# Training Development Officer ( TDO )



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Hi all...

This is my first post so ill introduce myself a bit...graduated business school last year, currently not working other than doing some charity work. Hoping to become an officer but I understand how difficult and lengthy that process can be.

Was wondering if someone could let me know if the training development officer requirements still require a masters in education... The older forces.ca states this was needed, but now it doesnt. 


I know I can call a recruiter but just thought someone on here might be nice enough to answer my question.


Thanks in advance,


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Nevermind, disregard my post. Forces.ca has updated again and apparently im shit out of luck

In a perfect world CF would have more funding and actually make it easy for willing citizens to join. Its a travesty how little value our nation puts in the armed forces- 


Cheers


----------



## brihard (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> Nevermind, disregard my post. Forces.ca has updated again and apparently im crap out of luck
> 
> In a perfect world CF would have more funding and actually make it easy for willing citizens to join. Its a travesty how little value our nation puts in the armed forces-
> 
> ...



Why is it that you feel the CF should be easy to join? In some ways it's to our advantage that it's not. Nothing precludes you from joining any one of many officer or NCM trades. Training Development Officer is quite reasonably open only to people bringing relevant stuff skillsets to the table.


----------



## Jester_TG (14 Apr 2013)

Have you looked at Logistics Officer or Health Care Administration Officer? Both really like business degrees.


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

I agree in some ways it's to your benefit - 

My point of view is that of the more the merrier.....basically just find it unfortunate as i know of at least 5 people who would have joined if they thought it possible to happen in a timely manner. So instead of applying they entered a career in the business world and are now firmly entrenched in that way of life....yes I know you can argue that you wouldnt want them in the first place if not willing to sacrifice, but a lot of people get caught up in mortgages etc and they get stuck in that rut.


Just saying there are likely lots of people whom the military would benefit from having....the government has the same problem....the top minds of our generation have been brainwashed to only care about money etc.

Not to knock anyone entering a life of service, but usually the smartest minds enter the private sector...

I hope not to offend anyone with this but its only the hard truth

Look at the "brain drain" of doctors going to america etc....

Its not just the military's problem but the public sector in general does not do well to attract the "best and the brightest"...not entirely their fault its more of a underlying problem with western society


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

I will have to look into the healthcare admin....thanks for the heads up!


----------



## Jester_TG (14 Apr 2013)

No problem. It's a good trade with good skills transfer to civi side if/when you get out.

Now it's a small trade that only hired a handful of applicants the last 2 years. But don't let that hold you back if it interests you.

If you go airforce with LogO HR is a specialty available as well. If you are looking at other people/hr positions besides training dev


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Appreciate the advice Jester!

I have hoped to be able to get into something that could actually have an impact on how things are done....passed on law school so I could begin preparing for a life in the military (bad injuries etc that are requiring a great deal of physio)

Respect each and everyone of you for giving back to your country...there is no greater calling.

Since you seem to know your stuff....are most of the higher up decision makers from an infantry background?


----------



## Jester_TG (14 Apr 2013)

Well the current chief of defence staff is from the airforce... So no 

There are leadership and higher headquarters and NDHQ jobs available to all officer occupations depending on rank


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Very good to know....does the air force hiring process differ from that of the army?


*** I mean to say, is it any easier getting in? Or is it at par with the army in how long it will take ***


----------



## Jester_TG (14 Apr 2013)

Nope - everyone goes through same hiring process and same BMOQ regardless of element.

Airforce and Navy are just smaller then the army - some sometimes for the trades that are in all 3 elements sometimes the army hires more of them. But also some jobs like HCA it doesn't matter what colour your uniform is. An airforce HCA might end up at the base clinic at the navy base in Halifax.


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Ah alright!

Very good to know all of this....

Thanks for not scathing me in my questions as i've seen many a times on here Lol

Ive just been waiting till my injury heals up enough before I apply....I know BMQ wouldnt be for a while but on the off chance I got lucky and my process went faster than usual I want to be sure I could hande it


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> I agree in some ways it's to your benefit -
> 
> My point of view is that of the more the merrier.....basically just find it unfortunate as i know of at least 5 people who would have joined if they thought it possible to happen in a timely manner.



You're assuming they would be accepted......



			
				Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> Not to knock anyone entering a life of service, but usually the smartest minds enter the private sector...
> 
> I hope not to offend anyone with this but its only the hard truth



If you're going too preach things as "the hard truth" then I'm sure you have studies and other data to back this up.




			
				Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> Since you seem to know your stuff....



Hmm,...tough seeing one of the "brightest minds" of our generation making an assumption so far off.

...and of course, taking it dry from a dumb 'public service' guy like myself.


----------



## JM2345 (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> I hope not to offend anyone with this but its only the hard truth



It is your hard opinion, not necessarily the truth. What is it about the application process you think makes getting in to the Canadian Forces so difficult? It seems like any job to me. If you meet the requirements and they have job openings available, they interview you. If you impress them at the interview, they have no reason not to hire you (again, if jobs are available). If you don't meet the requirements or there are no job openings, they can't hire you obviously.

If the Canadian Forces had more relaxed hiring practices, the rate at which people quit would be increased, and that is a waste of tax payer money. Because tax payer money would be getting wasted, overall funding would likely be cut since it isn't seen as efficient. Funding getting cut leads to fewer jobs, lower quality equipment, less money for training, and overall a less protected country, and more Canadians dying. If someone can't reasonable plan a year ahead in their life to go through the hiring process to join the Canadian Forces, then the CF probably isn't missing out on anything not having them.

The military isn't exactly a particularly high paying job. They don't expect every position to be filled with the best and brightest. A lot of military jobs don't have a requirement for the best and brightest. If someone shows up every day and works hard, they are going to give the military their moneys worth. The brightest minds that do enter the military are not in it for the money. If the military tried to compete with the private sector to win some of their money hungry intelligent young minds, they would have to raise their pay. If the military raised their pay, the private sector would raise theirs, and it would continue like this.

It just isn't realistic to try to win over every intelligent person. And again, the military doesn't necessarily have a need or desire to get people who you personally think they are missing out on.

Recruiting for Army, Navy and Air Force are all basically the same. Some may have more or less steps depending on your position, but the recruiting process goes through the same basic steps.

Again, please let us know what you think specifically is off-putting about the hiring process.


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Bruce all of your statements seem to be way off the mark....

Assuming they'd get in? Excuse me but are you trying to say having more people apply would be a bad thing? 

Your second statement is not even worth a reply 


And your third is as misguided as the rest....i was replying to someone offering advice, it had nothing to do with my previous post


And lastly, in NO way was my statement claiming intelligent people are nowhere to be found in the public service....its just a FACT that the public sector does not have the ability to draw the top students.....most of them are entering business programs. This is all a result of the culture we have been creating over the past 50 years....consumerism tends to lead people towards the pursuit of money


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

To JMetc...


The hiring process is entirely unique

Jobs in the private sector dont take months - years to complete....


How can any reasonable person argue that attracting the best and the brightest is something other than a good thing.... Yes, sure, not all the jobs are suited for an intellectual type person....but would you not agree that it would help any organization.


And I never said i wished it was more lax....just said that a lot of people are thrown off by the length of time it takes

You guys like turning things into attacks against the military

Oh and "who I personally think they are missing out on" --- its an objective statement that any organization would benefit from more people who can be considered intelligent


----------



## Jester_TG (14 Apr 2013)

I am a firm believer that if you want it that bad - you will jump through the hoops and stick out the process.

There are applicants that go for Pilot - and get to ACS in trenton and fail the CAPS box (semi simulator). The only way the CF will look at you again is if you go get a pilots license.

So what do they do?? They go pay thousands of dollars and spend 100's of hours obtaining a commercial pilots license just so they can try again at their dream of being a RCAF Pilot.

If it is just something you are kicking around - then it may not be for you.


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Jester_TG said:
			
		

> I am a firm believer that if you want it that bad - you will jump through the hoops and stick out the process.
> 
> There are applicants that go for Pilot - and get to ACS in trenton and fail the CAPS box (semi simulator). The only way the CF will look at you again is if you go get a pilots license.
> 
> ...



Not an idea that im just kicking around....literally am undergoing intense physio to heal a bad injury so i have to wait until its recovered before I can apply as I wouldn't be considered physically fit


----------



## brihard (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> To JMetc...
> 
> 
> The hiring process is entirely unique
> ...



I've been kicking around for nine years now... I've not noticed any particular deficit in the raw intelligence of who we bring in, balanced again what they're joining to do. There are also a number of other intangible personality traits that are desirable, such as perseverance, commitment, patience, and goal-orientation. I've known some folks with average intellects to excel in our profession because they bring other things to the table.

There is no shortage of college and university educated people knocking at the doors of the recruiting centers for the roles that need them. We have our share of 'the best and the brightest'. The former and not always also the latter, and vice versa.

I'd contend that a lengthy recruiting process is more likely to dissuade from joining those who are more likely to hop to the next easy opportunity after their initial service is complete.


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I've been kicking around for nine years now... I've not noticed any particular deficit in the raw intelligence of who we bring in, balanced again what they're joining to do. There are also a number of other intangible personality traits that are desirable, such as perseverance, commitment, patience, and goal-orientation. I've known some folks with average intellects to excel in our profession because they bring other things to the table.
> 
> There is no shortage of college and university educated people knocking at the doors of the recruiting centers for the roles that need them. We have our share of 'the best and the brightest'. The former and not always also the latter, and vice versa.
> 
> I'd contend that a lengthy recruiting process is more likely to dissuade from joining those who are more likely to hop to the next easy opportunity after their initial service is complete.




I apologize if my statement was particularly enraging....I merely meant to point out how the public sector has a hard time competing with large corporations for the nations talent

I in NO way meant to imply you guys do not have any of these "best and brightest" , but merely that a great deal of my generations top minds tend to only strive for high paying corporate careers


Was just trying to throw a different opinion into the mix....

I completely understand inteligence is not the "be all, end all", and that many other attributes are highly sought after...


----------



## JorgSlice (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> To JMetc...
> 
> 
> The hiring process is entirely unique
> ...



The military used to be a place and is still stereotypically a place where only the failed and dumb go when all other occupations won't take them (according to public opinion). The CF is still trying to eliminate that stigma and try to prevent as much stupid from coming in as possible, however like many jobs stupid will always be present.

My total time from the moment I sent in my application to the Alberta Sheriffs to the day I was hired was 9 months, 11 days, 13 hours and 33 minutes. Private Sector looks more at the fact that you have a body and a pulse in order to continue their profit cycles, the care not of quality. The CF and other public occupations want quality over quantity when positions are few and far between like it is currently and with budget cuts they won't be hiring anyone that's going to require extra money to educate and train if they could just hire someone with the qualifications already under belt.

Most of your "corporations" don't care about me as a person with a life outside of my job and do not offer nearly as generous benefits or salary upon initial entry. My two employers one being the CF do. If the application time is unpleasant, we'll be more than happy to have you go elsewhere.


----------



## JM2345 (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> Jobs in the private sector dont take months - years to complete....
> 
> How can any reasonable person argue that attracting the best and the brightest is something other than a good thing.... Yes, sure, not all the jobs are suited for an intellectual type person....but would you not agree that it would help any organization.
> 
> ...



I hate to make assumptions and make an ass out of myself like you are, but you seem to really lack real world experience, especially when it comes to employment. From application to first day on the job, many many jobs in the private sector take at least several months. Most large companies will constantly accept applications, just like the military does, but that doesn't mean they hire you immediately for whatever position you apply for if you meet their basic qualifications.

Any job which requires a background check, criminal record check, and credential verification can easily take 1-2 months, if not more. If they run scheduled training sessions only once or twice a year, then you have to wait for those. If you need medical tests and blood work, those are going to add a couple weeks to the average time frame. It took me 1.5 months to finish the hiring process for a part time job at Home Depot, and I didn't even get the job.

I understand that ignorance is bliss, and that the average citizen probably thinks Canada never has anything to worry about and what not, but do you really want people with the highest levels of security clearance who got rushed through recruiting because they were impatient and were considering take a job from the highest bidder instead? Members who are motivated more by money and less by the desire to serve their country would scare the hell out of me.

I just have to think you are really underestimating or misunderstanding what the job of the Canadian Forces really is. I don't care how bright you are, and how physically fit you are, if you tell me your biggest motivation in life is making a lot of money, I would hope the Canadian Forces thinks long and hard before considering hiring you. Being able to get good grades doesn't necessarily make a good soldier, or a good employee at all. And yes, many officers in the military graduate being at or near the top of their class, including of course civilian universities.

It isn't about you attacking the military at all. Again, that is an assumption that makes you look like an ass. It is about reality versus some ideal that you built up in your head. You truly believe you know what would make the best employee for the military better than the people in charge of making the policies. We can see this just by reading your statements.

The jobs I have quit the easiest in life were the jobs that were the easiest to get. This is true in almost every job sector. The faster you recruit/hire people, the faster they will quit. If someone doesn't have the patience or drive to wait around for a year for a career, they probably aren't actually planning to stick it out for a full contract in the military. They are just looking to try it out and see if its for them, and if not, they plan to try something else. Why waste time sticking it out in the military if you truly hate it, right?


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

A couple months does not compare to a couple years


I didnt say rushed through the process, just stated that I know for a fact many people who were thrown off by how long the process was

Did I mention grades being an indicator of the top minds? No you brought that up

I didnt say people who are motivated by money would be the best for the job, I said that our culture has bred that into a great many people and that the CF would benefit from more people considering it as a potential career - but the issue is that to most it is not even an option *** if you even try to say more people considering it an option would be a bad thing, I fear you will lose any credibility you may or may not have on this site***


Haha you can call me an arse all you want ....

There are things called facts and the facts are that a lot of potential talent that the CF would benefit from having in their ranks do not even have a chance to consider them....call it what you like (we don't want em anyway!) but again ill repeat my thesis: any organization would benefit from a brighter talent pool and I just felt it a shame that our society is going in a way that the CF isn't even considered an option for them....which is highly unfortunate.

Stop putting words into my mouth


----------



## JorgSlice (14 Apr 2013)

The CF isn't restricting applicants or restricting people from "considering it as an option" - you can only do that to yourself. The CF is restricting the number of people they hire because there is only so many positions and not a lot of money in the budget.

All this talk about "talent" not being able to consider the CF an option is rubbish and is only because of their own shortcomings. 

P.S. those aren't facts, it's your own opinion and hardly a convincing one at that. Most people don't want rewarding experiences, skills, etc. They want as much money as possible from day one with little to no effort. They consider the CF and then realise that real work is involved and then turn around and go somewhere else which is better for us anyway.


----------



## JM2345 (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> I apologize if my statement was particularly enraging....I merely meant to point out how the public sector has a hard time competing with large corporations for the nations talent
> 
> I in NO way meant to imply you guys do not have any of these "best and brightest" , but merely that a great deal of my generations top minds tend to only strive for high paying corporate careers
> 
> ...



You are bouncing back and forth between what you call opinion and what you call fact. Your statements aren't enraging so much as they are frustrating and almost laughable. Who is judging "the nations talent"? Top university graduates? Although I am not part of the Canadian Forces and especially don't have access to recruit transcripts, I would bet a fair amount of money that a lot of DEO officers, especially Pilots, are top graduates. The military offers a lot of jobs that aren't available in the corporate world. People with dreams of flying a fighter jet aren't likely to fly a commercial airline simply because the pay is better. And when including pay and benefits as PrairieThunder said, the overall compensation is really decent and in some cases a lot better than most corporations will pay.

A great deal of "your" generation may be motivated more by money, but does that somehow mean that there aren't also enough people who are motivated by their dreams of a certain career the forces offers, or the desire to serve their country? I think many members currently or having previously served can testify that the Forces provides them with everything they need to live a satisfying life.

What is the main reason to turn down a job in the forces and accept a higher paying private sector job? To afford a bigger TV? To take more vacations? To have more money when you retire? A fancier car? If you are an intelligent person who is smart with their money, you should be able to afford pretty much anything you want with a career in the forces. So while someone may have a higher GPA, I wouldn't necessarily call them more intelligent. I have seen too many stories of hot shot guys making $300k/year their first few years in a big corporation and being broke and jobless a few years later.


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

So JM 

According to you the military would not benefit from more people considering it option as a career?

You literally keep skewing what I've said so I will not waste my time with your posts anymore


If anyone wants to argue that having a larger and more intelligent talent pool to select from would be a bad thing....well good luck in all your endeavours.


----------



## mariomike (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> ....I merely meant to point out how the public sector has a hard time competing with large corporations for the nations talent



Public versus private is discussed from time to time on here. Opinions vary.

"The result is that now, 50 years later, public servants are, broadly, better paid than their private sector confreres and they still have the old "iron rice bowl," solid, legally mandated job security.":
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/107360/post-1170502.html#msg1170502


----------



## Chelomo (14 Apr 2013)

Might not be my place to say, but I'm quite certain personal attacks don't help this thread's quality. 

As for your 'thesis' OP, do you know how many applications get sent in for ROTP as well as DEO, versus the number of people they hire? I don't have the exact numbers under my thumb, but it's quite staggering, so I would argue that officers side, the CF gets its pick of the cream of the cream. I can't speak for NCM's, but if I had to guess, I would say they can afford to be selective as well. 

The process is as long as it needs to be honestly. There's probably some administrative hiccups once in a while, but it's necessary to save the taxpayer's money that the recruiting process happens sequentially, since the DND doesn't want to pay for a security check if you're not medically fit for example. And there's no point scheduling a medical if you don't correspond to the basic academic criterias. And at any stage, anything that comes up is going to obviously delay your application so they can check it out. For me it seems logical for the CF to take their time, especially since those people they employ will be trained to use automatic weapons and some of them will handle confidential information on a daily basis. As a Canadian taxpayer, I wouldn't want any chance taken with the people in charge of my safety, and as a potential officer candidate, I hope to serve under/with people that can show dedication. If they can't stick through the recruiting process because it's too long, then how am I supposed to trust them with my life?


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> The CF isn't restricting applicants or restricting people from "considering it as an option" - you can only do that to yourself. The CF is restricting the number of people they hire because there is only so many positions and not a lot of money in the budget.
> 
> All this talk about "talent" not being able to consider the CF an option is rubbish and is only because of their own shortcomings.
> 
> P.S. those aren't facts, it's your own opinion and hardly a convincing one at that. Most people don't want rewarding experiences, skills, etc. They want as much money as possible from day one with little to no effort. They consider the CF and then realise that real work is involved and then turn around and go somewhere else which is better for us anyway.



You yourself state the public opinion about the CF...yes exactly PEOPLE don't consider it an option....people are a product of their society....how can any of you try to argue that more people considering it an option is a bad thing


----------



## JM2345 (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> A couple months does not compare to a couple years
> 
> There are things called facts and the facts are that a lot of potential talent that the CF would benefit from having in their ranks do not even have a chance to consider them....call it what you like (we don't want em anyway!) but again ill repeat my thesis: any organization would benefit from a brighter talent pool and I just felt it a shame that our society is going in a way that the CF isn't even considered an option for them....which is highly unfortunate.
> 
> Stop putting words into my mouth



I tell you what, go apply for a job as the CEO of a corporation which already has a CEO and let me know when you get hired. If it takes a couple of years, or more likely never, then I think we can agree that the CF and the Private Sector do not differ very much in length of time it takes to get hired. Because that is what you are talking about here. An application that takes "a couple of years" is not the norm, and should not be expected. Can it happen? Absolutely! As it can happen and does happen in the private sector every day. But in the end, an application is nothing more than an application. It doesn't mean jobs are available, it doesn't mean other people aren't competing for the same job you want, it doesn't mean they have training sessions starting soon. It is just asking to be considered for employment.

Application to start dates take time. Yes, even in the private sector. Lawyers will wait for years for the right position to open up, because that is what they have wanted since they decided to become a lawyer. You can almost always make more money as a white collar criminal defense attorney, but a lot of lawyers don't want that. They have a satisfactory income and are happier in their work than they would be otherwise.

Since you say that you have these facts, we would all look forward to the proof you have to back them up. As an educated person, you know that facts have to be provable. 

I challenge your "thesis" and tell you that an organization which has an increased turnover rate among employees who are "brighter" would actually be much worse off. It really doesn't matter how bright someone is, if they aren't sticking it out for their entire contract, and preferably making a career out of it, the CF wont have time to benefit from them, and will end up spending more money training new recruits constantly. I consider myself extremely bright, but ask me to turn a wrench and I will have no idea what to do. Ask me to fly an airplane, and I will crap my pants. Could you imagine how fast the CF would fall apart if they put more weight on intellect and less on the rest of the process?

That is a scary thought. But, since you have facts for this, I will hopefully have my fears assuaged soon enough.


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Chelomo said:
			
		

> Might not be my place to say, but I'm quite certain personal attacks don't help this thread's quality.
> 
> As for your 'thesis' OP, do you know how many applications get sent in for ROTP as well as DEO, versus the number of people they hire? I don't have the exact numbers under my thumb, but it's quite staggering, so I would argue that officers side, the CF gets its pick of the cream of the cream. I can't speak for NCM's, but if I had to guess, I would say they can afford to be selective as well.
> 
> The process is as long as it needs to be honestly. There's probably some administrative hiccups once in a while, but it's necessary to save the taxpayer's money that the recruiting process happens sequentially, since the DND doesn't want to pay for a security check if you're not medically fit for example. And there's no point scheduling a medical if you don't correspond to the basic academic criterias. And at any stage, anything that comes up is going to obviously delay your application so they can check it out. For me it seems logical for the CF to take their time, especially since those people they employ will be trained to use automatic weapons and some of them will handle confidential information on a daily basis. As a Canadian taxpayer, I wouldn't want any chance taken with the people in charge of my safety, and as a potential officer candidate, I hope to serve under/with people that can show dedication. If they can't stick through the recruiting process because it's too long, then how am I supposed to trust them with my life?



I merely stated the lengthy process frightens some people - I didn't argue anywhere it shouldn't take a long time because of exactly what you are saying....


I think my detractors were offended by the implication intelligent people dont apply for CF....For the last time I state again all I was ever saying was that the CF would benefit from more people considering it


And like prairiethunder states public opinion of the CF is unfortunate....

I find it unfortunate as well because I also consider it to be the highest of callings


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

JM2345 said:
			
		

> I challenge your "thesis" and tell you that an organization which has an increased turnover rate among employees who are "brighter" would actually be much worse off. It really doesn't matter how bright someone is, if they aren't sticking it out for their entire contract, and preferably making a career out of it, the CF wont have time to benefit from them, and will end up spending more money training new recruits constantly. I consider myself extremely bright, but ask me to turn a wrench and I will have no idea what to do. Ask me to fly an airplane, and I will crap my pants. Could you imagine how fast the CF would fall apart if they put more weight on intellect and less on the rest of the process?
> 
> That is a scary thought. But, since you have facts for this, I will hopefully have my fears assuaged soon enough.



Where did I say a faster process was my point....nowhere

You keep pretending Ive said something that I have not


Good night and good luck


----------



## JM2345 (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> According to you the military would not benefit from more people considering it option as a career?



I do not see any way that the military would benefit directly from more people considering it as a career, no. Consideration without action is really quite useless, and is a trait the military would not find attractive in the least. Patience, determination, planning, and action are much more useful qualities the armed forces can use. 

And in addition, you would like to to explain why having more applicants could be a negative thing for the Canadian Forces? Really? You are arguing that the recruiting process is too long and is discouraging people from applying, so you want to see MORE people applying? Do you understand how this whole recruiting thing works? Is there any evidence that more intelligent applicants would do the job any more efficiently? Any evidence they would have less turnover?

If you can't prove to us that having a brighter talent pool would benefit the CF, then why are you asking us to prove it would hurt the CF?


----------



## brihard (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> Where did I say a faster process was my point....nowhere
> 
> You keep pretending Ive said something that I have not
> 
> ...



Frankly you've been running in circles long enough now that I'm having a hard time picking out any concrete point you're trying to make. You have alleged that somehow the CF is closing itself off to people, that it should be 'easier' to get in so that Canada can better attract its best and brightest... That seems contradictory.

Let's sum this one up for you: There are two kinds of people; those with an interest in joining the CF, and those who do not. Of each category, some are people we want, some are people we don't. We'll never be able to attract all the former or repel all the latter. Since, at the end of the day, we only actually want to _enrol_ people who actually want to be in the CF, there's a limit to how much we should concern ourselves with attracting that portion who don't consider us an option.

Do we have enough applicants? Very much so, yes.

Are we hurting because of a lack of quality of applicants? Neither I, nor, it seems, most others perceive it to be so. 

Is the CF currently bringing in the right people to satisfy our role of developing, maintaining, and if necessary employing the unique capacity to kill people and break their stuff in pursuit of the national interest and in accordance with the mandates of our civil authority? I would say categorically 'yes'.

So if our current system is hard enough to catch mostly wheat and little chaff, if it allows time for proper background checks and for assessment of candidates, and if we have the luxury of matching requirements to jobs- say, a M.Ed. for Training Development instead of accepting just any business major for the job- what exactly is it that you contend we're doing wrong?

I may be missing something of course. I'm just an infantry NCO with an honours degree, so I'm probably not among that lofty few who really 'get it'.


----------



## JM2345 (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> Where did I say a faster process was my point....nowhere





			
				Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> In a perfect world CF would have more funding and actually make it easy for willing citizens to join.



This wasn't you? You weren't the person who said in a perfect world, the Canadian Forces would be easier to join? When we asked for clarification on what was difficult about joining, you didn't give that the impression of it taking a long time to process was what was "difficult"? So then please clarify what you meant about being easier to join. Because everything you have posted in this thread is a complaint about how long the application takes to process. In a perfect work, it would be easier to join the CF. You posted this, not me. So clarify what you meant then if I am so far off base.


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

JM2345 said:
			
		

> I do not see any way that the military would benefit directly from more people considering it as a career, no. Consideration without action is really quite useless, and is a trait the military would not find attractive in the least. Patience, determination, planning, and action are much more useful qualities the armed forces can use.
> 
> And in addition, you would like to to explain why having more applicants could be a negative thing for the Canadian Forces? Really? You are arguing that the recruiting process is too long and is discouraging people from applying, so you want to see MORE people applying? Do you understand how this whole recruiting thing works? Is there any evidence that more intelligent applicants would do the job any more efficiently? Any evidence they would have less turnover?
> 
> If you can't prove to us that having a brighter talent pool would benefit the CF, then why are you asking us to prove it would hurt the CF?



I hope someone IN the CF can please reply to this...

It is extremely laughable that you could make such a statement that more people considering serving their country would be a bad thing....


I do not NEED to say any more to this, as that is one of the most insane things I've read on this forum


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Frankly you've been running in circles long enough now that I'm having a hard time picking out any concrete point you're trying to make. You have alleged that somehow the CF is closing itself off to people, that it should be 'easier' to get in so that Canada can better attract its best and brightest... That seems contradictory.
> 
> Let's sum this one up for you: There are two kinds of people; those with an interest in joining the CF, and those who do not. Of each category, some are people we want, some are people we don't. We'll never be able to attract all the former or repel all the latter. Since, at the end of the day, we only actually want to _enrol_ people who actually want to be in the CF, there's a limit to how much we should concern ourselves with attracting that portion who don't consider us an option.
> 
> ...



Brihard I briefly mentioned how i wished the process was quicker.....not that It would benefit from being quicker


What i have been stating is that the CF would benefit from having more people consider it an option


Any other point you guys bring up is exactly that....something you're all bringing up


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

You guys ALL keep bringing up the tiniest shred of my post when in fact all the arguing with JM was about the benefit any organization would have from having more people consider it


Thats a fact and if you want to pretend otherwise congratulations


----------



## JM2345 (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> It is extremely laughable that you could make such a statement that more people considering serving their country would be a bad thing....



I didn't state that at all. I very clearly stated that consideration really does nothing of benefit or harm to the Canadian Forces. It is useless. A million genius applicants considering joining, but ultimately deciding not to can really have no measurable benefit to the Forces. A million unqualified applicants actually applying for the Canadian Forces would have no positive benefit for the Canadian Forces. It doesn't matter how bright you are, some people will not be qualified for the Canadian Forces. 

The only things that may happen with so many unqualified applicants applying is that either the standards of recruiting are lowered, since they are turning away so many hopefuls, or the automated "vetting" processes and initial application requirements are raised which would have the opposite affect of what you want. It would actually then become harder to join if that happened. 

If we really looked at all of the top graduates of every Canadian university, and then vetted them to see who would be qualified for military service, and from there were able to give them impression that the processing time for CF applications was actually only 1 month for them, realistically how many of those people do you think would make a career out of the Canadian Forces? That is the real question you have to ask yourself. And from there, do we not already have people doing a satisfactory job in the position that those people would want to make a career out of?

Unless you have numbers for that, then you are just making wild guesses with no real data to back it up.


----------



## Chelomo (14 Apr 2013)

Actually, according to another thread here, there were 10 000 ROTP applicants last year for 350 positions. Quite enough people consider the CF already, as a matter of fact, there is a significant surplus of applications for many trades. The problem you seek to outline doesn't exist except in a few trades. People who have experience in the CF have been disagreeing with you throughout the thread and explaining to you why a larger pool of applicants is not exactly necessary since the dedicated ones are already there, and there's more than enough to go around. You can't seem to imagine that maybe they know about the reality and needs of the CF better than you do. While I'm never too keen on ad hominems, I think you should just accept that maybe they're correct.


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

JM2345 said:
			
		

> I do not see any way that the military would benefit directly from more people considering it as a career, no



?


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Apr 2013)

Fact:  There are already more applicants to the CAF than there are jobs for them.
Fact:  Not all those applicants will pass the medical, aptitude testing, or interview process.
Fact:  After all that, there will STILL be more applicants to the CAF than there are jobs for them.
Fact:  The military recruiting machine has done a good job of identifying desirable traits in those applicants, and the training system does a good job of turning those traits into employable skills.  Those who cannot meet those requirements fail to continue into the CAF.
Fact:  After all of that, there are still more applicants to the CAF than there are jobs for them.


Those are the relevant facts, all else is conjecture and wishful thinking.


----------



## JM2345 (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> What i have been stating is that the CF would benefit from having more people consider it an option



Please explain how it would benefit the CF to have more people consider it an option. I need to understand how you have come to the conclusion that the CF would experience a net benefit from more people considering it. Since you say it is a fact, I would like to see at least some proof or evidence to back this up.


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Chelomo said:
			
		

> Actually, according to another thread here, there were 10 000 ROTP applicants last year for 350 positions. Quite enough people consider the CF already, as a matter of fact, there is a significant surplus of applications for many trades. The problem you seek to outline doesn't exist except in a few trades. People who have experience in the CF have been disagreeing with you throughout the thread and explaining to you why a larger pool of applicants is not exactly necessary since the dedicated ones are already there, and there's more than enough to go around. You can't seem to imagine that maybe they know about the reality and needs of the CF better than you do. While I'm never too keen on ad hominems, I think you should just accept that maybe they're correct.




LOL come on

How can anyone argue that more Canadians considering the CF as an option would be anything other than a good thing....that defies all logic


----------



## Jester_TG (14 Apr 2013)

This has nothing to do with the original topic anymore...lol

 :facepalm:


----------



## Chelomo (14 Apr 2013)

I suggest you read Kat's post. After all those posts I still havn't been able to discern any kind of point from your posts. You don't suggest anything to achieve your desired outcome, you don't offer facts. You seem to have tunnel vision on something you see as desirable when person after person explains to you that the limited ressources of the CF are much more needed elsewhere than augmenting the already overflowing amount of applications.

If you studied in business, then you know that ressources are limited and needs are unlimited, and what you propose is really not a priority.

And yes, this is becoming ridiculous.


----------



## JM2345 (14 Apr 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Those are the relevant facts, all else is conjecture and wishful thinking.



I'd love to throw in another fact if I may.

FACT: It costs time and money to process applications. More applications to process means more money.

And an opinion.

OPINION: The Canadian Forces receives a much higher net benefit in a particular position from 1 employee of slightly above average intelligence who does a satisfactory job for 20 years than 10 employees of high intelligence who go above and beyond for only 2 years each before quitting.


----------



## JM2345 (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> Nevermind, disregard my post. Forces.ca has updated again and apparently im crap out of luck
> 
> In a perfect world CF would have more funding and actually make it easy for willing citizens to join. Its a travesty how little value our nation puts in the armed forces-



Maybe we just should have listened to the thread starter when he gave us the helpful advice to disregard his post. It's a shame he had to throw that extra little jab at the end there.


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Apr 2013)

So, your theory is that we need to process twice the amount of applicants we already have for the limited number of jobs available?  Screening costs money, money we don't have.  that would be neither economical in terms of man hours wasted, nor efficient in terms of resources.  Where does this magical pile of money you're speaking of come from?  you are aware the government gets together now and then and decides what to spend money on, right?  It's called a "budget", there was even an article in the paper about it.


----------



## Jester_TG (14 Apr 2013)

it's not just money... like you said it's time!

Peoples applications can already take over a year....imagine if that file manager had 2x the work?


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

LOL 

Theres obviously nothing that could be said to change your minds...not even sure why I tried. I guess I thought you guys were reasonable and logical people. It is a fact that more people considering serving their country would be a good thing....you guys can say whatever you want against that point but dont worry i actually wont be posting anymore

The mob wins haha mob mentality is a good thing right? 

Goodnight and I stress GOODLUCK


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Apr 2013)

No need to wish me luck, good luck to you, I already got in and did my time.  Is it exhausting for you to ALWAYS be the smartest kid in the room?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Apr 2013)

My thoughts...click on file for animated effect.


----------



## CombatDoc (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> LOL come on
> 
> How can anyone argue that more Canadians considering the CF as an option would be anything other than a good thing....that defies all logic


I'm quite surprised at the emotion and vitriol that this post has generated in such a short time.  In today's global knowledge economy there is competition for the best qualified employees, and although nobody has mentioned it, Canada is facing significant post-baby boom demographic challenges with its workforce.

I have to agree with the OP that having a larger talent pool of applicants to choose from should, in general,  be better than having a smaller pool of talent to choose from.  This to me makes common sense and allows the CAF to choose the most highly qualified applicants for each position on a case-by-case basis.  If we use the reductio ad absurdum argument that a smaller pool is better (only x applicants for x available positions, with applicants perfectly matched on their applications for their desired MOSIDs), we could in an extreme situation be forced to enrol every applicant that applied regardless of "talent" (by being forced to lower enrolment standards).

[cue the refrains of "good riddance, they lacked dedication"]  Also, in an ideal world a shorter flash-to-bang from applicant-to-job offer is better.  Some highly qualified applicants to the CAF have gotten discouraged by the lengthy recruiting centre process, given up, and moved on to other opportunities. [/cue off]

We do not live in a ideal world, and yes, vetting applications costs money.  And yes, we can argue whether or not the "best and the brightest" choose private industry over public service.  But I find fallacious the argument that a smaller applicant pool is better than a larger applicant pool.


----------



## brihard (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> LOL
> 
> Theres obviously nothing that could be said to change your minds...not even sure why I tried. I guess I thought you guys were reasonable and logical people. It is a fact that more people considering serving their country would be a good thing....you guys can say whatever you want against that point but dont worry i actually wont be posting anymore
> 
> ...



Yup, I guess the unemployed business grad without a lick of CF service sure schooled us on our organization human resources needs.  :

Other than this vague notion that somehow too many people aren't considering the CF- which is irrelevant, given that our resources deployed as-is have delivered our needed manning without incurring the opportunity cost necessary to attract the reluctant - you're still saying a lot without actually saying a lot.

But if you want to take your ball and go home, you go right ahead there sparky.

You can hold your 'good luck'... I've already been in the CF for a very enjoyable mine years, and have already been successful in my application to move on to the next thing in my life.


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> No need to wish me luck, good luck to you, I already got in and did my time.  Is it exhausting for you to ALWAYS be the smartest kid in the room?



Lol it was so I skipped a couple grades to resolve that


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Apr 2013)

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> I'm quite surprised at the emotion and vitriol that this post has generated in such a short time.  In today's global knowledge economy there is competition for the best qualified employees, and although nobody has mentioned it, Canada is facing significant post-baby boom demographic challenges with its workforce.
> 
> I have to agree with the OP that having a larger talent pool of applicants to choose from should, in general,  be better than having a smaller pool of talent to choose from.  This to me makes common sense and allows the CAF to choose the most highly qualified applicants for each position on a case-by-case basis.  If we use the reductio ad absurdum argument that a smaller pool is better (only x applicants for x available positions, with applicants perfectly matched on their applications for their desired MOSIDs), we could in an extreme situation be forced to enrol every applicant that applied regardless of "talent" (by being forced to lower enrolment standards).
> 
> ...




I never said anything of the sort, I merely stated the FACT (a much beloved word in this thread)  that we already had many more applicants than we do positions.  You can't have it both ways, either you process a larger group of applicants, or you process the ones you have faster.  The sausage machine can only grind so fast.


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Yup, I guess the unemployed business grad without a lick of CF service sure schooled us on our organization human resources needs.  :
> 
> Other than this vague notion that somehow too many people aren't considering the CF- which is irrelevant, given that our resources deployed as-is have delivered our needed manning without incurring the opportunity cost necessary to attract the reluctant - you're still saying a lot without actually saying a lot.
> 
> ...



Haha i felt like i was crying out that the world was round!


----------



## Chelomo (14 Apr 2013)

Your maturity level is astounding. I'm certainly glad mature people like you are considering enlisting in our national forces. If you've abandoned all attempt at logical discourse, why don't you go and do as you said you would, and stop posting? Otherwise you're simply heaping more silliness on top of the pile.


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Chelomo said:
			
		

> Your maturity level is astounding. I'm certainly glad mature people like you are considering enlisting in our national forces. If you've abandoned all attempt at logical discourse, why don't you go and do as you said you would, and stop posting? Otherwise you're simply heaping more silliness on top of the pile.



I kept it civil

Merely made a couple jokes...not like anyone makes jokes on here or anything...

I kept trying to but everyone was chiming in so I had to stand my ground


----------



## Chelomo (14 Apr 2013)

I give up. Think what you want, good luck in your application.


----------



## JM2345 (14 Apr 2013)

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> But I find fallacious the argument that a smaller applicant pool is better than a larger applicant pool.



Nobody here is making that argument. Reality and ideal scenarios are a lot different. In an ideal scenario, we would have the most qualified and intelligent people apply for positions they are best suited in, and be willing to stay in that position for their entire career. In an ideal scenario, only the amount of qualified and intelligent people needed to fulfill the available positions would apply. That is ideal.

In reality, if we had a larger amount of people applying for the Canadian Forces, we really can't say with any confidence that we would have a net benefit. 

Some highly qualified applicants who may be interested in a 20 year career with the Canadian Forces may be passed over for a more highly qualified applicant who quits after 2 years because he got offered 3x the salary somewhere else. Some highly qualified applicant who is willing to pull the trigger may be passed over by someone who "doesn't believe in war" when the time comes, because he wasn't as good of a bullshitter during the interview.

You can't look at the benefits and ignore the potential, and very likely, drawbacks. Can you really say with any certainty that the Canadian Forces would get a net benefit from having more people apply? What if everyone who is NOT applying due to the perception of a lengthy and difficult recruiting process are people who would quit 2 years in to their contracts, because the Forces wasn't really what they wanted and it just seemed like an easy gig?

You are telling us that spending more money on processing applications, and turning down many other qualified applicants with more patience and determination, should give the Canadian Forces a net benefit, and I just see no evidence to back up that statement. It is nothing more than a wild guess.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Apr 2013)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Frankly you've been running in circles long enough now that I'm having a hard time picking out any concrete point you're trying to make.


As near as I can tell......

a) he's arguing that the 'best and brightest' of his peers are not applying to the CF because the process takes too long;

b) he's doing physio for some injury so that he _can_ join the CF.

Therefore, he seems to be saying that he's neither the best nor the brightest, and apparently doesn't meet our physical standards to join.....yet somehow _we're_ all f*cked up as far as recruiting goes because we're not willing to change the standards and/or process to meet what _he_ somehow expertly deems to be what's best.

:stars:


Yep, straight to <ignore>   :


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> As near as I can tell......
> 
> a) he's arguing that the 'best and brightest' of his peers are not applying to the CF because the process takes too long;
> 
> ...




Lol didnt argue that in any way

This forum has an affinity for skewing peoples statements and making asinine personal attacks

You should be extremely proud journeyman....


----------



## brihard (14 Apr 2013)

A classic case of 'everyone else is wrong, and I am the victim'...


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Brihard said:
			
		

> A classic case of 'everyone else is wrong, and I am the victim'...



A classic case of the old generation taking too long to move out of the way


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> A classic case of the old generation taking too long to move out of the way



Would you now like to suggest that we push people out the door just because there's a line-up at the recruiting centre? Why don't you sell that amazing strategy to the Teacher's Unions.


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Would you now like to suggest that we push people out the door just because there's a line-up at the recruiting centre? Why don't you sell that amazing strategy to the Teacher's Unions.



Ha

You guys need to stop making up fantastical statements pretending they came from me
Cant accept the fact that My point was pure logic so you guys stoop to making it seem like I said something that clearly I did not


----------



## brihard (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> A classic case of the old generation taking too long to move out of the way



I beg your pardon? How old, exactly, do you think I am? 

Or, if your comment is more general than that, why is it that you think our generation is somehow entitled to jobs that the previous generation hasn't had the decency to retire or die out of yet?

If you're concerned about the availability of jobs because they're all locked down (they aren't- just wait for a WestJet seat sale to Calgary or Edmonton, and if you don't suck at life you'll be good to go), why not take that business learning you've got and start your own enterprise? You have no entitlement to be handed work by someone else if you're thus far unable to market yourself.

You're really coming across now as being of the 'entitled' cohort of our generation that gives the rest of us a bad name...


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> Ha
> 
> You guys need to stop making up fantastical statements pretending they came from me
> Cant accept the fact that My point was pure logic so you guys stoop to making it seem like I said something that clearly I did not



Which logical point was that?


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I beg your pardon? How old, exactly, do you think I am?
> 
> Or, if your comment is more general than that, why is it that you think our generation is somehow entitled to jobs that the previous generation hasn't had the decency to retire or die out of yet?
> 
> ...



I called someone out for a post that fits the definition of a "troll" and you respond with making it seem im decrying myself to be some sort of victim....thought we weren't supposed to make personal attacks

My comment about the older generation was merely a comment on how eventually logic prevails over entrenched ideas

It just so happened i thought of it because of your post to me


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Which logical point was that?



That any and all organizations would benefit from a larger and more intelligent applicant pool


I think some of my detractors must have been arguing for the sake of arguing


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Apr 2013)

The problem that the CAF has with an increased applicant pool is that we have to complete processing (to whatever point of failure) on files before we tell someone they are unsuitable because of CFAT score, medical, etc. Each applicant costs the system time and money. Unlike corporations, we don't get to take in all the resumes for a certain position, and "round file" the bottom 90% without another process. Every applicant beyond the rate needed to provide suitable applicants is a drag on a system such as we run. That, unfortunately, invalidates your hypothesis as far as the CAF is concerned. Pure business models don't work in the real world in all situations.


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The problem that the CAF has with an increased applicant pool is that we have to complete processing (to whatever point of failure) on files before we tell someone they are unsuitable because of CFAT score, medical, etc. Each applicant costs the system time and money. Unlike corporations, we don't get to take in all the resumes for a certain position, and "round file" the bottom 90% without another process. Every applicant beyond the rate needed to provide suitable applicants is a drag on a system such as we run. Than, unfortunately, invalidates your hypothesis as far as the CAF is concerned. Pure business models don't work in the real world in all situations.



I understand where your coming from...

A drag on the system vs. having the best possible workforce is a choice though....yes i realize hard choices have to be made in all areas of life.

The CAF is making the choice due to constraints on the system....you guys are picking one opportunity cost over another....the funny thing is that my ORIGINAL point was that i felt it unfortunate that most Canadians dont even consider the CF as a career option - which some posters took offense to- that was when I brought up how its always best to have more options than less....which even more people took offense to

Im sure you can admit if more Canadians felt it was an option the CF would be better for it


----------



## Teager (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot do you have any facts or any sources that say a lot of Canadians don't consider the CAF? For all we know tons of people DO consider it. So unless you have actual statistic data proving your point you don't have much of an argument.


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> Im sure you can admit if more Canadians felt it was an option the CF would be better for it



It wouldn't change the number of people we take, only make the process of selection more laborious. There is no clear advantage to clogging the recruitment gateway more than it already is. The only visible result would be larger numbers of disappointed people complaining about why they weren't selected. We recruit to fill entry-level positions for soldiers/sailors/airmen and officers; from THAT pool we later select for leadership training and advancement which constitutes a series of ever-narrowing gateways of opportunity.  "Stacking the deck" doesn't create an organizational advantage when every recruit feels they are specially destined to be the CDS. We also need a broad range range of people including those who will plateau at various level to fill our organization because we cannot go back to the pool of applicants and select middle managers like a corporation does.


----------



## brihard (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> I understand where your coming from...
> 
> A drag on the system vs. having the best possible workforce is a choice though....yes i realize hard choices have to be made in all areas of life.
> 
> ...



No, your original point was that you apparently know a handful of people who skipped joining the CF because recruiting took too long, anda re now 'firmly entrenched' int he business world. From there you're making assumptions that the plural of anecdote is data, and that somehow this is indicative of flaws in the CF recruiting system. Probably the _only[/i[ criticism you've brought up with any specificity is how long it takes to process recruits.

We - those of us replying to you who cumulatively have well over a century of CF service in a variety of roles - have informed you (note the words I'm choosing to use) that the CF recruiting process is what it needs to be to ensure the right people end up enrolled. You are choosing to fire off replies without hearing what is being said by the actualy professionals of the institution that you are choosing to try to weigh in on the workings of. Quite literally you are not equipped with the institutional or corporate knowledge necessary to make these pronouncements you're making.

We have sought and struck a balance between attracting those applicants who actually want it, and enrolling the right people. That in turn has allowed us to get very good and wrecking stuff and people on behalf of Her Majesty, a consideration to which all other matters are secondary.

You contend that the CF is not getting the best possible workforce, because too many people 'don't consider it an option'.

Newsflash: It IS an option. Those who don't consider it to be are not those who actually bring to the table the legitimate interest in the profession that is critical for people to make effective soldiers. They have merely selected themselves out before it became necessary for the recruiting or training systems to - two things you have zero relevant experience in, but that many of us do.

If you still insist on this silly notion that we are detrimentally limiting the efficacy of our recruiting simply because we allow the process to take as long as it needs to, then you simply don't grasp the intent of what the recruiting system does for our institution. It's already plain that you think you have much more knowledge than you actually do on what the Canadian Forces need.

I really don't know what more we can tell you. You seem to want to hear yourself speak, but will not listen to the several of us who actually know what we're talking about and who have very patiently tried to explain to you why what you think you have diagnosed as a problem actually isn't._


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Teager said:
			
		

> Sir Dip a lot do you have any facts or any sources that say a lot of Canadians don't consider the CAF? For all we know tons of people DO consider it. So unless you have actual statistic data proving your point you don't have much of an argument.




For young people its a known fact that its not really an option


But since you resisted personally attacking me

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/06/25/war-in-afghanistan-caused-surge-in-army-applicants_n_884522.html

At its peak around 25000 applications out of 30,000,000

Do the math if you care to.....its an extremely low percent


----------



## ttlbmg (14 Apr 2013)

In all honesty, wouldn't one consider all Canadian citizens as "potential candidates" for the Canadian Forces? As one of the previous posters stated, thoughts without intention or follow through are just that, thoughts. I am not a mind reader, so I could not say that there have not been millions of citizens considering a career in the CF.

I would argue that a lack of new graduates from "your generation" applying to the CF lies more in the hands of "your generation" than in application process of the CF. Your argument is that many of the best and brightest choose the private sector over the public sector because of material benefit. Is that not a generational issue as opposed to a flaw in the current system? I agree, the CF recruiting process can take a long amount of time, but if the job is not available, the job is not available. 

The point you brought up that sat uneasy with me was your annoyance at the fact that you are not able to apply for TDO because of your educational background. You do not have the proper education in order to apply for direct entry into the TDO profession. The current standards to apply for direct entry into TDO is EITHER a Masters level education in Educational policies, or a Bachelor Degree in education, and additional experience. Being that you do not meet these requirements, you are unable to apply. I do not understand your questioning this. There are not really any current professions that waive educational requirements in order to serve the supposed best and brightest. In the same token, the amount of direct entry TDO applications is limited. This is because the CF prefers to have members with experience in the training and instructing within the CF to assist in the development of training methods and directing the future of the CF. To argue that you have more to offer than someone with the correct experience and education seems an ignorant comment to make. 

I believe that by applying stricter standards on occupations within the CF, one could argue that these standards allow for only the most suitable and ideal candidates to apply. If you want to become a TDO, then go to school and earn the proper degree. Then apply to the CF when the TDO profession is open. Be the person with the highest CFAT score, perfect medical history, and give a phenomenal interview. Then you will move from a consideration of the CF as an occupation to being a proud member of the CF.


----------



## Teager (14 Apr 2013)

Do the math eh? Hmmm out of 30 000 000 people how many are children? how many are seniors? how many are disabled/sick etc? Not to mention you have to have other people doing other jobs within Canada. Also you said "consider" many can consider but not put an application in.


----------



## JM2345 (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> That any and all organizations would benefit from a larger and more intelligent applicant pool



So even if all of the additional applicants to the Canadian Forces were either:

a) Not able to pass the medical.
b) Not planning to stay past 1-2 years.
c) Were convicted felons.
d) One of a million other reasons they might not be suitable for the Canadian Forces.

You are telling us, the Canadian Forces would in the end receive a net benefit and be better off overall as long as the applicants are intelligent and there are more of them?

What are you basing that off of? That's all we really need to know. Seems like you are using some pretty wild assumptions based off of nothing factual at all.

In reality, a larger talent pool probably only means 2 things:
More money spent to try to process the applications.
Longer waiting lists for applications to be processed.

That's it. There are only so many positions available. They aren't going to fire someone who is already in a position because they just got 50 new qualified applications. You have to wait.


----------



## Teager (14 Apr 2013)

I'd also like to say i'm a YOUNG person and I got in without this FACT that its not really an option. It always has been an option. You either want to do the job or you don't. Plain and simple.


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> For young people its a known fact that its not really an option



You still have not established this with any data to back it up.



			
				Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> Do the math if you care to.....its an extremely low percent



http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/06/25/war-in-afghanistan-caused-surge-in-army-applicants_n_884522.html



> In 2009-10, the Canadian Forces received 25,738 applications, up dramatically from the 2001-02 fiscal year, when applications numbered 13,504 — a figure that included existing soldiers seeking transfers to other units.
> 
> With the mission winding down, the Forces received 18,881 applications in 2010-11.
> 
> ...



So, we're an organization of about 90,000 people. We have attrition in recent years of about 4500-5000. To refill the ranks we are still seeing over three applicants per lost service member.

In your mind, how many applicants do we need for each entry level soldier or officer position? Remember, we review candidates in quantity and intake tens and hundreds at a time across a variety of trades. We do not recruit for individual positions. If we need 100 infantry soldiers, and find 100 suitable candidates in the first 300 applicants, why do we need to look at more files when to do so we first have to change the way we attract those applicants to get the files?

Two further points:

1.  You completely ignored my comments on the way we recruit to fill the organization from the bottom up, which is not like corporations. You haven't established that your theory works in the context of the CAF's needs.

2.  I was around in the 1980s, when we couldn't recruit people fast enough to match attrition and we refused Voluntary Releases to soldiers who had not completed their initial engagements. In those days everyone in high school knew that the CAF was an option ... as in _"If you can get a job you can always join the Army."_ Comparatively, what we see today is an abundance of suitable candidates, not the shortfall you seem intent on convincing us needs to be fixed.


----------



## JM2345 (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> For young people its a known fact that its not really an option



This is getting ridiculous. You are obviously just trying to piss everyone off. If you read this forum for a few minutes, you would see dozens of kids ages 15-25 asking for advice on applying for a position with the Canadian Forces. I am in my mid 20s and I am in the process of applying. I have my initial application in, and 1 month has already come and gone. I plan for it to take up to a year for my application to be processed. What is 1 year to try to get a career that will change your life? I lived in a town with a Reserve base last year, and 90% of the people running the day to day duties are all young people aged 18-30. You have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## brihard (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> For young people its a known fact that its not really an option
> 
> 
> But since you resisted personally attacking me
> ...



First, claiming 'it is a known fact' does not at all make it the case. It's a good thing none of the young folks I have personally sent to the recruiting centre as a reserve regiment recruiter knew this 'known fact'. However simply claiming 'everyone knows' is one of the simplest and most common logical fallacies. It lends no strength to your argument. The actuality is that applying for the military is an option for every Canadian meeting the necessary basic criteria. You can pretend all you want that it's not an option, but it is. My unit, last year, had about 70 or 80 people express interest in the 10 infantry positions I was allowed to recruit for. That's just one example.

Second, your math is rather off. Our total population is 33 million or thereabouts, however manpower fit for military service (per CIA world factbook) is approx. 13 million. 25,000 applications annually is roughly a fifth of a percentage of our population who could serve. That's not half bad. Most importantly, it likely reflects the level of actual INTEREST in the military. The simple truth is the majority of people _don't want to be military_. They have other ambitions. They have objections to what we do. They don't like the nature of the work. They prefer a more stable family life. Whatever. You'll need to demonstrate that other careers attract higher proportions of the eligible workforce if you intend to demonstrate that somehow we're doing things wrong.

We are getting the people we need, and excluding the people we don't want. We have more applicants than we have spots, and are turning away more qualified, educated, experienced people than has been the case in a long time. We have tested our military in battle, and our recruiting approaches are for the most part validated by our success on operations. No amount of opinion, speculation, conjecture or flat out straw man fabrication on your part changes this.


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Your right JM - not That i am trying to piss any of you off, but that this is ridiculous. An innocent point of view that has turned into a free for all


And Mr. O'leary I am sorry for not responding I am trying to keep up with all of the different arguments taking place simultaneously

Im going to do myself a favor and stop with all of this....none of you seem to be willing to believe that generally Canadians do not consider the CF an option....i think 25,000 applicants as a recent peak sheds light (especially since apparently a lot of those are from one unit to another and repeat applicants)


If .0008 of canada seems like enough people to you guys well then it will always suffice....yes I realise the number is what Brihard stated after I did not feel like going to the cia fact book to satisfy all of you

You guys have turned an innocent comment and statement about how I felt not a lot of Canadians consider the CF (which I felt deplorable as it is the highest of callings) into some childish argument amounting to no more than a waste of everyones time


----------



## mariomike (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip, if interested.

RECRUITING AND RETENTION OF MILITARY PERSONNEL: CANADA
http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public/PubFullText/RTO/TR/RTO-TR-HFM-107/TR-HFM-107-02B.pdf


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> If .0008 of canada seems like enough people to you guys well then it will always suffice....



What we are seeing meets the organization's needs and, therefore, does not compel change.

The past has proven that Canadians step forward to fill the need when the need expands.



> ...in 1914 and 1939 ... The number of trained personnel in the Canadian Militia for the year 1913-14 was only 57,527  while the Canadian Expeditionary Force saw a total of 628,462 Canadians in its service."





> "... the Permanent Force had only 4,261 all ranks in mid-1939, every unit being under strength." The Militia saw another 46,251 train in 1938-39. So who, exactly, were the other men and women that made up the wartime strength of the Canadian Army, which saw the service of 730,625 soldiers and support personnel, in Canada and abroad, during the Second World War."



Source - http://regimentalrogue.com/papers/the_regimental_system.htm


----------



## brihard (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> If .0008 of canada seems like enough people to you guys well then it will always suffice...



This is seriously the only part of this you need to get through your head... Yes it IS enough, since those who simply don't _want_ this profession don't merit consideration, whatever else they may bring to the table.

The proof is in the pudding. The Canadian forces have proven ourselves capable of attracting the necessary people to do our job. Supply and demand have met in the military labour market in Canada. To expend further effort to widen our nets beyond what is necessary to provide for our needs would distract effort and detour resources away from actually doing what these people are hired to do.

If you aren't able to grasp this simple truth, there's nothing I or anyone else can do to help you better understand the profession you want to be a part of someday. You will find, however, that if you get in and make a habit of embarking on little crusades outside of your area of expertise, and claim 'personal attack!' when you are rightly shut down by people in the know, your career will not be an enjoyable one.


----------



## Sir Dip a lot (14 Apr 2013)

Brihard said:
			
		

> This is seriously the only part of this you need to get through your head... Yes it IS enough, since those who simply don't _want_ this profession don't merit consideration, whatever else they may bring to the table.
> 
> The proof is in the pudding. The Canadian forces have proven ourselves capable of attracting the necessary people to do our job. Supply and demand have met in the military labour market in Canada. To expend further effort to widen our nets beyond what is necessary to provide for our needs would distract effort and detour resources away from actually doing what these people are hired to do.
> 
> If you aren't able to grasp this simple truth, there's nothing I or anyone else can do to help you better understand the profession you want to be a part of someday. You will find, however, that if you get in and make a habit of embarking on little crusades outside of your area of expertise, and claim 'personal attack!' when you are rightly shut down by people in the know, your career will not be an enjoyable one.



Personal attack was someone aka journeyman making comment about an injury i am recovering from

I grasp what you are saying....no one aees  to be able to admit that not a lot of canadians feel it is an option....i know you know the demographics of who joins generally...i was only ever trying to say that a larger and more diverse applicant pool would benefit an organization....i was merely making a societal comment that i felt all canadians should feel the call within them and be brave enough to answer it


But anyways due to the fact that none of you will take anything i have to say serious i am actually not going to repond on this topic again


----------



## Teager (14 Apr 2013)

OH were not taking you seriously? I didn't know there could be so much sarcasm in one forum  :facepalm:


----------



## JM2345 (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> Im going to do myself a favor and stop with all of this....none of you seem to be willing to believe that generally Canadians do not consider the CF an option....i think 25,000 applicants as a recent peak sheds light



Now you are just going off on an entirely different idea. You are simply saying now that the majority of Canadians do not seriously consider a career with the Canadian Forces. And you are suggesting that is somehow a problem that the Canadian Forces needs to work to "correct". Many people in the military need to kill other people in the course of their duties. Some people in the military will get killed in the course of their duties. It doesn't matter how streamlined you make the recruiting process, how much money you offer, what type of benefits you provide. A lot of people simply are not interested. And we don't want nor need those people to apply. If the Forces wanted those people, we would have mandatory service.


----------



## brihard (14 Apr 2013)

Whatever. He's just lacking the experience or knowledge to 'get it'. It is what it is.


----------



## JM2345 (14 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> i was merely making a societal comment that i felt all canadians should feel the call within them and be brave enough to answer it



No, you were not. That is an outright lie.



			
				Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> In a perfect world CF would have more funding and actually make it easy for willing citizens to join.



You said the Canadian Forces doesn't make it easy enough for *WILLING CITIZENS* to join.



			
				Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> My point of view is that of the more the merrier.....basically just find it unfortunate as i know of at least 5 people who would have joined if they thought it possible to happen in a timely manner.



Here again, you say "the more the merrier" suggesting that the Canadian Forces should just try to get as many people as possible, and that the reason people aren't applying isn't because they aren't brave or don't feel the call, but instead because the application/recruiting process might not happen in a timely manner.

Please don't lie to us. We are a lot smarter than you think, and would you believe that some of us aren't even University graduates?


----------



## Jester_TG (14 Apr 2013)

This thread has made my evening.  ;D op:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Apr 2013)

Changed the title of this thread to better reflect on where it went.....................and when I figure out where that is I'll let you all know. :facepalm:


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Apr 2013)

Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> ....you guys can say whatever you want against that point but dont worry *i actually wont be posting anymore
> *
> The mob wins haha mob mentality is a good thing right?
> 
> Goodnight and I stress GOODLUCK





			
				Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> Lol it was so I skipped a couple grades to resolve that





			
				Sir Dip]
Haha i felt like i was crying out that the world was round!
[/quote]

[quote author=Sir Dip a lot said:
			
		

> I kept it civil
> 
> Merely made a couple jokes...not like anyone makes jokes on here or anything...
> 
> I kept trying to but everyone was chiming in so I had to stand my ground



etc.. etc..


----------



## Loachman (15 Apr 2013)

Skipping a few grades doesn't make anybody smart in the real world.

In fact, premature promotions have been the downfall of many people, as they lack the experience necessary to succeed.

What we, here, have, Sir Dips, is experience.

Collectively, plenty.

You have how much again?

From what I have seen, your self-claimed intelligence doesn't even come close to making up for your lack of experience.

Simple concepts - simple even for us "stupid" military types - seem to be beyond you.

If we require X number of recruits annually, and we receive, say, 3X applications that meet enrollment standards and each application received requires time and effort to process at some expense to taxpayers, what possible benefit could there be to anybody if we seek to receive 10X?

X people are still going to be enrolled, not 10X and not even 3X.

Justify the expense that you wish to blow, and the larger number of disappointed people, please. You have not done that. And those would be the only results of your proposal: wasted money and increased disappointment.

You just keep saying the same thing over and over again, with no substantiation whatsoever.

Nobody agrees with you, and for good reason (like logic and experience) but, of course, in your eyes we are all wrong, and know nothing about our jobs - and a system that has been working quite well for several decades is also wrong - and you are the only one right.

You, sir, have delusions of adequacy.

Good luck with your application.

From what you have demonstrated here, luck will be all that you have going for you.


----------



## jwtg (15 Apr 2013)

What I've gathered from reading the 4 pages of this thread is the following:

1) The OP thinks that a larger applicant pool is better for the CAF, and feels that this is an indisputable fact, and that everyone who disagrees with him is as ridiculous as someone saying that the Earth isn't round;

2) The OP feels that that the majority of young people don't consider CAF careers as viable options; and,

3) The OP promises not to post again in this thread (multiple times).

4) The OP either doesn't know how, or doesn't care, to use grammar or punctuation, or develop an effective argument.  He's pretty good at claiming his opinions are facts, though, and crying foul when others show him otherwise.

My responses:

1) Multiple people (Michael O'Leary, for example) have already provided reasonable counter-arguments to your assertion that more applicants = better, so unless you can indisputably prove that their assertions are wrong, you cannot claim your belief as fact.  I think the point you are making is that the CAF would get better people if we got to pick from more people.  It seems like a reasonable thought, but unless you have an impressive, conclusive research study with an impressive amount of data, I, and obviously others, are certainly not sufficiently convinced to accept your ravings as fact.

2) Your 1 statistic from the huffington post fails to list every other employer in Canada and their market-share of the young talent pool.  I imagine no single profession enjoys a 'majority' of young people as applicants, so I don't understand how you claim that only having 25,000 applications indicates that the CAF is not perceived as a viable career by young people.  How many applicants do police forces have?  How many want to be firefighters? Paramedics? Lawyers?  Doctors?  Provide all of the relevant data, as well as extensive survey data containing applicant's motivations in particular career fields and I might start to see things your way.  Until then, I'll judge that, based on the amount of impressive young people I've met at my school (RMC) or in other places in the CAF already, we have enough good, young people who know that the CAF is a viable career option.

I also challenge you to consider other factors which may reduce our applicant pool and which are not the fault of the CAF but rather reflect either life style preferences or other character traits, things like: unlimited liability, the possibility of being posted around Canada/the world frequently, spousal occupation portability, physical fitness requirements, etc.  If people aren't willing to get posted, put their lives on the line, or order others to do the same, they probably won't fit in the CAF, and that might be a reason that they don't apply.

IMO, you are not doing enough to establish that poor public perception, or any other specific factor, is a significant cause in young people not wanting to apply to the CAF.

3) Enough said.

4) Ditto.


----------



## Spooks (15 Apr 2013)

This was a long thread to read on a Monday but one I enjoyed reading nonetheless.

Here are some of my OPNIONS about all this in an as objective of a way as I can present.

1) Why aren't people drawn to join, as 'hear the calling' as it was put?

Well, there is a thing in the military that everyone who serves has agreed to - unlimited liability. Not a lot of people are okay with that. They value their lifes and in a psycology sense, is a heathy level of narcissism. It's very hard for people to understand that you may be called to do something that has a chance of you losing your life. To the OP, I suppose if we eliminated that, then more people would join too. I consider that as always an extreme fact of why people do not join. Here's a nice article on this topic: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Soldiers+have+unique+take+liability/6877609/story.html

2) Why was there an increase of applicants during A-stan?

As was illustrated before, Canadians historically 'answer the call' in times of war. WW1 and WW2 are great examples of that point and many people answer the call. Not everyone joins 'b/c they want to do their country proud'. You see in Hollywood of Americans enlisting b/c they wanted the glory of going to war. Again in this past war, people flocked to the RCs just for a chance to go over and 'do the army thing'. Now that we're not, many people are getting out due to not getting a chance to get on the bandwagon. It's like they believe the only thing in the army is shooting weapons at the enemy, throwing grenades, and being GI Joe. No chance of war so they want nothing to do with this. These are the people who cannot handle 'bossy superiors who (in their view) have no clue what they are doing. They whine about being kept after 1500. They groan about having LDA removed or decreased though they have dodged every field exercize in the last two years. Yes, some of these people may be 'more intelligent' in booksmarts than I. They may have scored greater on the CFAT or be able to lap me twice on a 10km run. Are these people necessarily better than me as a soldier? That is a subjective opinion but many of them likely think so.

3) Woud having a more 'intelligent' recruiting pool to choose from be of greater benefit to the CAF?

I suppose, logically speaking, yeah. On paper that makes sense. However, first you have to define 'intelligence'. If by meaning 'book smarts' then no. You can be all kinds of book smarts but have a crappy attitude or one that gives up easily. How about 'strength' smarts? Again, it's the ability to hunk'er down and go with it mentality that I find is the most useful. People who have control in their lives are greater fireteam partners than those who are an administrative burden.

I find that today's generation (yes, I am in it too) are an entitled generation that must have lots handed to them for little to no work. Marks, grades, fitness/weight/diet, looks, finances, equity, etc - all are given for little to no effort put it. I find our generation largely is the blue-participation-ribbon-winning, pat-on-the-head, outstanding-job-for-doing-nothing group of people that if we do not achieve the level we desire we assume it's the other party that is wrong or broken or faulty. It is now the rare case that you find the people who don't get 100% on the test or fail the exam or do not meet the standards that go 'hey, the only person to blame is myself. I need to work harder (or continue working towards) in order to reach my goal.' I read a great article lately (can't remember where or when) that talked about that exact same concept. You have the 'kids who did the best at everything due to being given to them' and the 'kids who know what hard work is'. I would much rather have the latter person as my fireteam partner. They likely will stick around when the going gets tough rather than 'peace out' when they become challenged or bored. It's usually the former group of people that see themselves as above s*** taskings and who produce little effort. 

I have another 15yrs on this contract (with another 19 after that family pending) and I know I'll be at the end of my career with the others who never had a sense of entitlement, who did the crap taskings with me, bail out water from a flooding trech with me and was always there to help me fold cam nets (for the 10th time that week). Do those people need to have a 3.8 GPA? Nope. Some of my most cherished friends in the military were not booksmart, but I would trust the life of my family unto them.

So to the OP, when you say 'Would the military not benefit from a larger pool of intelligent/smart/educated/whatever applicants?' I would say no. As an NCM (yes, could be different than the officer world) I do not judge your CF-member capability based on how well you can do on a test or spit out an essay. I measure you on whether or not you are humble, dedicated, wise (very different from smart), trustworthy, and capable. No university in Canada can measure that for me. No test can determine your suitability. No application can determine if you have my back when the fit hits the shan. If people are dissuaded from a career in the military b/c of a long wait time, then I am fine with that. I will gladly take the next chap who has dedicated 1yr+ of his life to reaching his goal.


----------



## Cui (15 Apr 2013)

Hey OP, have you ever taken a course in human resources management in the time that you have spent earning your business degree? 

If so, you probably have learned about the fact that when employers are looking to hire someone for a position, they have a certain number of KSAOs(Knowledge, Skills, and Other attributes) that the employers are looking for. As long as someone fits those traits, they can apply with the organization that is hiring. 

The employer can set parameters as to whom they advertise the position to, and what demographic to target. However, it's not really possible to just say "we'll only take 500 applications, and select from those 500", since limiting the talent pool that way will prove to be detrimental to any organization, not just the CF. I would say that the CF targets a pretty broad demographic from all the ads that I have seen everywhere (my university gym, on buses, on the internet, etc.). In no way they are limiting their talent pool by the way that they advertise, so your claims of CF purposely limiting the number of applicants are baseless.

As for young people not considering the CF as a viable option, yes, your argument for that may have some merit to it. However, you have to realize that as we move to a more global economy, someone with certain talents are not just confined within the borders of their own country. Companies around the world are all looking for the best and the brightest, and they might not get it from within their own countries. Take for example how Mark Carney got appointed as the Governor of the Bank of England. 

If someone is really the ladder climbing type, they can probably go somewhere where there are less formal rules regarding advancement and promotion than the CF. As well, advancements in the civilian world will be more recognizable, people will probably know what a partner at a law firm is. They might not always know what a brigade commander is. All I'm saying is that a lot of people join the CF as a calling, not just a job. Just like how some people become doctors or lawyers as a calling, they are not in it for the money.

That's just the way it is sometimes, a lot of people nowadays are only going into certain professions for the financial compensation that they can provide, and they operate on extrinsic motivation rather than intrinsic motivation, and it'll take more than just you posting on a thread on some website to change that. 

A lot of posters brought up the point of "unlimited liabilities", that is true that today's society is more focused on "covering one's rear" than accepting full liability, up to and including their lives. I'm sure you see a lot of companies with the letters LLC or LLP as their suffix, as they stand for Limited Liability Corporation/Partnership, which means the owners of that company are not legally liable for certain things. This is a societal problem, not just with the CF, so posting here is not going to help either. 

I really hope that what I have typed here was taught to you in class at some point, because if not, then I have serious doubts about the quality of your school if they grant you a business degree without knowing all of this, or the fact that you can't construct an effective argument. 

Good luck with whatever it is that you want to do in life.


----------



## SentryMAn (15 Apr 2013)

Holy Fucking train wreck!
But yet I cannot look away...

To go onto your point about "Canadian Companies would benefit from a larger application pool or Talent pool"

I'll even use a REAL LIFE example if you will with facts included.

So formerly there was a company locally started here in a garage, it WAS called Radian6, maybe you've heard of them, maybe not, it makes little difference.  Surprisingly not started by a business graduate, they didn't even hire one for 2 years.

When they first started, you are correct they REALLY could have benefited from a great talent pool...which they did.  They could simply speak to people face to face about jobs and hire on the spot.  They hadn't posted a job ad up until they moved into larger office space.  

Fast forward a few years and now the company starts getting a bit bigger, post job ads, gets mediocre results, now is when that talent pool would really benefit them.  Again a lot of their employees just come from word of mouth, someone poaching a person from another organization, etc.  Hell even hiring friends of friends.

Fast forward to when the company is a large organization with about 300 employees, decent size for a locally built company.  They get a lot of press, they get a lot of talk in the local and national news, they get bought by one of the largest companies in North America SalesForce.

Now, they have jobs posted, guess what happens to their "talent pool" it goes from selecting the exact best person to receiving 1000 resumes per job posted.   Their HR team is 3 People, their job openings were at that time about 30.

SO can you state the problems and benefits that would come from this situation, think of it like a case study since that's likely all the real world business experience you have to date.

The problem, using Software to eliminate resumes, since NO ONE has the money, time, energy or staff to READ each resume submitted.

So, you theory is gone, if you think jobs are any easier/quicker to get in the private sector in Todays economy, Look forward to living in your parents basement until you are 30.

I once took a private poll of current Business students those students in yr2-3 of their studies and asked them what was going to happen post graduation:
The results although not scientific were overwhelming in favor of them "thinking they will make $50-75k/year" in a middle managers position right out of university.

On a side note to one of your various comments, yes any organization would benefit from have more qualified candidates apply BUT without increasing the pool they currently have.  Take this as "we want the right fish in our pool and none of the wrong fish.

As a middle manager hiring I would want to see 5 quality resumes that adequately fit the career I am look to fill, then 100 resumes with a 90% throw away rule.

The CF owes you nothing, the Public sector owes you nothing(if you think it's hard to get in the CF good luck in the public sector), the poor company that you will likely work for owes you nothing.

Lastly, with your attitude on here I suspect you would VR within the first 4 weeks of BMOQ.  Your instructors would have a field day with your ramblings.


----------



## Cui (15 Apr 2013)

Woah, I didn't say that "companies will benefit from a larger talent pool", I was simply addressing the fact that CF doesn't have a shortage in talent in terms of applicants like the OP has stated. 

I'm sorry if I came across as rambling, or entitled, I didn't say that the CF or anyone else owes me anything. 

But thanks for offering some insight into such matters.


----------



## Jester_TG (15 Apr 2013)

Cui - i think sentry was talking to the OP....?


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Apr 2013)

Mods, I think this one has exceeded it's best before date, no?


----------



## SentryMAn (15 Apr 2013)

Cui, was meant to the OP, I would have quoted him, but lets face it he changed his story a few times, I just wanted to go after what I think is his "thesis" as he puts it.

I'm hoping he truly has Flew the coop


----------



## Cui (15 Apr 2013)

SentryMAn said:
			
		

> Cui, was meant to the OP, I would have quoted him, but lets face it he changed his story a few times, I just wanted to go after what I think is his "thesis" as he puts it.
> 
> I'm hoping he truly has Flew the coop



ahh, okay, sorry for the mini freak-out  :facepalm:


----------



## George Wallace (15 Apr 2013)

Cui said:
			
		

> ahh, okay, sorry for the mini freak-out  :facepalm:



See what happens when the OP introduces the Dunning-Kruger Effect into a Forum.   :warstory:


----------



## cupper (15 Apr 2013)

Sir Dips seems to be stuck on the logical error that if one works, two must be better, and a whole bunch will do wonders. Doesn't work for medication, nutrition or the recruiting process, as has been noted so many times.

Now we can only hope that he will stop crying wolf, and finally stop coming back to reply. :nod:




Oh... Wait. It just dawned on me. This is his way of showing us that he IS qualified to be a TDO. 

Why didn't I see it right away?

Good On you Sir Dips! Well played!


 :sarcasm:


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Apr 2013)

It's the TNT formula... if a little is good, a whole bunch is f***ing great!!


----------



## JM2345 (16 Apr 2013)

RyanHealy29 said:
			
		

> *1) Logically a larger and brighter talent pool could only be a good thing.*
> 
> In isolation, and independent of budgetary constraints, this is true. If taking on additional application did not cost the Canadian Forces additional money, then the OP would be, logically, correct. It would be better to have a larger, better educated, talent pool with which to select from.
> 
> ...



I'm going to try not to just repeat everything that was already said in this thread, but you are wrong. Even if you ignore the monetary cost of processing applications, and even if we go so far as to ignore the time cost of processing applications, neither intelligence nor education are characteristics valued enough in the Canadian Forces to give a definitive overall benefit to them by increasing the number of "smart" people applying.

You are working with an assumption that because someone is highly intelligent or highly educated, that he would necessarily be hired before Joe Sixpack who has dreamed of being Infantry his whole life and can do 100 Push Ups has 20/20 vision, volunteers at an old folks home, was captain of his football team through high school, worked as a crew manager at McDonalds for 2 years, and was in Cadets growing up, but is only a high school graduate with a C+ average and scored upper middle of the pack on the CFAT.

On top of the assumption that they would definitely be hired before them, you are also working with an assumption that they would provide more of a benefit to the Canadian Forces overall than the Super Soldier I described above. You can't ignore that for every person the Canadian Forces DOES hire, they have to disappoint someone else and not hire them. The person they do decide to hire could VR during basic, while the person they decided not to hire could have been a 20 year person who moved on to other career choices after not getting an offer.

There is so much more, but it is just repeating what we in this thread have already said repeatedly. It just isn't a fact at all. It is a wild opinion based on no evidence at all, and having to ignore reality completely to even try to make it seem plausible, which it still isn't.

You seem to understand this, based on the rest of your post, so I don't know why you are saying that is it definitely a fact that the CF would be better off having more educated and intelligent applicants. We are just going around in circles here without any evidence. You have an opinion based on nothing, and that is all. There is nothing definitive about that.


----------



## RyanHealy29 (16 Apr 2013)

Not constructive. Please delete.


----------



## prairefire (16 Apr 2013)

Two posts in 2 days............ almost a record for me. I spend a lot of time observing and thinking and not so much time talking but sometimes I just have to say something..........................

Why do people mistake education and what ever level achieved with intelligence and suitability for any specific occupation. In my life time of experience it rarely correlates.............................

Although it does not happen very often these days I once had a Corporal who had grade 9 education and was an outstanding soldier and one of the best mortarman that I every worked with could calculate firing tables in his head as fast as I could plot them. He later completed Grade 12 and after retirement completed University with honours and went on to be employed at an engineering firm. Where would he be if this posters guidelines were followed?


----------



## Thinkingofenlisting (30 Jul 2013)

I have a few questions about the job of Training and Development officer and I was hoping there might be some individuals on this forum that could answer a few questions for me.

1. The entry plan states that the preferred education is a masters in education with at least 3 years of experience as a training/educational consultant, is that set in stone? I know a lot of jobs have statements like this but they are not necessarily 100% accurate it's simply the perfect ideal the organization is looking for. I'm currently completing my masters degree in criminology and will be finished this fall. I lack the experience as an educational/training consultant from an objective standpoint, however my research revolves around the education system and the implementation of programs in schools. I also have an extensive history playing sports at high levels and I think that a lot of the skills from that are transferable in terms of experience. Would this be experience that could be considered?

2. Any other general information on the position would also be helpful ie. posting locations, career progression, work envrionment etc... I know some of this is on the website but if anybody has direct experience with this I would appreciate any insight you could offer.

Thanks


----------



## DAA (30 Jul 2013)

Thinkingofenlisting said:
			
		

> I have a few questions about the job of Training and Development officer and I was hoping there might be some individuals on this forum that could answer a few questions for me.
> 
> 1. The entry plan states that the preferred education is a masters in education with at least 3 years of experience as a training/educational consultant, is that set in stone? I know a lot of jobs have statements like this but they are not necessarily 100% accurate it's simply the perfect ideal the organization is looking for. I'm currently completing my masters degree in criminology and will be finished this fall. I lack the experience as an educational/training consultant from an objective standpoint, however my research revolves around the education system and the implementation of programs in schools. I also have an extensive history playing sports at high levels and I think that a lot of the skills from that are transferable in terms of experience. Would this be experience that could be considered?
> 
> ...



Yup, that would pretty much be "cast in stone" and considered to be the "minimum" requirement.  But with a Masters in Criminology on the horizon, why don't you have a serious look at "MPO" (Military Police Officer)?


----------



## Thinkingofenlisting (30 Jul 2013)

Thanks for the reply. 

Yeah that's what I was afraid of, it's unfortunate because I have the skill set that would allow me to be very successful at the job.

It's funny you mention that, I was actually looking at the MPO job last night. If you could spare me a few minutes I actually have a few questions about that as well. Again anyone with information would be helpful.

1. In looking at the website I concluded that MPO's deal more with the administrative end of the job while MP's are engaged in more traditional police work, I could be wrong here so correct me if I am. 

2. I also noticed there is a lot of opportunity for career development with specialty training and advanced training, and a lot of those categories are extremely interesting. I'm going to assume that MPO's would have first shot at some of that training? or at least would be strongly considered for it versus MP's.

3. If anyone has some more detailed information on some of the training involving: Drug Investigator, and Counter-Human Intelligence Specialist I would appreciate it.

Thanks again for the timely reply.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jul 2013)

Why do you have to be an officer? If you want to do the nuts and bolts work of a police officer, be a NCM. Your degree will just make you a more competitive candidate, and you can apply for commissioning programs later to be a MPO.


----------



## MikeL (30 Jul 2013)

Thinkingofenlisting said:
			
		

> 2. I also noticed there is a lot of opportunity for career development with specialty training and advanced training, and a lot of those categories are extremely interesting. I'm going to assume that MPO's would have first shot at some of that training? or at least would be strongly considered for it versus MP's.



You shouldn't assume that just because someone is a Officer they would get priority for specialty courses over a NCM.  If a NCM would benefit more from that course, they would get priority over a Officer and vice versa.


----------



## Thinkingofenlisting (30 Jul 2013)

forgive my ignorance skeletor, that's why I was asking the question, thanks for the information. 

to Puckchaser, I get the idea of becoming an MP to be able to experience the nuts and bolts of police work, but I don't necessarily have to do that. I've invested a lot of time and energy into my education, so I would like to let it work for me where it can. Becoming an officer puts me in a higher pay grade and that's a pretty nice benefit, as well as reward for the work I've already put in.

Thanks again for the input, I appreciate it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Jul 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Why do you have to be an officer? If you want to do the nuts and bolts work of a police officer, be a NCM. Your degree will just make you a more competitive candidate, and you can apply for commissioning programs later to be a MPO.



This!  Officers are by nature generalists and if you really desire to get your hands dirty go NCM.


----------



## exgunnertdo (30 Jul 2013)

Thinkingofenlisting said:
			
		

> I have a few questions about the job of Training and Development officer and I was hoping there might be some individuals on this forum that could answer a few questions for me.
> 
> 1. The entry plan states that the preferred education is a masters in education with at least 3 years of experience as a training/educational consultant, is that set in stone? I know a lot of jobs have statements like this but they are not necessarily 100% accurate it's simply the perfect ideal the organization is looking for. I'm currently completing my masters degree in criminology and will be finished this fall. I lack the experience as an educational/training consultant from an objective standpoint, however my research revolves around the education system and the implementation of programs in schools. I also have an extensive history playing sports at high levels and I think that a lot of the skills from that are transferable in terms of experience. Would this be experience that could be considered?
> 
> ...



Hi.  I'm a TDO!

For Direct Entry, an MEd is pretty much a requirement. You don't say what other experience you have, it is possible that work experience in adult education and/or workplace training could do it.  The fact that your research in your Masters is in a related area is helpful.  But you say that it's about education programs in schools, so that's not really related to what we do.

Almost all TDOs are transfers from within the CAF.  Experience in the CAF training system (instructor, standards staff, etc) is a huge factor in getting accepted.  Most years we take only one DEO from the recruiting system.  The rest are OT, CT, UTPNCM and SCP (in service selection).

The sports will get you no farther ahead to being a TDO than it would for any other occupation.

Postings etc - most first postings will be to either a school or to a higher organization within the training system, advising the SMEs on training.  Other postings could be to equipment projects or to headquarters jobs.  Highest concentration of TDOs are in Kingston, Borden and Ottawa, several in Gagetown, Halifax, Esquimalt and Winnipeg, and ones and twos in several other bases.


----------



## Thinkingofenlisting (31 Jul 2013)

Thanks Exgunner that's really helpful. My research isn't so much on the education programs specifically, but looking at the most effective ways that they can be implemented, so it focuses more on organizational structure, what works, what doesn't etc... Still seems like the deck is stacked against me though. Thanks again for the information.


----------



## exgunnertdo (31 Jul 2013)

My gap in knowledge is between our branch and the recruiting system.  I know, as an experienced TDO, what would or would not work in terms of previous experience.  I have a pretty good feel from talking to our senior TDOs what kind of person we want.  

But - the career counselors aren't TDOs, so I don't know what they would think of an application like yours.  Would they let you apply, and then let the TDev branch make the call?  Or would they just reject the application because you don't have an MEd?  No idea...  

If you want to do some more research to see if what you're doing aligns with what we do - Google "Systems Approach to Training" and/or "ADDIE model".  The CAF has its own slightly modified version of the Systems Approach to Training/ADDIE (we call it CFITES - Canadian Forces Individual Training and Education System).  If you could map your work to that, and convince a career counselor at the CFRC that your Masters, even though it's not an MEd, still has enough of the right parts, that might do it.


----------



## i_want_a_pmq (31 Jul 2013)

Another user (theforcewithin) recently went through the selection process for TDO, she has an M.Ed and was told the occupation is closed.


----------

