# Utility of AOC



## 54/102 CEF (20 Jun 2009)

The article should be a wake up call - absolutely no CF comments after the service person has departed. 

As for AOC being a killer course ----- I don't think so. 



(Moderator edit to correct title after split.)


----------



## Strike (20 Jun 2009)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> As for AOC being a killer course ----- I don't think so.



Really?  You must be superman then, because everyone I've spoken to said that it's a bear!  The saying, "Friends don't let friends do AOC," comes to mind.

As for how the article should be a wake-up call, how so?  What do you mean, absolutely no CF comments?  Are you talking from people like us on the G&M site, or official reps?  Perhaps in order to respect the family of the deceased they felt it only prudent to react the same as they would for any other death in theatre immediately after the incident.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Jun 2009)

Strike said:
			
		

> Really?  You must be superman then, because everyone I've spoken to said that it's a bear!  The saying, "Friends don't let friends do AOC," comes to mind.



/off topic rant

AOC is pointless; lots of busy work but little to stretch the mind.  Anyone who grinds away will pass; if you reach ENDEX you're a grad regardless of your competence.  Since no one who reaches the end fails, there are no Fs.  Since everyone passes, no one can be given a C-, in theory the lowest mark, since that would show "Should have failed, but we let them slip through.".  Since the highest possible mark is a B, and less than 1 in 20 will get that mark, you end up with almost all the course crammed into "C" - but the DS will lie to you and claim there's a difference between a "strong C" and a "weak C".

A true staff course with standards would be a welcome change; the current one is a waste of everyone's time and effort.  Close the fort and turn it into condos.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (20 Jun 2009)

ref AOC - strong study habits are a must - many are coming from gung ho short term performance = leader and can't think long term in the time they are on the course. AOC shows you planning methodology for virtually anything you could face as a staff member from a battle group. Once thats complete you have to practise it.

No more no less. So if every one passes that re-affirms what I wrote.

To put some firing standards into it would take out 20% easy.


----------



## Gunner98 (21 Jun 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> /off topic rant
> 
> AOC is pointless; lots of busy work but little to stretch the mind.  Anyone who grinds away will pass; if you reach ENDEX you're a grad regardless of your competence.  Since no one who reaches the end fails, there are no Fs.



There are students who do not "grind away" and reach the end, some of whom are encouraged to never return to the fort.  It is but a stepping stone and not a pinnacle in a career.  For those who slip and fall/fail, some are given additional time + retraining and then re-attempt to accomplish the step again. Pointless? Prima donna show?  Standardized process = similar results = stepping stone = getting everyone to the same level of planning knowledge and competence. 

For those who have not work closely with the KIFC it is quite a large staff that act as an info/intel sieve and she was not the first Canadian to employed in it, perhaps the first Int Offr at the rank of Maj.  It is a link in an important intel/info process, therefore an important job but not a pinnacle.


----------



## The Anti-Royal (21 Jun 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> /off topic rant
> 
> AOC is pointless; lots of busy work but little to stretch the mind.  Anyone who grinds away will pass; if you reach ENDEX you're a grad regardless of your competence.  Since no one who reaches the end fails, there are no Fs.  Since everyone passes, no one can be given a C-, in theory the lowest mark, since that would show "Should have failed, but we let them slip through.".  Since the highest possible mark is a B, and less than 1 in 20 will get that mark, you end up with almost all the course crammed into "C" - but the DS will lie to you and claim there's a difference between a "strong C" and a "weak C".
> 
> A true staff course with standards would be a welcome change; the current one is a waste of everyone's time and effort.  Close the fort and turn it into condos.



Moderators - would a thread split be in order?

I'd like to address the nonsense quoted above.

I've just finished my third year as a member of the AOC Directing Staff, have instructed on eight iterations of Tutorial One and two of Tutorial Two, and served as a mentor to battle group and brigade headquarters staffs during Exercise FINAL DRIVE (the nine-day capstone exercise for the AOC) on two occasions.

AOC students are indeed very busy, and deservedly so, as they have a lot of ground to cover in a brief period of time. The typical combat arms student begins the course with a fairly solid background in sub-sub-unit and sub-unit doctrine and TTPs; the non-combat arms officers less than that.  In 18 weeks, they must progress to the point where they can serve as competent staff officers in battle group and formation headquarters in all kinds of operations (conventional warfighting, counter-insurgency, peace support, domestic, etc.).  That requires a capacity for hard work and to grow intellectually.  I see that growth on every course - the men and women that leave the Fort are not the same as those that enter.

Since the "train all" approach to the AOC was adopted, a small number of officers have failed.  This usually happens quite early in the course, during Tutorial One, as that is where the performance and enabling objective gateways lie (exams on friendly doctrine and opposing force doctrine, as well as the written estimate of the situation and operations order exercises).  I'm sad to say that I've been unable to help two of my students achieve the required performance standard, and they were returned to their units as training failures.

Therefore, if you have reached the end of the course, you have demonstrated the minimum levels of competence required to make a positive contribution as a staff officer in a battle group or formation headquarters.  That's the AOC's remit and we fill that remit very well.  Battle group commanders, commanders of joint task forces at home and overseas, and the CLS keep telling us that.

That said, a C- is a pass.  It means that you have met the minimum standard of performance required to complete the course and be granted the qualification "plsc".  However, course reports make the employability and potential of graduates clear to their chains of command and applicable promotion boards.  Promotion boards look at the AOC course report seriously and, depending on MOC, at the letter grade.

Finally, the grade distribution over the last three years has been roughly 10% B, another  25-30% C+, and the rest C.  C- grades are given out sparingly.

In summary, we do have standards, we DS do enforce them, some do not make the grade and leave as failures, and general officers employing AOC graduates on operations want more of them, not less.

Any questions?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Jun 2009)

Yep- just one:

Why is an "A" grade impossible to obtain?

Surely, if you are following the principles espoused in CFITES (which applies to all Schools, CF-wide), about 10% of your students should get an A, about 25% a "B" and the rest that pass, some form of a C. 

Are you sure that you don't have a Standards problem?


----------



## blacktriangle (21 Jun 2009)

Forgive my ignorance, but after some searching, I'm still not clear on a few things. At what point in their career does an officer take AOC? Is it mostly dependent on whether or not they have been selected to fill a staff role?


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Jun 2009)

They explained to us at the school that an AOC B = normal A.  Anyway, I digress.


Very good post by The Anti-Royal.  The write ups are taken seriously, and though I eeked out a C+, I was very pleased with my write up.  (That's "Cee-Plus", not a typo for 'Cee-minus', just to be clear ;D)  And I do see the difference between those with plsc and those without in terms of staff work and duties.  Huge difference.  Without going into details, I had a staff of roughly 8 fellow officers, none of whom are plsc.  It was a challenging road to conduct OPP with them, but I was able to teach them "somewhat" the process, and through experience, we pulled it off.  Having said that, there were some long nights!

That's all for now.


----------



## The Anti-Royal (21 Jun 2009)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Yep- just one:
> 
> Why is an "A" grade impossible to obtain?
> 
> ...



An "A" isn't impossible, but show me a Capt who is ". . . capable of executing the skill at two rank levels up" (i.e, at the rank of LCol) and I'll show you an "A".  Anecdotal evidence is that only two of the thousands of officers who have graduated the AOC (or its equivalent) since the establishment of the Canadian Army Staff College in 1946 have received that grade.

On your second and third points, I can't answer with authority as I'm not employed in standards.  The two courses that I've attended at CF educational (vice training) institutions have not followed the CFITES guidelines that you've cited.  CLFCSC uses letter grades (F, C-, C, C+, B and A) and associated word pictures (fail, met minimum standard, met standard, exceeded standard, mastered and capable of executing the skill at two rank levels up respectively); CFC uses two word pictures (strong pass and pass, if I recall correctly) but no letter grade.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jun 2009)

I’ve looked around at all the angels standing fearfully at the entrance to this discussion so I shall rush into this newly split off tangent.

In my experience with staff training – general and technical, at home and abroad, but 35+ years ago – I came to believe that almost everyone selected for staff training was (presumed and _de facto_) *able* to successfully complete the course - having demonstrated a satisfactory level of skill and knowledge.

Back in my day, when the earth was still cooling, not all staff courses had alpha-numeric grades. One of the more difficult courses had three standards: passed, attended and did not complete. _Passed_ was pretty obvious, _attended_ was for foreign students, from third world countries, but, almost every year, one or two “normal” students ended up with an _attended_ because, I suppose, in the very closing days of the course the DS decided that he (we were all “he” in those days), despite having completed the entire course, did not quite measure up. “Did  not complete” was the result for 5-10% - no more – of my colleagues. 

There was no guarantee that one could not be removed from the course and returned to one’s unit during the very last week – and I recall at least one case of that happening. *But*, by and large, almost everyone who came through the front gates as a candidate – as a result of a pretty careful selection process – walked back out through them as a graduate. We did not think a 95+% pass rate was out of line (140+ graduates out of 150 who began the course). Most failures were not, evidently, solely academic or solely “guts” and endurance. Most failures, if my memory serves, were a result of a combination of factors and a few stick in my mind as long, difficult, slow motion train wrecks as we watched a colleague _unravel_ in public. Illness was very often a major contributing factor to a “did not complete” result.

Part of the staff training process involved helping us to learn how to manage and work through stress. I recall an introductory briefing in which we were shown a graph which told us where the “stress” would be introduced in the course. There were a series of increasingly stressful peaks over the 10+ months, interspersed with some increasingly _smaller_ ‘valleys’ of relative tranquility. The aim was to ensure that we were, to use Field Marshal Wavell’s expression “robust” enough “to withstand the (mental and psychological) shocks of war.” Stress, or, rather the ability to work effectively under intense stress, is part of a military officer’s stock in trade. The _psc_ one earns at Camberly, Kingston, Shrivenham or Toronto is not just an indicator of knowledge, it also indicates that the staff college graduate has demonstrated *ability* to work under pressure. “Mental endurance” used to be one of the attributes against which officers were measured. In my view it’s a good one, an important one.

Good, comprehensive, tough staff courses are beneficial. But the “toughness” of a course does not demand a high failure rate. The toughest course will have a high success rate so long as the selection process is sound.

My *guesstimate* is that only about one in four captains is *able* to pass the full staff college process – which in my view needs to include an army operational staff course to train unit operations officers and junior staff officers for brigades, a technical staff course (without which, I believe one cannot be an effective senior officer) and a joint staff course designed to produce mid-rank and senior staff officers in senior headquarters. I have no idea how many army captains are selected, now, for staff training but I’m guessing that 30 year olds in 2009 are no “better” or “worse” than they were in 1979 so my one in four guess stands.


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Jun 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> They explained to us at the school that an AOC B = normal A.  Anyway, I digress.
> 
> 
> Very good post by The Anti-Royal.  The write ups are taken seriously, and though I eked out a C+, I was very pleased with my write up.  (That's "Cee-Plus", not a typo for 'Cee-minus', just to be clear ;D)



I eked out a "B" (on my first of two courses), but I don't think the Regiment noticed because it was awarded by two black hats.  So I'll just claim that the Minerva was the notable marker I left behind (twice).   ;D


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jun 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I eked out a "B" (on my first of two courses), but I don't think the Regiment noticed because it was awarded by two black hats.  So I'll just claim that the Minerva was the notable marker I left behind (twice).   ;D



Damn Navy guys.    ;D


----------



## dapaterson (21 Jun 2009)

Edward:

The Kingston course has no selection - it's "All Capts shall attend."  Thus, volume of throughput has become an important consideration.

The course cannot be sufficiently demanding, as that would jeopardize throughput.  Weak students are given excessive assistance, rather than permitting them to fail and be known as a weak commodity.  (In other words, we're insufficiently Darwinian - without selection prior to starting the course, selection should be done in the course).

Reaching the end is irrelevant about ability - it merely shows an ability to endure, and possibly an ability to convince one's peers to carry one along.  If there is any doubt about ability, the mark should be an "F" - not a "weak C".

Note the Anti-Royal's comment - roughly two thirds of students are all lumped together as "C" students.  Think about that rationally for a moment - is that plausible?  Get one individual with the slightest grip of statistics on staff to think about this.  Clearly, the college exists to perpetuate the college - and there needs to be some sort of course, so AOC exists.

Either replace AOC with a true staff course with pre-selection  - and then demand a real standard of performance, or abandon it.  The current model is a tremendous waste of resources with little value added.


----------



## Gunner98 (21 Jun 2009)

I guess I took too long editing my post - synopsis - I agree with Mr. Paterson.

Since my comments have been bumped from the main thread, yes I have a question or two for the Anti-Royal et al:

If this is the rating scale - (fail, met minimum standard, met standard, exceeded standard, mastered and capable of executing the skill at two rank levels up respectively)- how is this rationalized?  The minimum standard should be "the standard", so this C- just allows the DS some wiggly room to "pass" someone who did not meet "the standard" and make sure his CO and future merit boards know it.

Is it suggesting that if you receive an "A" you are exempt CFC.  The DS are Majs who have not "proven" their ability to work at a LCol level and yet they are expecting a rare Capt to do so?

I fail to see how a standards cell can continue to have two standards - a minimum and another level, the ratings are saying exceeded the minimum standard but met the standard, then exceeded the standard above the minimum standard.  Why not be rational - are they ready to fulfill the duties for which they are being trained - yes or no.   

Many (civilian and military) institutions have adopted three "rational" ratings - did not meet the standard ergo fail, met the standard, exceeded the standard.

I'm glad I did my staff training outside Canada!!


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (22 Jun 2009)

The Staff College in Kingston is a critical institution that begins the transformation of an officer from his comfort zone of the low-level tactical fight at company level into an officer that understands the larger tactical picture and can operate within a staff employing OPP. To me, it is what enables our officer corps to be a truly professional officer corps.

The failure rate of this course should not be seen determining whether the course achieves its aim. Even with "all means all", officers on AOC should have a reservoir of experience and training to draw upon - I wouldn't expect them to fail. I took a similar course with the US Army and I do not recall any candidates failing - I still wouldn't call it an easy course. I recently took the Combat Team Commander's Course and we did not receive grades nor did anyone fail. The course was still challenging. 

Getting stressed about Cs adn Bs doesn't really achieve anything, either as a student on AOC or a critic of the institution. As has been said it is the narrative that really matters. 

My impression is that the Army is happy with the standard of the graduates.


----------



## armyvern (22 Jun 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I eked out a "B"



So, you really got an "A" and Rambler really got a "B+" ... 

That's what I'm getting from this thread.  :-\


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Jun 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> So, you really got an "A" and Rambler really got a "B+" ...
> 
> That's what I'm getting from this thread.  :-\


Then that means you have "met the standard" and get a C-.  No, wait, that's a C.  But a "C" is better in language profile than an "A", but.....AARRRGH!  :-\

In any event, I understand that AOC has once again reverted to merited placement.  Also understand that when it went to "train all", the AJOSQ ("Army Junior Officer Staff Qualification") had to be completed as a prerequisite.  I understand this to mean OPME, Army Tactical Operations' Course and a bunch of other stuff.

But, as said, graduates of AOC can be employed as staffs on either BG or formation level HQs.  Some may be the "S-2 Plans 2", and others may be "G3". There are a variety of positions within HQs, and AOC only gets you in the door.  Your performance will determine your position within an HQ.


----------



## armyvern (22 Jun 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> Then that means you have "met the standard" and get a C-.  No, wait, that's a C.  But a "C" is better in language profile than an "A", but.....AARRRGH!  :-\



Ahhhh soooo!!

It's a course where, if you get a "C" which equates "met the standard" ... which means you pass ...

AND, it's also a course where if you get a "C-" ... which must equate "met lower than the standard" ... you still pass!! Argue all anyone wants, but if you did not "meet the standard" --- you "met lower than it" <--- common sense yes?  ???

The standard IS the standard, or so I thought until this thread. If one does not "meet the standard" ...that should equil a "fail".

Gotta tell you, I'm with dapaterson on this one; especially if one is getting a pass for meeting a standard that is lower that "met the standard".

Apparently, the "standard line" is flexible --- dependant upon a whim --- or so this thread has me thinking.


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Jun 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Ahhhh soooo!!
> 
> It's a course where, if you get a "C" which equates "met the standard" ... which means you pass ...
> 
> ...


You have me thoroughly confused.  Not your fault, after all, I was confused when I was first told the rating system for AOC.  Here's how I translated it (in my own mind):
A: You are Patton mixed with Guderian, Scipio Africanus and Rommel (Nobody got the "A")
B: Exceeded the standard
C+: Met the standard without difficulty
C: Met the standard
C-: Met the standard with difficulty

This isn't how I think it should be, ought to be or anything, just how I interpreted the rating system.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Jun 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> You have me thoroughly confused.  Not your fault, after all, I was confused when I was first told the rating system for AOC.  Here's how I translated it (in my own mind):
> A: You are Patton mixed with Guderian, Scipio Africanus and Rommel (Nobody got the "A")
> B: Exceeded the standard
> C+: Met the standard without difficulty
> ...



I have a slightly different understanding of the system:

A : You Know Too Much.  Made the DS look bad.  Next posting:  Alert.
B : Smarter than the DS, but didn't make them feel as bad as an A student.
C+ : Exceeded the standard, but pissed off the DS somehow, keeping you from being a B student.
C : The level of mediocrity that all should aspire to.  Course standard dictates that two thirds of students must fall into this narrow band.  However, somehow there is a difference between a Strong C and a Weak C, even though they are the same.  A very existentially challenging evaluation.
C- : Student should have failed, lacking the knowledge and ability to succeed, but since they somehow made it to the end we'll pass them anyways.
F :  On the keyboard, between "D" and G"", both of which are also unused in evaluations.


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Jun 2009)

I had promised myself that I would stay out of the fray, but keeping my thoughts to myself is not by strong suit.

First, the statement was made that lore has it that there had been only two As awarded since the college opened in 1946.

I know of at least two As from the 1965-1966 course, while there were at least two on my course (1970-1971), one of whom was a Canadian. We had some really good people on our course, including a future CGS of the Pakistan army. 

The CASC and the CLFCSC as it became with unification seems to have suffered from a tendency to believe that intense stress was an instructional tool. I had believed this was normal until I discussed staff training with a retired Royal Mariine who went to the USMC college. He told me that when he was first told he was going to a foreign staff college, he was in a panic because he thought it might be Kingston. Our army staff college had a reputation of all work and very little play. In contrast, he found Quantico a pleasant experience with the students treated like adults and with ample time for relaxation. I assured him that his assesment of Kingston was not too far off the mark. We worked through the March school break for example, and 25 to 35 hours study/work outside normal class hours was the norm for the 11 months of our course. Having said that, I sure learned how to write an appreciation and operation order, and still can nearly 40 years since the course and 15 years after I retired. Certainly the first time I had to do it for real, my training kicked in and I was able to concentrate on the issues at hand calmly, efficiently and effectively. Whether I would have learned as well in other than an environment that seemed to have been modelled on The Hill, a British fim about a military prison is moot. (Just kidding, mostly, it was the intellectual equivalent of the Ranger Course.)

I'll close by suggesting that people should not sweat the grades and the assessment unless one is really keen on becoming the CDS, or if you are recommended for gelding to prevent you propagating on the other hand. The use you make of the course as part of your overall training and development is what is really important. And yes, I feel staff training is not for everyone and any attempt to make it so will just water down the results and the reputation of the course.


----------



## armyvern (22 Jun 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> You have me thoroughly confused.  Not your fault, after all, I was confused when I was first told the rating system for AOC.  Here's how I translated it (in my own mind):
> A: You are Patton mixed with Guderian, Scipio Africanus and Rommel (Nobody got the "A")
> B: Exceeded the standard
> C+: Met the standard without difficulty
> ...



Not trying to confuse you Rambler ...

I'm getting my thoughts from Ex-Royal ... who is staff on the AOC and has explained it thus:


			
				The Anti-Royal said:
			
		

> An "A" isn't impossible, but show me a Capt who is ". . . capable of executing the skill at two rank levels up" (i.e, at the rank of LCol) and I'll show you an "A".  Anecdotal evidence is that only two of the thousands of officers who have graduated the AOC (or its equivalent) since the establishment of the Canadian Army Staff College in 1946 have received that grade.
> 
> On your second and third points, I can't answer with authority as I'm not employed in standards.  The two courses that I've attended at CF educational (vice training) institutions have not followed the CFITES guidelines that you've cited.  CLFCSC uses letter grades *(F, C-, C, C+, B and A) and associated word pictures (fail, met minimum standard, met standard, exceeded standard, mastered and capable of executing the skill at two rank levels up respectively); * CFC uses two word pictures (strong pass and pass, if I recall correctly) but no letter grade.



Ergo, I get:

F: Fail
C-: Met Minimum Standard (But wait!! "C" is the actual "met standard" - no??)
C: Met Standard (But wait!! People did worse than this and still passed!!)
C+: Exceeded Standard 
B: Mastered
A: Patton: capable of executing the skill at two rank levels up respectively

Either you meet the standard for the course - or you don't. So, if people with "Cs" are just "meeting the standard" as per Ex-Royals comments and input based upon his being DS for this course ... how can anything be below that and still be a "pass'?

See where I'm coming from now? You're confused? So am I. What a crap system of marking. First course I've seen with official double standards built into it.


----------



## The Anti-Royal (22 Jun 2009)

Midnight Rambler's translation of the word pictures associated with letter grades appears to be more useful than the one in current use.  Regardless of the words used, everything above an "F" is a pass.  Passes are sub-divided into four categories of performance.

Re:  his comment about selection by merit, I must assume that career managers consider a multitude of factors in course loading.  Proximity to an operational tour, availability for training, readiness for the demands of the curriculum and others come to mind.  Since the target student for the AOC is a Capt with 3-5 years in rank, I'd guess that many that are loaded haven't made an appearance on a promotion list, and may not until well after graduation.

Re: dapaterson's last post - there are no quotas for Bs, C+s, Cs, etc, at the AOC.  If you had been paying attention, you would have taken notice of what I'd said earlier.  I've never heard a statement at the nine grading conferences I've attended that, "Bloggins can't get a C+ because we'd go over our traditional quantity of C+s".

C- does not equate to "student should have failed".  The very few students that prove to be incapable of meeting the standard (which is, I repeat, capable of contributing positively as a staff officer in a battle group or formation headquarters), do fail.

I don't understand what you mean by the term, "existentially challenging".


----------



## exgunnertdo (22 Jun 2009)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Surely, if you are following the principles espoused in CFITES (which applies to all Schools, CF-wide), about 10% of your students should get an A, about 25% a "B" and the rest that pass, some form of a C.



CFITES does not, in principle or in reality, state that.  What you're talking about is a "normal distribution," or bell curve.  It's a statistical model.  Norm-referenced standards (which is what that breakdown is) are not part of CFITES, and shouldn't be part of a school's practice.  CFITES actually states it is "*not* an appropriate form of testing military IT&E."  (CFITES Vol 7, p. 5)  (emphasis on "not" is from CFITES, not mine).

What schools should be doing is "criterion referenced assessment."  Grading students against a standard.  Following the principles of CFITES would actually have course reports not using letter grades, but simply pass/fail, with a much greater emphasis on the narrative to describe individual students' strengths and weaknesses.  But military culture is hard to change, we like to put people in boxes (or bubbles, as the case may be! ;D)

What the college uses is criterion referenced, even though the letters are off from what other CF schools use.  I don't have a real issue with the break down of the C grade.  If you got a C-, you struggled, but made it, C is an average grade (average amount of difficulty, it is a hard course, after all), and C+ is met the standard with no difficulty.  But all C's meet the standard, it more describes how much difficulty you had getting there.  B:  exceeded the standard, and A is, as others have said, having the ability to work 2 ranks up.

I have taken the course, got a C.  There were a couple of C-'s on my course, and they did struggle, but IMHO (working with them on course), they still met the standard.

And Mods - is it possible to fix the thread title to spell Maj Mendes' name correctly?  Thanks!


----------



## dapaterson (22 Jun 2009)

"Existentially challenging" refers to the fraud of "Weak C" vs "Strong C" that certain staff perpetuate.  A C is a C.  A grading system should provide an indication of ability; the current system which sees roughly 2/3 of students lumped into a single small band provides little useful information.

My comments have been perhaps a tad harsh, but the current course provides a common level of mediocrity.  It should aspire to more, by being selective - not on the basis of the multiple guess quizzes online or the timed estimate exam, but by a more detailed, honest assessment by leadership to determine the best candidates prior to course loading.  All folks do not need staff training - heresy, I know.  But a truth; providing a course that most can pass versus one that requires pre-selection results in a lower quality/higher quantity output.  Do we want fewer good staff, or more poor staff?

Finally, any course standard as wishy-washy as "capable of contributing positively as a staff officer in a battle group or formation headquarters" deserves scorn.  Broad, vague, imprecise - someone who makes good coffee "contributes positively to a BG or formation HQ" - so the student on AOC always sent to Timmies for a pickup to keep them out of the way while the rest of the students do the work would pass?

ExgunnerTDO: Providing valid evaluation information with more depth than Pass/Fail is needed for any real-world course evaluation.  Provided a consistent evaluation framework is used, information can be mapped against other evaluations to identify success factors, and refine selection mechanisms, to better identify skills and aptitudes needed.  Binary metrics reduce the efficacity of statistical analysis.

Particularly as we face a tight workforce, the ability to select appropriate individuals and steer them to career fields where they have the greatest opportunities for success is a key enabler.  If we lack the data to identify that we're doing ourselves no favours.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Jun 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Particularly as we face a tight workforce, the ability to select appropriate individuals and steer them to career fields where they have the greatest opportunities for success is a key enabler.  If we lack the data to identify that we're doing ourselves no favours.



I have to agree. 

AOC is a model developed to meet Cold War, massive 'trip wire' type army needs fed by the bloated numbers of the boomer generations. Unfortunately, the British Army retains much of the same content and approach in their JSCSC training programme. We need to rethink the way we train our staff officers to meet the needs of present and future conflicts with the current and future generation of officer.

Oh, and I also propose (sharp intake of breath) that we open these courses up to the WO/MWO/CWO ranks. It's ridiculous to think that only 30 year old Captains are capable of drafting op orders or marking up a map for Bde orders. In reality, they are doing this now in many parts of our army anyways. Might as well make sure they get the same training...

And I can only imagine what constume Vern would be wearing when she christens the ground for her syndicates' presentation.


----------



## armyvern (22 Jun 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> In reality, they are doing this now in many parts of our army anyways. Might as well make sure they get the same training...
> 
> And I can only imagine what constume Vern would be wearing when she christens the ground for her syndicates' presentation.



1) Too true; and

2) I'm imagining it now.  8)


----------



## The Anti-Royal (22 Jun 2009)

So "existentially challenging" is ten-dollar term devoid of meaning?

The grading system does reflect reality.  Very few master a skill at the first go-around, a few more do it quite well, most do it fine given a bit of help, a few need a lot of help, a very few won't get it given unlimited help.  That applies regardless of the skill being taught.

I completed my six-month Army staff course in 1995.  Throughput was approximately 120 per year.  That's not enough.  We were already short in 1995, and the need for staff-trained Capts has increased due to the complexity of operations.  Producing around 180-200 per year is going a long way to solving the problem.

In comparing the two courses (as a student 15 years ago, and as a DS now), I don't see a lot of differences in difficulty.  In fact, the new one may be a little harder.  The old course prepared officers for employment in the staffs of brigades and divisionals; the new at battle group and brigade.  However, I would argue that battle groups could be considered the new brigades (extrapolate further if you wish) given the contemporary operating environment.

Therefore, your premise (that course standards have dropped to accommodate the "train all" philosophy) is untrue.

The application of intelligence, creativity, curiousity and energy are difficult to measure objectively.  If you can offer a course standard that's less (as you put it) wishy-washy, I'd love to hear it.

And for your last point (selection of appropriate individuals and steering them into career fields . . .) - are you proposing a general staff system for the Army/CF?


----------



## McG (22 Jun 2009)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> The Staff College in Kingston is a critical institution that begins the transformation of an officer from his comfort zone of the low-level tactical fight at company level into an officer that understands the larger tactical picture and can operate within a staff employing OPP. To me, it is what enables our officer corps to be a truly professional officer corps.
> 
> My impression is that the Army is happy with the standard of the graduates.


I like to compare AOC to the really big block buster movie that everyone is talking about and you are the last person to go see it.  Going in, your expectations are very high, and you are anticipating some great life changing event.  Unfortunately, at the end you've only seen a good movie and are a little let down ... except, I think AOC was only an "adaquate movie."

It does cover important material and provide an important learning venue for the Army.  However, I don't think it is everything that some of the course disciples claim it to be.  I did not find it particularly challenging.  I think there were several times oportunities were not exploited to drive home deeper lessons on staff operations.  I think some people were allowed to wallow in thier comfort areas (both 'B' students and "low C" students).  I think the CFLCSC lacks the manpower to develop, maintain, and deliver the top quality programme that we would desire.

Despite that, AOC is an adequate course and I don't doubt that the Army as a whole benefits from it.



			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ... people should not sweat the grades and the assessment unless one is really keen on becoming the CDS, or if you are recommended for gelding to prevent you propagating on the other hand.


Maybe.  However, when the commandant's introduction address to the course hammers on the position that merit board "recognize the significance of" and highly wieght the LFCSC course report ... well, if it is true then a disservice is being done to both the members and to the whole Canadian Forces if those course reports are not being written accurately and with a relevant meriting criteria.



			
				The Anti-Royal said:
			
		

> ... course reports make the employability and potential of graduates clear to their chains of command and applicable promotion boards.  Promotion boards look at the AOC course report seriously and, depending on MOC, at the letter grade.





			
				Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> The write ups are taken seriously, and though I eeked out a C+, I was very pleased with my write up.  (That's "Cee-Plus", not a typo for 'Cee-minus', just to be clear ;D)





			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Getting stressed about Cs adn Bs doesn't really achieve anything, either as a student on AOC or a critic of the institution. As has been said it is the narrative that really matters.


I am strongly skeptical that the naratives compensate for the defeciencies of the letter grading system.  I state this knowing DS to have handed students thier course reports with an appologiy because narative does not do the students' performance justice.  The narratives were conformed to the letter grade and less so to the student performance.  We see that the letter grades are awarded as:

A: Exceeded the LCol's standard
B: Greatly exceeded the standard
C+: Exceeded the standard
C: Met the standard
C-: Met the standard with significant difficulty

However, 66 to 75% of students are lumped into that 'C' and CFLCSC standards dictate that the narrative cannot differentiate between "easily met standard" and "met standard with some difficulty."  Students may only be described as having "met the standard."  With that restriction in place, there is nothing to assist the promotion boards in segregating the bottom third from the middle third.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> ... the fraud of "Weak C" vs "Strong C" that certain staff perpetuate.  A C is a C.  A grading system should provide an indication of ability; the current system which sees roughly 2/3 of students lumped into a single small band provides little useful information.


That's pretty close to my thoughts.

In the end, I don't see the grading system as CLFCSC's greatest problem though.


----------



## exgunnertdo (22 Jun 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ExgunnerTDO: Providing valid evaluation information with more depth than Pass/Fail is needed for any real-world course evaluation.  Provided a consistent evaluation framework is used, information can be mapped against other evaluations to identify success factors, and refine selection mechanisms, to better identify skills and aptitudes needed.  Binary metrics reduce the efficacity of statistical analysis.



More depth is definitely required than pass/fail.  I would never suggest that pass/fail alone is enough.  Letter grades do tend to make people want to move towards that bell curve, though.  People start to scrutinize when too many or not enough people fall into a certain grade.  That's what we're doing here, isn't it?  There is a perception that there is a problem since there are not enough A's, too many C's and good grief, how come there aren't more F's?  The Staff College isn't fitting the bell curve, and it makes people question what they're doing.  

I just threw that out there since SeaKingTacco suggested that CFITES advocates the application of a normal distribution in the assignment of grades, when in fact it's the opposite.  Letter grades can be used, but there is a danger in slipping toward the bell curve, then the letter grades are meaningless outside of the context of that particular course.  Top/middle/bottom third is gone from the CF377 now because of that fact.   Middle third on one course may have been bottom on the next and top on the one before.

The fact that this discussion is going on is a good reason to question why and if we really need letter grades on courses.  (I'm not saying we don't, just that questioning why is a good thing.)


----------



## Gunner98 (22 Jun 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I have to agree.
> 
> Oh, and I also propose (sharp intake of breath) that we open these courses up to the WO/MWO/CWO ranks. It's ridiculous to think that only 30 year old Captains are capable of drafting op orders or marking up a map for Bde orders. In reality, they are doing this now in many parts of our army anyways. Might as well make sure they get the same training...
> 
> And I can only imagine what constume Vern would be wearing when she christens the ground for her syndicates' presentation.



I was led to believe that there is sufficient coverage of these areas on ILQ/ALQ.  At least my RSM seemed to be struggling with the estimate and OPP processes.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jun 2009)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> I was led to believe that there is sufficient coverage of these areas on ILQ/ALQ.  At least my RSM seemed to be struggling with the estimate and OPP processes.


I took the old SLC in 91 so I can't comment on the new ILQ/ALQ.

What I do know is that perhaps the AOC should have a few WO/MWO or CWOs or two on it, as students to advise the young captains and future Commanding Officers in what troops can and cannot do. At least that's my perspective.
I was always taught, by two officers (one is now pretty high up there) that everyone should know the job two levels up. ie Sect Commanders should be able to fill in briefly as Pl & Coy Comds if the need arises.
So why not send some bright WOs/MWO's on the AOC?


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Jun 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> F :  On the keyboard, between "D" and G"", both of which are also unused in evaluations.



There is no "D" because we didn't want it confused with the "old school" _Distinguished Pass_ notation of "D".  Eventually, some TDO will write a paper on how the last member who ever took a course with _Pass/Distnguished Pass_ gradings has died and will receive a Commendation for recommending the "D" be resurrected as a grade, to be used as a grade slightly below "C-", but still not quite "F".  A further study will be required to examine "E".

This will cause old staff officers to spin in their graves, not unlike when auto-paragraph numbering led to the acceptance of sub-para "i".


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Jun 2009)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> So why not send some bright WOs/MWO's on the AOC?



I know that a few years ago there was a plan to load some MWO's on the AOC (starting about 2006 if I recall correctly). The driving requirement was to start getting some knowledge and skillsets supporting digitized headquarters outside that "30-year-old Captain" group, so that critical requirement in digital headquarters wouldn't become officers' fingers on keyboards. I was under the impression at the time that NCM Career Managers were even warning people for the course.  I guess this plan died.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (22 Jun 2009)

The Anti-Royal said:
			
		

> I completed my six-month Army staff course in 1995.



Hmmm - so did I - 9502....

Dave


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Jun 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> AOC is a model developed to meet Cold War, massive 'trip wire' type army needs fed by the bloated numbers of the boomer generations. Unfortunately, the British Army retains much of the same content and approach in their JSCSC training programme. We need to rethink the way we train our staff officers to meet the needs of present and future conflicts with the current and future generation of officer.
> 
> Oh, and I also propose (sharp intake of breath) that we open these courses up to the WO/MWO/CWO ranks. It's ridiculous to think that only 30 year old Captains are capable of drafting op orders or marking up a map for Bde orders. In reality, they are doing this now in many parts of our army anyways. Might as well make sure they get the same training...
> 
> And I can only imagine what constume Vern would be wearing when she christens the ground for her syndicates' presentation.


I disagree that AOC is irrelevant in today's war.  It teaches officers how to solve problems, come up with solutions, and then manage those solutions for commanders.  I used OPP over 100 times in a previous 7.5 month period.  It works.  I do believe that the process pre-dates the Cold War, and even predates Germany as a state.  In fact, one could argue that the state of Germany owes its existance to the processes taught on AOC.  The method of training those skills may evolve over time (and I'm pretty sure that they have.
As for WO's on this course, I would argue "no".  A Pl 2IC, CQMS or what have you does not plan or operate at this level, much as a Lt or jr. Capt does not plan or operate as this level.  For MWO, I could see an "NCM version" of the course being run.  If they wish to lead OPP cycles, then they can put in for their commission and suffer like the rest of us pointy heads.  As for CWOs, there is the CO/RSM course that the college conducts.  It reviews OPP and the like for CO designates and brings the RSM designates up to speed.


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Jun 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> This will cause old staff officers to spin in their graves, not unlike when auto-paragraph numbering led to the acceptance of sub-para "i".


Don't forget sub-paras "o" and "l".  (No "oil" in military writing, as I recall.  I still catch myself from time to time ignoring those letters when I do sub-paras.  But I digress!)


----------



## The Anti-Royal (22 Jun 2009)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Hmmm - so did I - 9502....
> 
> Dave



We were in the same syndicate in two of three tutorials.

These are the Daves I know, I know, these are the Daves I know.

I still cringe when I remember a bunch of us belting out Bohemian Rhapsody at the Fort Hood O club.  Could any of us carry a tune in a bucket?


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Jun 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> Don't forget sub-paras "o" and "l".  (No "oil" in military writing, as I recall.  I still catch myself from time to time ignoring those letters when I do sub-paras.  But I digress!)



I was trying to make a point without being unnecessarily pedantic, but someone had to drag out the _"Never Pass [up an opportunity to publicly point out] a Fault"_ clause.    ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Jun 2009)

> I just threw that out there since SeaKingTacco suggested that CFITES advocates the application of a normal distribution in the assignment of grades, when in fact it's the opposite.



Ok, ok- I get it- I screwed up.  Never post without referring first to a reference.

I will now retire, reputation in tatters.   8)


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Jun 2009)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Ok, ok- I get it- I screwed up.  Never post without referring first to a reference.
> 
> I will now retire, reputation in tatters.   8)


If that's all it too to retire, then I should have retired LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG ago!


			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I was trying to make a point without being unnecessarily pedantic, but someone had to drag out the _"Never Pass [up an opportunity to publicly point out] a Fault"_ clause.    ;D


Hey, The RCR is worse than the Jesuits!  They've had me for close to 20 years now.  How could I not?  HOW COULD I NOT? ;D


OK, to keep this OT.  AOC is good for you, but it's like that yucky medicine that has the commercials with the old dude.  "It tastes awful, but it works".  Buckmans?  Buckleys?  Something like that...


----------



## dapaterson (22 Jun 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> Hey, The RCR is worse than the Jesuits!



As a non-Catholic graduate of a Jesuit high school, I can agree with confidence.  The Jesuits have reasons for what they do, not just "It was a rock.  Therefore I painted it."

(Really OT - one of my high school teachers was martyred 8 years ago last Saturday)



> OK, to keep this OT.  AOC is good for you, but it's like that yucky medicine that has the commercials with the old dude.  "It tastes awful, but it works".  Buckmans?  Buckleys?  Something like that...



But is it good enough?  Can it be made better?  Do we need to temper expectations about the ability of the system to produce quality graduates as we seem to want quantity over quality?  Is a bottom third evaluation synonymous with a posting to one of the dot COMs (insert evil grin here)?  To paraphrase some of the great modern philosophers, from AOC do we get what we want, but not what we need?


----------



## exgunnertdo (22 Jun 2009)

Hey, no worries, SeaKingTacco!

TDOs must defend CFITES, it's part of our cult!   ;D

I don't get too many opportunities to talk about my job on these boards!


----------



## armyvern (22 Jun 2009)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> I was led to believe that there is sufficient coverage of these areas on ILQ/ALQ.  At least my RSM seemed to be struggling with the estimate and OPP processes.



Damn, should have tasked him to CFSAL to re-write the Phase IV ... he'd have gotten lots of practise.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (22 Jun 2009)

The Anti-Royal said:
			
		

> I still cringe when I remember a bunch of us belting out Bohemian Rhapsody at the Fort Hood O club.  Could any of us carry a tune in a bucket?



Hard to believe they posted me to Washington for a year, huh?  Hopefully the stories will respect our new hardened border....

Mind you, we needed to let loose.  You and I did Staff College back when it mattered.  "Youts" today just fill in the back of a pack of matches at Fort Frontenac and automatically get a plsc.... >


----------



## 54/102 CEF (22 Jun 2009)

Can anyone at AOC Central post the requirement for Day 1 of Tutorial III - the part time P PRES Staff seem to be offline - on leave - or likely setting traps for us on 11 July

Maybe send it out via the Course Coord lady via her email list she just sent for the personal history form.


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Jun 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The Jesuits have reasons for what they do, not just "It was a rock.  Therefore I painted it."



Actually, it's "It was a rock. It had been painted before.  I knew not why it was painted before, only that the Regiment desired it so, therefore, I painted it again."



			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> You and I did Staff College back when it mattered.  "Youts" today just fill in the back of a pack of matches at Fort Frontenac and automatically get a plsc.... >



Ah, but there are those humble few who did the two-part disaster in transition.  26 weeks in two courses, all OPP, no field trip to Europe.  The hardest won p.l.s.c you can imagine.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Jun 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Ah, but there are those humble few who did the two-part disaster in transition.  26 weeks in two courses, all OPP, no field trip to Europe.  The hardest won p.l.s.c you can imagine.


And of course there are those of us who did the course during the current war.  There were cutbacks, naturally: no field trips AND they even cut the mints on the pillows!  MINTS ON THE PILLOWS!  I know there's a war on, but we _can_ still be civil, no?  It was pure hell!!!!


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Jun 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> And of course there are those of us who did the course during the current war.  There were cutbacks, naturally: no field trips AND they even cut the mints on the pillows!  MINTS ON THE PILLOWS!  I know there's a war on, but we _can_ still be civil, no?  It was pure hell!!!!



Appalling. You have my sympathy.  The only thing that set the place apart from Gitmo was the mints on the pillow.  Well, that and the fact that the sense of being waterboarded in DIs was only metaphorical.


----------



## Journeyman (23 Jun 2009)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> "Youts" today just fill in the back of a pack of matches at Fort Frontenac and automatically get a plsc.... >



What's a "pack of matches" Grandpa?  
Oh ri-iiight...I heard about something like that back before non-recyclable, disposable lighters. 

Next you'll try to tell us that some of them had a drawing of Bambi (not the stripper), and if you copied it, you could have the talent to send them money for an art course.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jun 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> What's a "pack of matches" Grandpa?



Those are the little one page notebooks with the funny sticks that you find in the Ration Packs.    :camo:


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Jun 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> I do believe that the process pre-dates the Cold War, and even predates Germany as a state.  In fact, one could argue that the state of Germany owes its existance to the processes taught on AOC.



I've got no argu8ment with the practicality of teaching people OPP. But there just may be an argument there in support of revisiting a model of training methodology developed by von Moltke to teach German officers how to best use the train system to beat the French in 1871...


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Jun 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Those are the little one page notebooks with the funny sticks that you find in the Ration Packs.    :camo:



The ones with the built-in self-destruction mechanism in case of imminent capture.    :camo:


----------



## TangoTwoNiner (29 Jun 2009)

Mike,

As a recent graduate of AOC (100 anniversary class 2008), I think the the ulitlity of the course is more than relevent as the demand for AOC qual Captains on expeditionary ops is high (or so I've been told). And quit bragging that you won (earned more like it) the Minerva! We know already! 

And if you hadn't figured out who I am, just wait until I put the Cougar back in front of the Mess so you have something to look at when eating breakfast!

JFH


----------



## McG (29 Jun 2009)

TangoTwoNiner said:
			
		

> As a recent graduate of AOC, I think the the ulitlity of the course is more than relevent


I think (despite the title of the thread) the question is less about determining if AOC has any utility to the Army & CF, and it is more about the effectiveness of AOC in meeting our needs.  Is the AOC (as it is run now) achieving its full potential, or could the Army be getting a better product (junior to intermediate staff officers) with changes to the programme?


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 Jun 2009)

TangoTwoNiner said:
			
		

> And if you hadn't figured out who I am, just wait until I put the Cougar back in front of the Mess so you have something to look at when eating breakfast!
> 
> JFH



And I told you what I would do if I got tired of looking at it.    ;D


----------



## TangoTwoNiner (30 Jun 2009)

LOL! You would to wouldn't you!

I'll have plenty of time to scheme when you're in Pet pepper-potting in the sand for two weeks!


----------



## TangoTwoNiner (30 Jun 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> I think (despite the title of the thread) the question is less about determining if AOC has any utility to the Army & CF, and it is more about the effectiveness of AOC in meeting our needs.  Is the AOC (as it is run now) achieving its full potential, or could the Army be getting a better product (junior to intermediate staff officers) with changes to the programme?



In order to change the curriculum it takes time - at least a year and I know the DS try and insert more "current" material when they can, but if they do it's at the expense of something else. The idea behind the course is to not make anyone a shake-n-bake expert, but to learn a set of tools that can be applied to almost any military problem and be able to solve it logically and then communicate that COA to someone else. It's the same as becoming an expert in war fighting, which can then be used as a platform for OOTW.

Without blowing my own horn, I thought I was a pretty good staff wiener before I started and I quickly realized that there was a lot that I didn't know and it really opened my eyes and made me a better officer. Way better. So yeah, I think the CF gets some good bang for the buck of that course. My 2 cents...


----------



## McG (30 Jun 2009)

TangoTwoNiner said:
			
		

> In order to change the curriculum it takes time - at least a year and I know the DS try and insert more "current" material when they can, but if they do it's at the expense of something else. The idea behind the course is to not make anyone a shake-n-bake expert, but to learn a set of tools that can be applied to almost any military problem and be able to solve it logically and then communicate that COA to someone else. It's the same as becoming an expert in war fighting, which can then be used as a platform for OOTW.
> 
> Without blowing my own horn, I thought I was a pretty good staff wiener before I started and I quickly realized that there was a lot that I didn't know and it really opened my eyes and made me a better officer. Way better. So yeah, I think the CF gets some good bang for the buck of that course. My 2 cents...


Well, let's just say I was somewhat more underwhelmed than you.
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/87189/post-850543.html#msg850543


----------



## Infanteer (30 Jun 2009)

I agree with MCG - there is no question of the utility for an "AOC" (or the various other names our allies call it); the question is are we getting what we need from ours.

I'll throw up some articles for a little reading, reflection and discussion:

On Pentatheltes

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/169-burke.pdf

And a response on Triatheletes

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/170-mckinney.pdf


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Jun 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I agree with MCG - there is no question of the utility for an "AOC" (or the various other names our allies call it); the question is are we getting what we need from ours.
> 
> I'll throw up some articles for a little reading, reflection and discussion:
> 
> ...



Burke's experience is similar to mine when I attended the computerized Battle Group trainer in Edmonton in 2003. With the exception of UAVs and some nice computer simulations, I could have been back in any one of a number of TEWTs in the early 1980s. This CAX was followed by a field based TEWT that could have been delivered on CTC Phase III ca. 1980 (Whoa, smell of Oromocto Donair Kebab flashback...)

Needless to say, though I was impressed with the staff and technology, I wasn't impressed with an organization that seemed less interested in training me to fight the 'war that was happening right now' vs. the 'war that never happened 30 years ago'. 

I hope things have changed since then, at least a little bit.


----------

