking, but I know that it's going to happen.

Back to the main topic, the merits of the ROTP program. 
-Spend time in ranks, THEN go officer.
This is the most common point made. I'll admit it, this argument makes so much sense it hurts. After working with ATIS techs for a summer, I think I would have enjoyed working as one for a few years. But there are problems that I can see with it, mainly: A good NCM does not necessarily a good officer make. I've met many an NCM who was great at their job, the kind of person who looks great on paper, has a good head on their shoulders - prime candidates for promotion, and in the scheme of going through ranks to become an officer, prime candidates to put through as officers. But these same people said they had no interest in going officer - they were quite happy being NCMs.
So do these people get pushed through on the 'officer track'? The obvious answer is to ask them what they want... but from my limited experience with the military, "obvious" has many different definitions.


----------



## armyvern (29 Dec 2007)

DVessey said:
			
		

> I'm going to jump into this. Not sure how good of an idea it is... most of the conversations of this type that I've had take place over a few brews at TGIF over summer OJT...
> 
> From the get go, my (limited) history/experience:
> Applied for ROTP civi U, got accepted for ROTP at RMC - don't regret accepting the offer at all. I got the opportunity to go on an OJT at CFS Alert for a summer, doing work completely unrelated to my job and degree. There are only two officers on station, so it was an all ranks mess - spent a lot of time talking to NCMs.
> ...



So you hit the Mess -- did you hit the Houses??  >

Valid points on the underage drinking etc bit @ RMC BTW ...

It's not like that never happens at CivU ... I KNOW that I NEVER took a sip of alcohol at Mount Allison as a 17 year old.  

It's kids -- they're young -- in most cases it's the first time away from home living ... kids WILL be kids whether or not it's at RMC or other.

As for underage members drinking in Mess' or at Mess Dinners ... those days are officially long gone by regulation. Whether or not specific Units enforce that regulation is debateable, but they should be.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (30 Dec 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> ... The graduate degree obligatory for those going through Toronto or is it an option?



The problem is that there are folks who are told they will never get enough points to get high enough on the merit list to *see* Toronto without a graduate degree, making getting the "Toronto MA" a moot point.  Or so we are told by the same folks that say "improve your SL profile", then, in a later breath, after the counselee asks the counselor for SLT, says "things are too busy right now, you'll have to take care of that on your own".


----------



## DVessey (30 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> So you hit the Mess -- did you hit the Houses??  >
> ...



But of course, happy to have heard that the Houses are being "re-made". Maybe some day I'll go back and visit the Zoo...


----------



## armyvern (30 Dec 2007)

DVessey said:
			
		

> But of course, happy to have heard that the Houses are being "re-made". Maybe some day I'll go back and visit the Zoo...



Indeed they are ... I was sent down "The Wheel" a couple of weeks before Christmas (because I made it during my tour there -- so they figured they'd "gift" it to me rather than taking it to the millionaire's dump).

So many t-shirts ... yet only 6 months. I got all the t-shirts. I was a busy girl.


----------

