# It’s 2017. The Military Still Requires Officers To Have College Degrees. Why?



## daftandbarmy (18 Oct 2017)

Good question.....

It’s 2017. The Military Still Requires Officers To Have College Degrees. Why? 

In 1940, fewer than one in 20 Americans had four years of college. By 2000, it was one in four.  A college degree was once widely seen as proof of membership in the nation’s intellectual (and  financial, gender, and racial) elite. Now, being a college graduate just means someone is able to pay tuition and wake up in time for at least 50% of their classes. And still, with very few exceptions, we require degrees of our commissioned officers. A guy can come off the street with a degree from the University of Phoenix (acceptance rate: 100%) and be closer to getting a commission than an experienced NCO with outstanding evaluations. Officer selection boards might do just as well if they required a note from an applicant’s mom saying “He’s probably not a complete dumbass.”

Academic degrees aren’t great markers of leadership quality… and requiring degrees shuts out a lot of potential officers with a talent for the work. It’s time we changed that. 

http://taskandpurpose.com/2017-military-still-requires-officers-college-degrees/


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Oct 2017)

Good read.  It raises some valid points.  

Thanks for sharing!


----------



## dapaterson (18 Oct 2017)

Unfortunately, the Report to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management of the Canadian Forces is no longer available online; recommendation 10 of that report is what drives the CAF "Degreed Officer Corps".  Unfortunately, the intent of building a more robust intellectual underpinning to the Profession of Arms has been reduced to a checklist item.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Oct 2017)

Let me, as someone who was commissioned and served without a degree, offer a few thoughts from back when the earth was still cooling. I remember any number of briefings by the high-priced help in which they remarked that there was no guarantee that any one candidate for officer training would make a useful and successful officer. Over the years various armies tried all sorts of election criteria, and all proved to be equally mediocre: breeding; degrees; military academies; selection boards; practical tests - none were infallible and most were a waste of time and resources. It all depended on how the candidate performed under tons of stress during their training, and even then performance on regimental duty was the ultimate test. Maybe we you have got smarter and discovered the magic solution since I came through in 1960-1961, but somehow I doubt it.

Does that mean we should just arbitrarily grab people out of the line at recruiting stations? Nope, there is room for some sorting process, but dependence on a degree is not the answer, it is an answer.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Oct 2017)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Nope, there is room for some sorting process, but dependence on a degree is not the answer, it is _*part of*_ an answer.



I'd add the bold bit above.  A degree an and of itself is not an answer; you can earn a degree but still be in the bottom 2% of applicants.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2017)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ....Over the years various armies tried all sorts of election criteria, and all proved to be equally mediocre: breeding; degrees; military academies; selection boards; practical tests - none were infallible and most were a waste of time and resources. ....



I think you missed one - the ability to finance your own battalion.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Oct 2017)

I think Gault did all right with the PPCLI.


----------



## FJAG (18 Oct 2017)

Like Old Sweat, I'm a product of the OCTP system where only education requirement was to have junior matriculation which back the was grade 12 (Ontario).

In the summer of 1970 we graduated roughly 10 OCTP and 10 ROTP Phase 4 Arty Officers who all went to regiments and subsequent to that we seemed to parallel the numbers that quit early or went on to middling success. Can't recall any of us that hit the stratosphere as a general. 

The only thing that I ever thought might have given the ROTP guys a bit of an edge was that they were all, on average, four years older (and therefore slightly more mature) than we OCTP guys. After a year or two with the regiment that counted for nothing and their degrees were of zero value to them and the CF and if anything gave them more incentive to leave the CF early for a civilian career.

I still don't understand why we would waste the first four youthful years of an officer's career in a classroom. 

In my mind we would do better if we took in a large number of physically fit eighteen year olds with good levels of high school education, aptitude test scores etc and have them enroll as privates, complete basic and corps training and serve with a battalion for a year or so before being finally evaluated for acceptance as officers and then sent on leadership and corps training before commissioning.

But then, since our big brother down south demands that all junior officers have a college or university degree, we'll probably just stay the course.

 :cheers:


----------



## Pusser (18 Oct 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I think Gault did all right with the PPCLI.



Yes, but he had the good sense to find an experienced officer to command it.  He did not immediately take command.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Oct 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Like Old Sweat, I'm a product of the OCTP system where only education requirement was to have junior matriculation which back the was grade 12 (Ontario).
> 
> In the summer of 1970 we graduated roughly 10 OCTP and 10 ROTP Phase 4 Arty Officers who all went to regiments and subsequent to that we seemed to parallel the numbers that quit early or went on to middling success. Can't recall any of us that hit the stratosphere as a general.
> 
> ...



And, perhaps, recognize NCMs who show a penchant for wardroom activities and talent manage them towards that avenue if they so wish ? 

I feel we have a plethora of NCMs who would make excellent officers.  But getting them into that stream is not as easy as it should be.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Oct 2017)

Where the degree comes in useful though is preparing officers for the mountains of staff work they will be required to do as they progress in their career.

The military used to have junior staff colleges which were sufficient in length to prepare someone for this; however, the institution has largely outsourced this now.  

This puts us in line with many corporations who up until just before the turn of this century also offered large corporate training packages to its employees.  What was happening is employees would receive the training and then leave the company.  It is a waste of resources to train someone only to have them leave and work for a competitor or start their own company.

At the end of the day, anyone who wants to can pursue higher education and put in the time to get a degree and become an Officer.  

The military doesn't need to get rid of the degree requirement but it needs to get a heck of a lot better at talent management.  I can think of one success story I had a small part in a few years ago.

We had a soldier (corporal), who was a very capable individual, who had a Bachelors and Masters Degree.  He was spotted and offered a CFR which he took and is now an RCR Captain.


----------



## Loachman (19 Oct 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Where the degree comes in useful though is preparing officers for the mountains of staff work they will be required to do as they progress in their career.



I've done "mountains of staff work" reasonably well without a degree, and seen many degreed officers who suck at staff work.



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The military used to have junior staff colleges which were sufficient in length to prepare someone for this; however, the institution has largely outsourced this now.



The CF Staff School on Avenue Road in Toronto was an eight-week course. That's a lot less of a waste of time and money than a degree.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Oct 2017)

Some of this comes down to philosophical concepts of education vs training.  Simplified, training improves performance of specific tasks; education develops reasoning and judgement.

Ideally, if we truly believe in Mission Command, we want an officer corps with those qualities (reasoning and judgement), so they are adaptable to changing situations.

http://keydifferences.com/difference-between-training-and-education.html#ixzz4W0ZEK5oD


----------



## Baz (19 Oct 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I've done "mountains of staff work" reasonably well without a degree, and seen many degreed officers who suck at staff work.



I total y concur, but...

My experience is that one thing that happened is that the definition of "staff work" became muddied.

People now group admin and technical work in with staff work, I don't think it is:
- admin work is supporting your people and unit administratively
- technical work is supporting your weapon systems
- staff work is supporting your commander

Staff work is not just about producing paper; it is understanding your part of the problem as a SME, then presenting the problem and COAs as a unified understanding to the commander, and implementing the solution.

It is not about the paper, it is about *thinking*.

I had an interesting discussion once with a person he was Wing A3 while I was at HOTEF (Operational Test): it was about Aircrew Allowance and staff work.  He thought HOTEF shouldn't get it because they were in "Staff" positions.  Hopefully you can see the irony: he was in a numbered staff position and should have known his *primary* job was to support his commander and secondary job was flying, whereas HOTEFs primary job is to fly the aircraft for testing and needs to produce paper in order to support their technical role.

A culture of staff work being paperwork (of any type) has developed.  The ultimate expression of this is that I was told that I hadn't done any staff tours, despite being in a planning group in NORAD and a an operations group at SHAPE, because I hadn't been to NDHQ or 1CAD.

Very little of what ADM(MAT), for instance, does is staff work... it is important paperwork that keeps the technical wheels on the track so that the weapon system functions, but it isn't staff work.

Given that, if actual staff work is important to support Commander's critical decision making is important (and I think it is incredibly so, but not being done very well), then an appropriate degree from a institution that supports decision making skills (not a degree mill...) is part of a well rounded officer's repertoire.

By the way, this problem also exists in large civilian (public and private) institutions from my experience; possibly more so.

Disclaimer: OCTP (1990), BSc (Comp Sci) Dalhousie (1999); some of my most useful courses were third year Poli Sci seminar courses on Maritime Strategy and Law (I was only allowed in due to my military background)...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Oct 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I've done "mountains of staff work" reasonably well without a degree, and seen many degreed officers who suck at staff work.
> 
> The CF Staff School on Avenue Road in Toronto was an eight-week course. That's a lot less of a waste of time and money than a degree.



This is opinion, just because you did it and it worked for you doesn't mean everyone should.  

Not saying it's right, just explaining why it is the way it is.  

Remember, your salary is tied to the public service rates.  No way the government pays a Captain 90k a year without a University Degree.

Almost any management level position anywhere requires at least a BA as a minimum.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 Oct 2017)

I fully concur with Baz's explanation of what constitutes staff work as opposed to administrative/keeping technical records work. 

All officers should be able to do their administrative work, with or without a degree.

All officers should be able to lead their "troops" in their operational field at a level commensurate with their rank, with or without a degree.

All officers in technical fields should have a degree in their field, because that is a requirement of their technical field and for the technical record keeping associated with it.

All Staff officers, as Baz has defined staff work, should have a degree because their fundamental staff work require them to be able to, on their own, recognize the topic at issue, formulate the right question to be answered, independently research material they may or may not have ever seen before, compile the relevant material, analyst it  and draw conclusions from the analysis, identify possible solutions, recognize the pros and cons of each, then draft or otherwise present the whole to their commanders in a cogent and comprehensive fashion. I am sorry to say that these skills are not taught in any way form or shape at the High School level, only at the University level.

And Humprey, I disagree that captains (as an example) need degrees because of the correspondence with civil service managers. Officers that fulfill the first two roles I mentioned above don't need a degree - but it is because they don't manage anything - they lead soldiers/sailors or airmen.

So there is no absolutely need for officers to have a degree and there is another way to deal with the requirements for well developed staff officers: The continental European model of General Staff. Officers, with degrees and a record early on of skill at writing tactical or strategic papers, get tested in national level tests for their specific abilities fro staff work and, if selected, are "career managed" through a series of staff courses, staff positions and field position in an accelerated fashion to get to the level where their staff abilities will serve the armed forces the best. Now that is talent management.


----------



## quadrapiper (19 Oct 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I fully concur with Baz's explanation of what constitutes staff work as opposed to administrative/keeping technical records work.
> 
> All officers should be able to do their administrative work, with or without a degree.
> 
> ...


Would removing the non-technical degree requirement at the entry level, supplementing initial officer training to support whatever "staff" work is likely in ship/battalion/squadron service, and running an in-house degree program (perhaps two-year condensed Bachelors and Masters, at re-purposed military colleges?) for people at appropriate steps on the "staff" stream work?


----------



## dapaterson (19 Oct 2017)

Or do we need to rethink how we're structured?  We have more senior officers in the Reg F (Maj and above) today than we did when the Reg F was over 90,000 strong.  Nearly 10% of the Trained Effective Establishment is senior officers.  Can we streamline HQ functions and reduce the size of that cohort?

Maybe we need to get officers doing more officer stuff (and in smaller numbers), and empower senior NCMs more.  Where necessary, provide those SNCOs with training or education to enable them.


----------



## Underway (19 Oct 2017)

Professions require education.  Higher education.  You cannot be a professional (in the proper definition of the term) without it.  See Drs, Lawyers, Engineers, Accountants, Nurses etc... Therefore the "Profession at arms" needs an education because minimum literacy and numeracy standards have to be met.

University education all but guarantees this where high school does not.  It also means that when you were out there in the world doing school you were also exposed to new ideas and different ways of thinking, which is valuable to any organization.  It also generally demonstrates your ability to self learn and manage your time.  

There is research held by the PSel branch that proves university educated officers are _more likely_ to succeed in training and have the skills necessary to succeed in their first posting after OFP (65% predictive when combined with CFAT and new interview process).  This isn't to say that if you don't have one you are incapable or worse, just less likely to succeed.

Finally the real reason we have university educated officers is because of the Somalia Report which pointed out that the Canadian Forces officer corps were highly resistant too and lacked higher education (the groupthink problems referenced earlier).  IIRC it was below 40% of officers who had a degree.  The recommendation that came out of that was that all officers must have a university degree, which DND accepted with the goal that 95% of officers would have a degree of some type.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Oct 2017)

Underway said:
			
		

> Finally the real reason we have university educated officers is because of the Somalia Report which pointed out that the Canadian Forces officer corps were highly resistant too and lacked higher education (the groupthink problems referenced earlier).  IIRC it was below 40% of officers who had a degree.  The recommendation that came out of that was that all officers must have a university degree, which DND accepted with the goal that 95% of officers would have a degree of some type.



Bad leadership begets bad leaders.

No amount of education can address that issue. Blanket policies like 'everyone will get a degree so we don't have any more war crimes' is a cop out, as well as being naïve.


----------



## Loachman (19 Oct 2017)

Underway said:
			
		

> Professions require education.  Higher education.  You cannot be a professional (in the proper definition of the term) without it.  See Drs, Lawyers, Engineers, Accountants, Nurses etc... Therefore the "Profession at arms" needs an education because minimum literacy and numeracy standards have to be met.



How did we ever win the Second World War with so few degrees among so many Officers?

"Drs, Lawyers, Engineers, Accountants, Nurses" are educated/trained as such in universities, yes. There _are_ no other venues. We provide our Officers with the necessary education/training to perform effectively, and at the appropriate levels. Universities do not do that, as they do for the non-military occupations that you mentioned.

I've never had to apply "literacy and numeracy standards" above what I learned in public school, let alone high school, in thirty-five years in flying and staff positions. Perhaps the quality of education has slipped a lot in public schools since I was there. I did have the benefit of beginning my education in England, and was thus quite ahead of my age group in Canada post-immigration.



			
				Underway said:
			
		

> University education all but guarantees this where high school does not.  It also means that when you were out there in the world doing school you were also exposed to new ideas and different ways of thinking, which is valuable to any organization.  It also generally demonstrates your ability to self learn and manage your time.



Nothing guarantees anything. There are also many ways in which one can be "exposed to new ideas and different ways of thinking" - seeing the world and interacting with different cultures as part of one's career comes to mind. The various Officer selection and training programmes should "generally demonstrate(s) your ability to self learn and manage your time" as well.



			
				Underway said:
			
		

> There is research held by the PSel branch that proves university educated officers are _more likely_ to succeed in training and have the skills necessary to succeed in their first posting after OFP (65% predictive when combined with CFAT and new interview process).  This isn't to say that if you don't have one you are incapable or worse, just less likely to succeed.



And what was the success/failure rate like in the "bad old" pre-every-Officer-must-have-a-degree days? If it was worse, is the difference worth the time and cost of putting every single Officer through three or four years of university?



			
				Underway said:
			
		

> Finally the real reason we have university educated officers is because of the Somalia Report which pointed out that the Canadian Forces officer corps were highly resistant too and lacked higher education (the groupthink problems referenced earlier).  IIRC it was below 40% of officers who had a degree.  The recommendation that came out of that was that all officers must have a university degree, which DND accepted with the goal that 95% of officers would have a degree of some type.



There were far more serious problems in Somalia than Officers without degrees, and I've seen plenty of "groupthink" in university-trained professions as well.

I've had quite an exposure to the medical community over the last five years, and it's far from perfect. There is much resistance to new ideas, especially the simple, cheap, and effective ones as opposed to those that come from drug- and equipment-manufacturers accompanied by slick advertising campaigns, don't really solve the underlying problem, are often accompanied by a lengthy list of side-effects, and cost a lot of money.

What's the difference between doctors training doctors and lawyers training lawyers in universities and military Officers training military Officers in military training establishments?

Why don't we recognize the equivalent value of our own training - initial Officer training, whatever OPDP is called now, and the various staff courses, instead of blindly worshipping civilian degrees? Why not rename the Infantry School "Infantry University" or 2 Canadian Forces Flying Training School "2 Canadian Forces Flying Training University" and issue a military degree along with a Commissioning Scroll? Our programmes are a lot more intensive and much harder to get through, if somewhat shorter.

I am not anti-education, but highly sceptical of any claim that a random degree makes one a more effective Officer, or is the only means by which one can become knowledgeable and well-rounded.

My daughter was the first one in my family to get a degree. I took a fair amount of pride in her accomplishment, but she remains somewhat bitter about her inability to find a decent job afterwards, and it took her many years to pay off her student debt. So many have BAs that prospective employers basically dismissed hers, and she feels that her teachers who pushed the value of an education lied to her. That old cliche about the person with a BA asking "Do you want fries with that?" That's the rut in which she's still stuck, and nothing that she spent all of that money and effort on has given her any practical benefit.

In comparison, I have Grade 12 and four Grade 13 credits and was making $111,000 and change when I got punted for exceeding my allowable allotment of birthdays, and now receive more in pension money than many with degrees will make for many years. I would not have given up any four years of the career that I had in exchange for a degree. I'd certainly have learned a lot less.


----------



## Loachman (19 Oct 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Bad leadership begets bad leaders.



Mefloquine didn't help, either.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 Oct 2017)

A few extra remarks at this point:

First one goes to something Quadrapiper said: There is no "staff" work on a warship because there is no "staff" as that term is defined by Baz (except, maybe the captain's steward if you look at it as he is supporting the captain's command work  :king:: "You're up early, sir. Let we fetch you a coffee - I had it ready just in case" or "That's alright, sir. I'll let your wife know you'll be late again, and I will pick up your dry cleaning at Canex on the way so you'll have it for tomorrow." Etc. etc.). Or if you look at it in reverse, everybody is staff to the captain.

Anyhow, second point concerns what Underway just mentioned about the profession of arms. While it is true that all "professions" have education requirements, it is also true that some will graduate at the top of their class while others will graduate at the bottom. Some will go on to be the chiefs of their medical field in teaching or research hospitals, while others will either be competent for, or satisfied with receiving people with the little ailments and pains and prescribe a bunch of pills based on the say so of drug companies. In law, some will be the top corporate lawyers in a large National firm, while others will do divorce/family law work in a small local practice. My experience is that where people graduate is actually not an indicator of which of those doctors or lawyers will end up being one or the other I described above.

So, yes, "higher" education is required for the profession of arms, but unless we define "higher" as transformative education that "makes the educated person a man-of-the-world (sorry for women here, I don't know what a gender neutral expression would be), then the narrowly focused "training" that professionals like doctors or engineers get in university can only be looked at as advanced technical training and not "higher education". If so, why can't the military take people who graduated high school with good marks and actually be the ones providing the "higher" education of a professional type?

I don't know when you joined, Underway, but in my early days, the Navy used to take high school graduates right off  and pass them through a program (NOTP) that was about a year long, given at VENTURE, that would get them ready to go to sea onboard the old MACKENZIE class ships for a further 26 (I think) weeks to then stand a BWK board. They would then be sent to an operational ship to pass their "full" BWK. They off course would then have their OPDOPIEs, their basic training course in their "field", their "D" level. In all they probably got a good three years of actual formal "education" in the field of naval operations by the time they did all this, and frankly - onboard a ship - you couldn't tell them apart from those officers who had university degrees. Few of them made it past Commander, but almost all of them stayed in and made some of the best  seaman officers in the fleet. What's wrong with that?


----------



## Underway (19 Oct 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> How did we ever win the Second World War with so few degrees among so many Officers?
> 
> If we are oversimplifying, with massive industries that out produced the Japanese and Germans, oil and a nuclear bomb.  If you would like to bring up the value of university education of officers then you need to look no further than the Battle of Ypres where a Canadian chemist told the men to piss in their hankies so the urea in it could counteract the worst effects of the gas.
> 
> ...


----------



## sidemount (19 Oct 2017)

Not to mention that other Professions such have been listed require university education that directly relates to the specific job.

How many jobs do the CAF have that are "any degree"

For example, the Infantry are like that. You can have a degree in basket weaving that in no way relates to the profession of being an Infantry officer.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Oct 2017)

sidemount said:
			
		

> Not to mention that other Professions such have been listed require university education that directly relates to the specific job.
> 
> How many jobs do the CAF have that are "any degree"
> 
> For example, the Infantry are like that. You can have a degree in basket weaving that in no way relates to the profession of being an Infantry officer.



This is actually changing, different MOS will require specific degree programs.


----------



## FJAG (19 Oct 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I've done "mountains of staff work" reasonably well without a degree, and seen many degreed officers who suck at staff work.
> 
> The CF Staff School on Avenue Road in Toronto was an eight-week course. That's a lot less of a waste of time and money than a degree.



Truer words were never spoken.

When I finished high school and my OCTP training I was a fully qualified gunner but didn't start thinking beyond my own little world until I went to Staff School (which then was done at Avenue Rd and was more like three months I believe)

Staff School was the first time I was teamed up with Navy and Air Force and Purple personnel so gave me a rounded understanding of the Forces as a whole. Besides teaching staff duties it taught us how to organize our thought processes, taught us how to analyse situations (beyond basic operational appreciations of the situation)taught us how to study properly, taught us how to create and present persuasive arguments and deliver presentations.

Subsequently, as a Battery Captain I became the supervisor and mentor of a number of young subbies who were all graduates of RMC or civilian universities who, quite frankly were next to illiterate when it came to writing PERs or any type of staff paper. I was only a year or two older then them but by then my artillery training and experience had made me a far better gunner then them and my Staff School course a far better administrator. Their four years of university had provided them with very little of value to their units.

I think one has to keep in mind that other professions who require degrees (lawyers, doctors, engineers) have degree programs that are specifically aimed and tailored at teaching the knowledge and skills that the professions need. General university courses may teach things of interest but little of value. (I look back to my own two years of pre-law and can attest to the fact that I earned sixty credit hours of interesting stuff that has furthered me zero percent in either my military or law careers. I sometimes joke that the only thing that gives me an advantage is that a geography course I took taught me what "albedo" is and I doubt if 5% of the population does.) 

I also am a great believer in higher education and believe that the professional faculties and the community college programs provide value for money for the individuals and for the country as a whole. On the other hand I also believe that the bulk of the courses offered at universities are the biggest con that we run on our students and taxpayers. Courses that warehouse young people for four years (or more) and provide them with no marketable skills are ridiculous and are being pushed on us by a system that's designed to perpetuate the system rather than benefit the students and country in general.  

I can't help but believe that if we were to develop our young officers ourselves over those four years we would probably get a much better product in half the time and they could use the other two years in gaining practical experience in their chosen fields :2c:

Incidentally, I also agree with the comment above about being more flexible about commissioning from the ranks. Our program right now is heavily weighted towards taking very senior and older NCO. The problem regarding taking younger MCpls and Sergeants is very much tied to the education requirements. If we had a better internal junior officer development process then taking younger NCOs who lack university education and even a year or two of high school would be simpler and lead to more success.

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson (19 Oct 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This is actually changing, different MOS will require specific degree programs.



Which speaks to senior leadership confusing education and training, to my mind.  Unless there's a professional certification required - in the CAF, Doctors and Lawyers and Nurses and Pharmacists and Dentists are all I can think of - we should not be using the type of degree as a filter.  (I'm excluding Engineers from that list, since most CAF engineers do precious little engineering.  And most of the engineering could probably be done more effectively by civilians).

The most humorous part of some of those efforts is that they would disqualify the highest ranking Logistics officer in the CAF from being a Logistics officer.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Oct 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I was only a year or two older then them but by then my artillery training and experience had made me a far better gunner then them and my Staff School course a far better administrator. Their four years of university had provided them with very little of value to their units.



Except as a warning to others?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Oct 2017)

Staff work= glorified clerk.

Get over yourselves.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Oct 2017)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Staff work= glorified clerk.
> 
> Get over yourselves.



Sorry, Bruce, but properly done staff work is nothing of the sort. Properly done staff work is a decision making tool for Commanders. Improperly done staff work is all too common today and it just gums up the works of the CAF.

Clerks do administration. Which is also vital. But it is not staff work.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (20 Oct 2017)

Reading through the original article, there is another way to look at the changes in educational attainment and officer programs. It is true that more people now have degrees than in 1940, but there are also many more people who have completed high school than in the 1940s. It may be that a degree is "worth less" comparatively than seventy years ago, but that does not make a degree less important as an officer program entrance requirement. A high school diploma also meant more in 1940 than it does in 2017 as a discriminator. 

That degree on its own does not make somebody an officer, but it is a useful entrance requirement. They must go through CAF/branch education and training. One aspect of the greater percentage of folks with a degree is that some of the barriers from 1940 are gone or lessened. 

We do have outstanding leaders in the CAF who do not require degrees - they are our great NCO corps. The  high school grad with leadership qualities will make a great MCpl/Sgt in a few years - they don't all have to go officer! We are blessed with both a professional officer corps and a professional NCO corps and we should be comfortable with that.

Cheers


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Oct 2017)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Staff work= glorified clerk.
> 
> Get over yourselves.



Not sure even the best of clerks could, for example, liaise with Treasury Board and the Finance Ministry to shape a $0.5B short-notice capital procurement for a 5th C-17.  Could even be a Sr. NCM, but such an individual (NCM v Offr) would also have one (or more in my experience) relevant degrees.

:2c:

Regards,
G2G


----------



## blacktriangle (20 Oct 2017)

The CAF is a pretty diverse workplace. We have needs for leaders, administrators, and technical experts. Yet I see plenty in the CAF that can't fill any of those roles competently. And that's not just a shot at officers. We have plenty of sh*tty NCMs too. 

I'd rather see young officers get qualified first before we put them through university. Let them lead and be exposed to basic administration. Once they are ready to be Capt, we can look at getting them a public admin/finance/engineering degree (please no art history majors) so they can go fight the bureaucratic battles for us. And if they really suck, we can boot them out before this threshold is reached. 

And don't even get my started on the NCMs. I have no idea where they found some of my peers. Sure they are better than many from **** countries, but some are "professional" in terms of service only. We should be comparing ourselves to Americans, Brits, Aussies etc. And I personally know at least one officer or NCO from each of those countries that think we are a joke.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (20 Oct 2017)

Though the article referenced in the OP is written from the perspective of the US military since the discussion here has veered more to the Canadian experience, I'll provide a link to a couple of ORA reports that may provide some background.

An Assessment of the University Degree Policy for Canadian Forces Officers  (Sept 1997)
http://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/zbb62/p508505.pdf

Models of Canadian Forces Officer Occupations Most Affected by University Degree Requirement  (May 1998)
http://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/zbb61/p508381.pdf

Like a number of other "old timers" (maybe not when the earth was cooling, but there was still one or two dinosaurs roaming the earth) on this means I saw no problem with officers without degrees.  I was one of them, OCTP(M) - the "M" meaning "Men", in the days when men were men, and women were women, and officers were neither (according to my changing I-card anyway).  One of the things to remember in this discussion, which is more than about the singular issue of degreed officers, is that the pro non-degreed side of the argument seems to focus very much on the benefit of in-service evaluation and commissioning.  Back in the old days, with the exception of CFRP and SRCP,  all the Regular Force in-service commissioning plans mirrored a plan for candidates from civvy world (or the Reserves).  The non-degree option, OCTP, was usually limited to classifications (occupations) that most would term "pointy end" - Inf, Armd, Arty, Pilot, Air Nav, AEC, MARS - all the rest needed degrees to get in the door, though once in the door there were the odd few who moved between classifications still lacking a degree.

While there was a high percentage of officers lacking a university degree, they were mostly in the MOCs above and in a couple of odd occupations that mostly generated officers in-service through CFR and by voluntary (usually) transfer from those non-degreed MOCs.  Even though one may assume that since those many non-degreed officers were generated through OCTP (and the similar pre-unification separate services commissioning programmes that preceded it), it was the primary source of officers, that would be incorrect.  My assumption (I don't have the data at hand, only memory of studies/reports from the 1980s when I was part of an occupational analysis) is that a higher percentage of OCTPs stayed following their initial engagements when those with degrees left following completion of compulsory service.  The OCTPs were only meant to be the short term measure to fill the gaps left when enough university graduates (or individuals willing to exchange a paid university education for a period of service) could not provide sufficient officers.  Well, the requirement changed with society.  Back 30, 40, 50 years ago getting that university degree was a significant event, now not so much.  While we may have lost some good potential officers through the cracks because of the education requirement in the years since the policy change, is the CF so short of potential officer applicants who either have a degree or is willing to go to school to get one.  The CF was always wanting officers to have education, just, like in a lot of things it did, it got lazy and accepted the easy fix of non-degreed officers that ended up being the norm.  For those who say that more opportunity for commissioning for deserving currently serving NCM should be provided, I ask, is the purpose of any commissioning plan to generate officers or to reward soldiers?

And to get back to the OP article and it's American focus, though the US military was always more education (credential) demanding than us, they also commissioned individuals with degrees during times when there was a shortfall in recruiting university graduates.  And not during the World Wars.  As an individual example (and one that proves nothing about correlation of education and officership - their shades of Somalia), quite a few non-degreed individuals were commissioned through Officer Candidate School during the Vietnam War.  They were selected often on the basis of aptitude test scores and many went there straight from basic training (other ranks basic as privates) or perhaps after completing initial trades training.  One of them, who had dropped out of community college after a few months but got through basis and training as a company clerk but had high test scores, was Lieutenant William Calley.


----------



## FJAG (20 Oct 2017)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Reading through the original article, there is another way to look at the changes in educational attainment and officer programs. It is true that more people now have degrees than in 1940, but there are also many more people who have completed high school than in the 1940s. It may be that a degree is "worth less" comparatively than seventy years ago, but that does not make a degree less important as an officer program entrance requirement. A high school diploma also meant more in 1940 than it does in 2017 as a discriminator.
> 
> That degree on its own does not make somebody an officer, but it is a useful entrance requirement. They must go through CAF/branch education and training. One aspect of the greater percentage of folks with a degree is that some of the barriers from 1940 are gone or lessened.
> 
> ...



The real question though isn't whether more education may have some value. The question is can the military make better use of those years especially since they are some of those where we are at our most vigorous and most impressionable. Why should we let them be spent sitting on our butts in a classroom?  op:

 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Oct 2017)

And, for Gawd's sake, let's hope that no one starts a discussion about the merits of 'Sergeant Pilots'.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_pilot

"They were not paid much, their opportunities for promotion were limited, and they were treated harshly in training, but that did not stop three generations of enlisted aviators from becoming pilots in the Army Air Corps."

https://archive.is/20120717164532/http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=31103853


----------



## FJAG (20 Oct 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And, for Gawd's sake, let's hope that no one starts a discussion about the merits of 'Sergeant Pilots'.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_pilot
> 
> ...



Or like Warrant Officers in US Army Aviation? That's a US idea that I would support here (although, of course, their warrant officers are quite different from ours since under the Warrant Officer Flight Training Program the only educational requirement is grade 12 and there is no previous military experience required)

 :cheers:


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 Oct 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Which speaks to senior leadership confusing education and training, to my mind.  Unless there's a professional certification required - in the CAF, Doctors and Lawyers and Nurses and Pharmacists and Dentists are all I can think of - we should not be using the type of degree as a filter.  (I'm excluding Engineers from that list, since most CAF engineers do precious little engineering.  And most of the engineering could probably be done more effectively by civilians).
> 
> The most humorous part of some of those efforts is that they would disqualify the highest ranking Logistics officer in the CAF from being a Logistics officer.



Wrt the engineers portion, I think it's important to note a lot of engineers don't do much 'pure engineering'. Design is only one portion of the types of work you can do, and a lot of it is project management, business development, contract management, etc where you take your technical background lets you understand the issue without going full slide rule to redesign everything. 

Very little of the CAF engineering work is what you would learn about in schools, but our training relies on a lot of background knowledge, and within DND we are increasingly going towards aligning a lot of our stuff with commercial practices, so having a P.Eng is already desirable and may become mandatory for certain positions. Sure, you can have the same job done by a civilian, but having someone that has been in the field doing it gives them a good appreciation of all the stuff that you wouldn't know otherwise because it won't be written down on a performance requirement anywhere. A good example is helmets that met all the requirements but failed field testing miserably because they didn't account for people using them as seats. Also, from a SWE point of view, we are cheaper than civilians doing the same jobs on the salary, with no concerns about OT etc when things get busy, and with the DEO stream, you don't actually pay for the education or have any 'lost time' for the paid degree.

I've used the stuff I learned at school a few times to do a bunch of calculations and verify our plan worked and would be safe, but I use the general skill sets I picked up while getting my education that were improved during my training every day. I can say the CAF has been great for developing the soft skills needed to actually lead people, and overall makes me a lot more effective now than if I had done just 'pure engineering' as a civilian and been put in the jobs I'm in now.

Probably a lot of officer roles that don't strictly need degrees, but I'd say the engineering jobs aren't one of them. We could train that internally, but it would probably cost way more and not really save any time, so not necessarily any real savings or net benefit.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Oct 2017)

If the majority of a trade is employed in administrative functions in Ottawa, it is questionable whether that function should be military.

But that's another discussion entirely...


----------



## dimsum (21 Oct 2017)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> We should be comparing ourselves to Americans, Brits, Aussies etc. And I personally know at least one officer or NCO from each of those countries that think we are a joke.



I've worked with Americans and I've worked with a lot of Aussies in all three services, and I don't believe we are worse than either of them.  We are generally more experienced at each rank level compared to the Americans (especially in the NCM world) and are on par with the Aussies.  I've worked with members of both militaries that I would follow, but only out of morbid curiosity.  

I'll admit that when I first started working with the Brits, their accents (perhaps b/c of the whole "to make yourself sound smarter, adopt Received Pronunciation) made me subconsciously think they knew what they were doing, but after a little while I noticed that they bumble around just as much (if not more in some cases) as we do.  

The "joke" goes both ways.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Oct 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I've worked with Americans and I've worked with a lot of Aussies in all three services, and I don't believe we are worse than either of them.  We are generally more experienced at each rank level compared to the Americans (especially in the NCM world) and are on par with the Aussies.  I've worked with members of both militaries that I would follow, but only out of morbid curiosity.
> 
> I'll admit that when I first started working with the Brits, their accents (perhaps b/c of the whole "to make yourself sound smarter, adopt Received Pronunciation) made me subconsciously think they knew what they were doing, but after a little while I noticed that they bumble around just as much (if not more in some cases) as we do.
> 
> The "joke" goes both ways.



People are people, the "we're a joke" perception comes more from our lack of certain core combat capabilities and national political posturing.


----------



## CombatDoc (21 Oct 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Some of this comes down to philosophical concepts of education vs training.  Simplified, training improves performance of specific tasks; education develops reasoning and judgement.
> 
> Ideally, if we truly believe in Mission Command, we want an officer corps with those qualities (reasoning and judgement), so they are adaptable to changing situations.
> 
> http://keydifferences.com/difference-between-training-and-education.html#ixzz4W0ZEK5oD


I find it interesting that the advocates for a non-degree Officer corps generally are those without a degree, while those supporting degrees for officers typically have a degree (of some sort) themselves. 

My preference would be to have all members - officers and NCM alike - obtain some sort of degree or professional certification during their career path. For some, cooks for example, this could their Red Seal certification. A degree is likely not required (or a realistic option for all recruits, recognizing that some will have a degree on entry) for your typical combat arms Pte/Cpl, but a degree or diploma would certainly be beneficial at the MWO/CWO rank when much of their work milieu involves working with (degrees) officers. For officers that enter with a Bachelor degree, perhaps progression to the General/Flag Officer ranks should require a Masters (beyond a RMC MDS) or PhD, similar to the US Military model. Everyone benefits from education in some form. 

In terms of a university degree, the skills gained should include critical reasoning, the ability to synthesize large amounts of information, develop arguments for/against various positions, writing and communication skills, research competencies (beyond Google) and the ability to select the best ‘evidence’, and exposure to a broad variety of ideas.

So, I am in the camp that wholeheartedly disagrees with the sentiment that “there is no absolutely need for officers to have a degree”. Times have changed and that ship has sailed.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Oct 2017)

ArmyDoc said:
			
		

> . Everyone benefits from education in some form.



Except the taxpayers whom you serve.  What makes you so special over other employee's in this great country?


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Oct 2017)

The taxpayers don't necessarily lose by having people who return to civilian life with more education.  They're also going to get a better military as well with their being more educated.


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Oct 2017)

I can accept, with the number of educational opportunities available, that officers should have a degree these days. Waaay back when, the ROTP system was as much a means of providing Federal assistance to education, which was a Provincial responsibility, as it was "the" primary officer production system. An officer only had to serve three years commissioned time after university graduation, and many, perhaps even the majority, joined for the free education and then pursued civilian careers. Of the ROTP graduates of my vintage I served with in 1 RCHA in Gagetown 1961-1964 perhaps about ten made it a career, while the number of "short service" OCP officers who qualified for permanent commissions must have numbered close to forty. A few from both streams became GOs and Cols, while most of us retired as LCols and Majs, and some peaked at Capt for life. 

So my experience was quite different than most of yours, and that coloured my attitude. Again, it was a different era, and degrees were far less common in Canadian society. The army admitted that there was no difference in ability and performance after the rank of captain, but the ROTP graduates who stuck around did have an edge on us.


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Oct 2017)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Except the taxpayers whom you serve.  What makes you so special over other employee's in this great country?



That they are tax payers as well, that chose a vocation and an employer that provides that.  Just because other Canadians do not receive it should not be a reaon to feel guilt or that the individual must justify it.

You have issues, take it up with your own employer.

dileas

tess


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Oct 2017)

Under those conditions I guess you'll never complain about a Govt. official lining his/her's or thier friends pockets again?

I mean they're taxpayers working for an employer whom provided it.......


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Oct 2017)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Under those conditions I guess you'll never complain about a Govt. official lining his/her's or thier friends pockets again?
> 
> I mean they're taxpayers working for an employer whom provided it.......



Don't compare illegal activities with an employer offering employees an avenue to improve themselves.  That is just sour grapes, from someone who does not have it.

dileas

tess


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Oct 2017)

Didn't say illegally did I? 
Cancelling the gas plants wasn't illegal but a lot of people made good money on it......and I'll bet they knew somebody.

If you actually paid attention you'd see that my original response  was to a scenario where ALL members should be offered degrees.........something that ISN'T presently offered.   Hard to have sour grapes over something that doesn't exist.

Now, back on subject matter perhaps?


----------



## Infanteer (21 Oct 2017)

ArmyDoc said:
			
		

> So, I am in the camp that wholeheartedly disagrees with the sentiment that “there is no absolutely need for officers to have a degree”. Times have changed and that ship has sailed.



Myself as well - if you can't be bothered to put the effort into gaining an undergraduate education in this day in age (not the 1950s-60s), then its one less thing you're doing to prove that you are a good candidate for the profession.  The basic skills in critical thought and writing are useful tools with which to pile a professional military education upon.


----------



## RocketRichard (21 Oct 2017)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Myself as well - if you can't be bothered to put the effort into gaining an undergraduate education in this day in age (not the 1950s-60s), then its one less thing you're doing to prove that you are a good candidate for the profession.  The basic skills in critical thought and writing are useful tools with which to pile a professional military education upon.


Great points Infanteer. I use the skills (hard and soft) I learned from university all the time. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Oct 2017)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Didn't say illegally did I?





			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Under those conditions I guess you'll never complain about a Govt. official lining his/her's or thier friends pockets again?



So what exactly were you trying to say?




			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Cancelling the gas plants wasn't illegal but a lot of people made good money on it......and I'll bet they knew somebody.
> 
> If you actually paid attention you'd see that my original response  was to a scenario where ALL members should be offered degrees.........something that ISN'T presently offered.   Hard to have sour grapes over something that doesn't exist.





			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Except the taxpayers whom you serve.  What makes you so special over other employee's in this great country?



Don't know what your trying to sell, but your produce has a tangy taste.....



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Now, back on subject matter perhaps?



Yes, please let us get back on the subject matter, as your contributions are so delusional, they are even confusing you! As for this thread, I am paying attention, unfortunately your white noise is making it harder to enjoy a good conversation regarding education requirement in the officer corps for CAF.  

It's Not for whiny posts about not getting any, and Government pocket lining.

dileas

tess


----------



## Infanteer (21 Oct 2017)

Ok.  Its done.


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Oct 2017)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Ok.  Its done.



Thank you

dileas

tess


----------



## FJAG (21 Oct 2017)

ArmyDoc said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that the advocates for a non-degree Officer corps generally are those without a degree, while those supporting degrees for officers typically have a degree (of some sort) themselves.
> 
> . . .
> 
> So, I am in the camp that wholeheartedly disagrees with the sentiment that “there is no absolutely need for officers to have a degree”. Times have changed and that ship has sailed.



I'm an advocate for non-degree officers. I may have enrolled as one initially but since then have completed five years of university and achieved an LL.B. My opinion that we could make much better use of those four years comes entirely from having my feet solidly planted in both camps.

As to the ship having sailed; I regretfully agree that it has. I sincerely doubt that we will ever go back to another non-degree program unless there is a national emergency which would require the rapid development of a large officer corps. I don't see that happening.

 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Oct 2017)

The British discovered the hard way that it’s a good idea, for any ‘big business’, to diversify your risk in the leadership department. Hence, they continue to recruit Officers both with and without degrees.

Having said that, I was one of the latter and, while I had a great time over the almost 9 years I was there, one of the main reasons I left was the fact that there was no way they were going to suiport me to get a degree.


----------



## CombatDoc (21 Oct 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The British discovered the hard way that it’s a good idea, for any ‘big business’, to diversify your risk in the leadership department. Hence, they continue to recruit Officers both with and without degrees.
> 
> Having said that, I was one of the latter and, while I had a great time over the almost 9 years I was there, one of the main reasons I left was the fact that there was no way they were going to suiport me to get a degree.


To be clear, I support all members (Officer and NCM) being able to access and pursue formal post-secondary educational opportunities. For some, this will be a professional certification or diploma. For others, it will be a degree program. 

Some educational programs should be sponsored as full-time for selected candidates e.g. take two years from your regular employment and get an MBA. For others, likely the vast majority, learning will occur on your time after hours, but on the company dime (as occurs with the current Individual Learning Plan System)  e.g. take two to four years part-time to obtain a Masters.

Regarding the comment about about it “wasting taxpayers money”, all of us in the military pay taxes, too, so we are interested agents also. In addition, many of us came into the CAF already possessing a degree that we obtained without CAF assistance.  

The CAF is competing with the civilian market for potential employees, and if a robust educational upgrade path - both academic and professional- gives us an advantage in being “the employer of choice”, I’m in favour.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (21 Oct 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The real question though isn't whether more education may have some value. The question is can the military make better use of those years especially since they are some of those where we are at our most vigorous and most impressionable. Why should we let them be spent sitting on our butts in a classroom?  op:
> 
> :cheers:



Officers pursuing a degree through ROTP or RESO are not just sitting on their butts. They are spending four months each year learning their branch and going through some "vigorous" training. The 22 year olds have at least a little more maturity once they begin Troop Leading/Platoon Commanding, all else being equal of course.

I think that planning to have officers wait to obtain a degree is a mistake. There is always something pressing for our Captains in terms of time - sending them off to school for four years is a non-starter. Its hard enough to get second language and staff training time.

Cheers


----------



## Infanteer (7 Dec 2017)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Myself as well - if you can't be bothered to put the effort into gaining an undergraduate education in this day in age (not the 1950s-60s), then its one less thing you're doing to prove that you are a good candidate for the profession.  The basic skills in critical thought and writing are useful tools with which to pile a professional military education upon.



I caught this article and it brought me back to this thread.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/whats-college-good-for/546590/

The part that caught my was _"The labor market doesn’t pay you for the useless subjects you master; it pays you for the preexisting traits you signal by mastering them. This is not a fringe idea. Michael Spence, Kenneth Arrow, and Joseph Stiglitz—all Nobel laureates in economics—made seminal contributions to the theory of educational signaling."_


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Dec 2017)

"Critical thought"??  Apparently only allowed if you tape all your conversations. ....


----------



## Journeyman (9 Dec 2017)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/whats-college-good-for/546590/
> 
> The part that caught my was _"The labor market doesn’t pay you for the useless subjects you master; it pays you for the preexisting traits you signal by mastering them."_


Good article, thanks; it mirrors much of what I think, particularly:

a) _ "Instead we must ask ourselves what kind of society we want to live in—an educated one or an ignorant one?"
_
b)  _"I’m a cynical idealist. I embrace the ideal of transformative education. I believe wholeheartedly in the life of the mind. What I’m cynical about is people. I’m cynical about students. The vast majority are philistines. I’m cynical about teachers. The vast majority are uninspiring. I’m cynical about “deciders”—the school officials who control what students study. The vast majority think they’ve done their job as long as students comply."_


I believe that university education can add to society in general, and the military in particular, because of "a."  However, the overarching system is broken because of "b"... in addition to the other points raised by the author.

First, our choice of society.  Look at many of the posts made on this site (or if a glutton for punishment, the comments section to CBC articles).  Charitably, some are based on naiveté or not staying in one's lane.  Many, unfortunately, come across as uninformed bigotry, obtuseness, or lack of exposure to other thoughts (and actually making informed judgements upon them).  I believe that further education could help all but the most determined to defend their right to be stupid.

However, our educational systems are failing, not merely because of uninspiring teachers, but because so many feel that their role is to provide ideological indoctrination rather than cultivating informed reasoning.  As a military person at a civilian university, I often heard about how I was personally responsible for all the world's problems and oppression.... often with significant venom.  I'm not sure if the graduates from those circles can be considered educated rather than ignorant, because there is no other side to their coin to be considered -- you either hug trees or you're irredeemably evil; one must always be offended on behalf of someone or something.

But even an awareness of their perspectives can assist in producing valid counter-perspectives and, as such, better leaders.  And I'm not advocating education just for officers, but for NCMs as well.  Some troops wouldn't believe an officer if he said the sun rises in the east, but the informed views of a respected Sgt will carry much weight.


As such, the more education the better..... hell, even the person who takes Art History can be beneficial when playing trivia in a bar.  :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Dec 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> But even an awareness of their perspectives can assist in producing valid counter-perspectives and, as such, better leaders.  And I'm not advocating education just for officers, but for NCMs as well.  Some troops wouldn't believe an officer if he said the sun rises in the east, but the informed views of a respected Sgt will carry much weight.



In the world of the Reserves it is possible to come across PhDs who also happen to be good machine gunners. It's an idea well past its time, to open up more educational opportunities to all ranks based on merit. We may even see Sergeant pilots (but I'm not going to bet my retirement on it.)

One of these days we'll have a ruthlessly rigorous 'University Program Selection' as well as CSOR, JTF2, etc etc selection course that has hundreds of well qualified applicants. That's when you know we're probably headed in the right direction, intellectually as well as technically.


----------



## Journeyman (9 Dec 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> In the world of the Reserves it is possible to come across PhDs who also happen to be good machine gunners.


To be fair, I had the _real_  military in mind.    :stirpot:

...besides where did they possibly get sufficient ammo and actual Sp Wpn range time to become good machine gunners?    :worms:



Disclaimer: First part is a joke; second part..... well....  :dunno:

 ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Dec 2017)

Well, one of our PO2 at MONTCALM was a Ph.d. student in nuclear physics. I can tell you that NBCD School was more than happy to see him back every summer to help making sure all the course materials were up to date and to make sure the staff was up to date on safety precautions.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (9 Dec 2017)

In 2017 the average young person has about 2 years of post-secondary.  Why wouldn't the military want officers to have an above average education?  As someone said, when you're paying a captain $90,000 why wouldn't you expect a degree?   I was in the reserves in an age when maybe somewhat less than half the officers had degrees and I saw no difference in capabilities.  Having a degree wasn't the only requirement, there were also interviews and boards to impress other officers that I had something of a personality capable of leadership and I fooled them.  What is the magic in a degree?  In my life, I've managed to earn 4 of them.  A whole whack of people I started university with failed to earn one.  Maybe persistence is a valued virtue.


----------



## mariomike (9 Dec 2017)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Maybe persistence is a valued virtue.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Apr 2020)

Bringing this back: Another American perspective.



> The Army’s focus on making recruiting numbers and emphasizing characteristics associated with career longevity has created a self-licking ice cream cone among its officer corps. Meanwhile, across all commissioning sources, there has been both a relative and an absolute decline in the cognitive abilities of officers. This may matter little for the day to day operations of lieutenants, but if the Army wants to have the best possible operational and strategic thinkers to win wars it has no options for lateral entry. If large numbers of lieutenants are commissioning without cognitive screening, or with lowered standards, it will only produce field and general grade officers who are not intellectually equipped to deal with the complex problems of our nation’s defense.



https://www.jmoblues.com/post/the-intellectual-decline-of-the-army-officer-corps-why-army-officers-are-getting-dumber


----------



## FJAG (14 Apr 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Bringing this back: Another American perspective.
> 
> https://www.jmoblues.com/post/the-intellectual-decline-of-the-army-officer-corps-why-army-officers-are-getting-dumber



So the take-away from this is that if we implemented cognitive evaluation at the intake level we probably wouldn't find enough officer candidates to fill the vacancies and we should therefore continue with our intakes as is but at some point during career progression we should test and prohibit all low performers from progressing.

Sounds better than the "gut feel and then justify" PER system that we use now.

Cynicism aside, that's a very thought provoking article and in a lot of ways explains a lot about why we are where we are these days.

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson (14 Apr 2020)

My solution is to cap the officer corps at 16% of the CAF (vs 25% or so today).  Force decisions on what we want done where and how, instead of the "I want three more staff qualified majors for my HQ to perform ill-defined tasks way outside my mandate" that too often masquerades as senior leadership.


----------



## FJAG (14 Apr 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My solution is to cap the officer corps at 16% of the CAF (vs 25% or so today).  Force decisions on what we want done where and how, instead of the "I want three more staff qualified majors for my HQ to perform ill-defined tasks way outside my mandate" that too often masquerades as senior leadership.



25%!!!!!. The US active military is 17% and the reserves 16% and that's already way too many.

I wish I'd seen that 25% statistic when I wrote "Unsustainable at Any Price" and was writing the chapter about our swollen headquarters and our unsupportable habit of clinging to Cold War era sized headquarters and full-time forces. Time for a v. 1.1

25%!!!!!. Lord Thunderin' Jesus. I bet we don't tell the politicians that whenever we go begging for more cash in our budget.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Apr 2020)

Draw from across a broader cross section of society (as the US did during conscription for Vietnam) and get a smarter Officer.... simples:

Understanding the steady and troubling decline in the average intelligence of Marine Corps officers

When the United States ended the draft and transitioned to an all-volunteer military in 1973, there was concern about who would join and whether the transition would negatively impact the quality of the force, which many suspected it would.

As it turns out, the quality of the force as a whole actually increased over time. In 1977, 27.1 percent of new enlisted recruits met the military’s standard for being “high quality,” meaning that they possessed a high school diploma and above-average intelligence relative to the U.S. population as a whole. Decades later, at the height of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, 60 percent of new enlisted recruits met the high quality standard.

But what about military officers? Though commissioned officers comprise only about 16 percent of the force, they clearly have a major impact on the success of the military as a whole given their leadership role for their troops and responsibility for strategy and tactics.

So are today’s officers up to the task?  In new research, Brookings’ Michael Klein and Tufts University’s Matthew Cancian—a former Marine officer who served in Afghanistan—take a closer look at this question and uncover a troubling pattern.

After analyzing test scores of 46,000 officers who took the Marine Corps’ required General Classification Test (GCT), Klein and Cancian find that the quality of officers in the Marines, as measured by those test scores, has steadily and significantly declined over the last 34 years.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2015/07/24/understanding-the-steady-and-troubling-decline-in-the-average-intelligence-of-marine-corps-officers/


----------



## dapaterson (14 Apr 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> After analyzing test scores of 46,000 officers who took the Marine Corps’ required General Classification Test (GCT), Klein and Cancian find that the quality of officers in the Marines, as measured by those test scores, has steadily and significantly declined over the last 34 years.
> 
> https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2015/07/24/understanding-the-steady-and-troubling-decline-in-the-average-intelligence-of-marine-corps-officers/



That explains dinner.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Apr 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> 25%!!!!!. The US active military is 17% and the reserves 16% and that's already way too many.
> 
> I wish I'd seen that 25% statistic when I wrote "Unsustainable at Any Price" and was writing the chapter about our swollen headquarters and our unsupportable habit of clinging to Cold War era sized headquarters and full-time forces. Time for a v. 1.1
> 
> 25%!!!!!. Lord Thunderin' Jesus. I bet we don't tell the politicians that whenever we go begging for more cash in our budget.



#Tangent


The QR&Os are open-ended about rank structure.  Unfortunately, I think we need directive policies, not open ended - with either the GiC or Parliament dictating "This many of this rank, this many of that rank" for the Reg F and P Res (Rangers, COATS and Sup Res are different).

Plus, the targets need to be expressed in a way that prevents gaming the system - for example, making 75% of P Res Sgts ongoing full-time to subvert the Reg F cap should be considered and explicitly prevented in the regulations (for example, a member of the Res F paid for more than 200 days in a calendar year shall be counted against the cap for the Reg F).


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Apr 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That explains dinner.



UNSAT... they are non-toxic


----------



## FJAG (14 Apr 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> #Tangent
> 
> 
> The QR&Os are open-ended about rank structure.  Unfortunately, I think we need directive policies, not open ended - with either the GiC or Parliament dictating "This many of this rank, this many of that rank" for the Reg F and P Res (Rangers, COATS and Sup Res are different).
> ...



I'm not sure about making that a parliamentary function but you may have noticed through my recent missives that I no longer trust the top layers of our military bureaucracy in making the right decisions for our force structure and management. So who does one trust?

As to the Class B fiasco, (and having been one for three years I know of what I speak), I do agree that we need to re-examine the whole system from top to bottom to determine which jobs in the military are full-time or ought to be part-time. That, however, takes you right back to the need to determine what the roles and missions of the CAF should be and which ones can be left to part-timers (assuming we also restructure the system at the same time to create a viable, equipped, trained and deployable reserve force). 

I've always maintained that the big ticket items, such as major conflict, are rare occurrences for which you need a less expensive, larger and more capable stand-by force rather than an expensive full-time force that spends a fair bit of their salaries on pushing paper from one side of the desk to another or sweeping the gun shed and preparing one more time for the conflict that's on the distant horizon. We simply can't afford that any longer. The billions that Canada spends should get us more war-fighting capability than what we're getting. When you see the capabilities that our military leadership has cut, you can't help but conclude that they have no intention of ever letting us get into a real war. So much for deterrence. 

There will always be short range  projects where you need to surge some reservists into Class B positions. The trouble is we've made Class B's a full 20 year career for some people and with the new pension system, that actually is what it really has become. We do need to stop gaming the system in that respect.

 :cheers:


----------



## Throwaway987 (14 Apr 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Bringing this back: Another American perspective.
> 
> https://www.jmoblues.com/post/the-intellectual-decline-of-the-army-officer-corps-why-army-officers-are-getting-dumber



I found a link to the Hunter paper that was quoted (regarding General Mental Ability): https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Schmidt10/publication/232564809_The_Validity_and_Utility_of_Selection_Methods_in_Personnel_Psychology/links/53e2938f0cf216e8321e0625/The-Validity-and-Utility-of-Selection-Methods-in-Personnel-Psychology.pdf?origin=publication_detail


I always found it amusing that cognitive ability wasn’t assessed until the Col/CWO level. If GMA has been shown to offer significant value when selecting personnel when hiring, shouldn’t it also offer value when selecting personnel with promotions? 

If CFAT testing is correlated with GMA and GMA is a valid predictor of CAF performance, could we retrospectively assess how our promotion decisions correlated with GMA? i.e. Do our senior leaders have high GMA values relative to their entry cohorts? Are there portion of the CAF where we disproportionally lose high GMA members since we didn’t select for cognitive ability until higher ranks? 

How does selecting for GMA interact with selecting for characteristics associated with long military service (as suggested the JMO blog)?

My apologies if this is an awkward crossover with the PER thread. Feel free to move it over if it best belongs there.


----------



## MilEME09 (14 Apr 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> There will always be short range  projects where you need to surge some reservists into Class B positions. The trouble is we've made Class B's a full 20 year career for some people and with the new pension system, that actually is what it really has become. We do need to stop gaming the system in that respect.
> 
> :cheers:




Because we allow our selves to put band aids on top of band aids, sure you stopped the bleeding but the wound is still open, cause harm to the body.


----------



## Underway (14 Apr 2020)

Throwaway987 said:
			
		

> I found a link to the Hunter paper that was quoted (regarding General Mental Ability): https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Schmidt10/publication/232564809_The_Validity_and_Utility_of_Selection_Methods_in_Personnel_Psychology/links/53e2938f0cf216e8321e0625/The-Validity-and-Utility-of-Selection-Methods-in-Personnel-Psychology.pdf?origin=publication_detail
> 
> 
> I always found it amusing that cognitive ability wasn’t assessed until the Col/CWO level. If GMA has been shown to offer significant value when selecting personnel when hiring, shouldn’t it also offer value when selecting personnel with promotions?
> ...



CFAT isn't designed for and is not predictive of that far down your career.  CFAT only goes so far as your initial job posting.  Do you meet the minimum standard for your job.  And even then its only 60-70% predictive of success in combination with educational background and other job-related skills.  There are so many other factors that go into a successful career, some of that is luck.  Did you get injured, did you cohabitate with the right person who enabled your career, friction with other people on the job, the right position at the right time, was your training delayed, did you choose appropriate self-improvement etc...


----------



## Throwaway987 (14 Apr 2020)

Underway said:
			
		

> CFAT isn't designed for and is not predictive of that far down your career.  CFAT only goes so far as your initial job posting.



What’s your reasoning behind this? Is your argument that the CFAT has no correlation with GMA? Or that GMA has no correlation with future job performance? 

And regarding not being predictive farther into one’s career, is it because of the lack of evidence or the evidence of no predictive value? I was proposing that it would be an amusing thing to explore...under the assumption that it has not already been looked at. 

If CFAT+other factors has a correlation of 60-70%, that is totally in the same ballpark as the correlations identified in that study (interpreted by the authors to be high and meaningful).


----------



## blacktriangle (14 Apr 2020)

I'm all for having "exams" at each rank level. A mix of trade specific knowledge and admin knowledge that you should know at your rank/for the next rank etc. Mix that with proper, meaningful evaluations of demonstrated performance and you might actually select good people.

Is the GMA a lot different than the CFAT? I ask because there are some people in the CAF that I'm certain crushed the CFAT, but would fail in leading even the most basic small party task. Heck, I've even seen some that could barely dress themselves without assistance. (Not joking, sadly)


----------



## McG (15 Apr 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ... I think we need directive policies, not open ended - with either the GiC or Parliament dictating "This many of this rank, this many of that rank" for the Reg F and P Res (Rangers, COATS and Sup Res are different).


I have seen an Army with this level of policy done by legislation.  It is cumbersome.

We already have it bad enough difficulty with non-legislated policy paradoxes where you are obliged to choose A or B while being prohibited from choosing either A or B.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Apr 2020)

MCG said:
			
		

> I have seen an Army with this level of policy done by legislation.  It is cumbersome.
> 
> We already have it bad enough difficulty with non-legislated policy paradoxes where you are obliged to choose A or B while being prohibited from choosing either A or B.



I agree that it would be cumbersome and frustrating.  That's a feature, not a bug, as it will force leadership to work within parameters rather than magically wish for dozens more fill in the blank) without considering the ability to generate and sustain that requirement, nor of second and third order effects.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Apr 2020)

The great fallacy, of course, is that you need to be: 

a) A Commissioned Officer and, 

b) Have at least a Bachelors degree 

to be a good military leader.

If the main goal is 'high quality military leaders', then there are alot of institutional barriers that are getting in the way...


----------



## OceanBonfire (15 Apr 2020)

Well...

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2020/01/30/staff-ncos-required-to-earn-college-degrees-the-top-enlisted-marine-could-see-it-coming/


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Apr 2020)

There should be few reasons why an NCO in the modern CF cannot gain at least a baccalaureate degree during their career. While there may be some arguments to be made whether it is or is not needed at the higher levels, there can be little doubt that even a BA can be helpful in transitioning to a post-service environment.


----------



## MilEME09 (15 Apr 2020)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> There should be few reasons why an NCO in the modern CF cannot gain at least a baccalaureate degree during their career. While there may be some arguments to be made whether it is or is not needed at the higher levels, there can be little doubt that even a BA can be helpful in transitioning to a post-service environment.



Some schools offer partial credit, MRU in calgary offers partial credit for Sgt and above towards a project managers degree, WO and above get move written off, in total I think it's about a year and a bit worth you get credit for.


----------



## Ralph (15 Apr 2020)

NCOs can spend their entire career at the unit; officers cannot. Staffers at a L3 or higher should be able to write at a post-secondary level in either (both) official languages. Having a degree is the simplest way to confirm that. Of course, there are functionally illiterate university grads...


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Apr 2020)

Ralph said:
			
		

> NCOs can spend their entire career at the unit; officers cannot. Staffers at a L3 or higher should be able to write at a post-secondary level in either (both) official languages. Having a degree is the simplest way to confirm that. Of course, there are functionally illiterate university grads...



Some of the best 'writing training' I ever received was in the Army, well before I got a degree in History (which I paid for myself). The training was a mix of in person and distance/self-directed learning and took about 2 weeks in total, I would guess, over the course of a few months. 

It really helped me at University, you know, 9 years after I had been commissioned and was leading troops - more or less effectively - on operations etc....

All of this to say the Army (Navy, RCAF etc) can do a really good job ourselves, if we put our minds to it.


----------



## FJAG (15 Apr 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Some of the best 'writing training' I ever received was in the Army, well before I got a degree in History (which I paid for myself). The training was a mix of in person and distance/self-directed learning and took about 2 weeks in total, I would guess, over the course of a few months.
> 
> It really helped me at University, you know, 9 years after I had been commissioned and was leading troops - more or less effectively - on operations etc....
> 
> All of this to say the Army (Navy, RCAF etc) can do a really good job ourselves, if we put our minds to it.


  

Got my two years of pre-law undergraduate while a subbie. And that was before the CAF gave you money to do so. 

I still credit Staff School for teaching me how to study properly so that I could make it through and get my law degree. Sure as heck wouldn't have been able to do it when I came out of high school all bored with sitting in a classroom. I still call the Reg F artillery my "gap thirteen years".

 ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Apr 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I still credit Staff School for teaching me how to study properly so that I could make it through and get my law degree. Sure as heck wouldn't have been able to do it when I came out of high school all bored with sitting in a classroom. I still call the Reg F artillery my "gap thirteen years".
> 
> ;D



Closing Avenue Road without direct/functional replacement was shortsighted. The Services were rarely able to supplant CFSS’ coursework/value.  The RCAF did (still does?) a pretty good staff writing ‘refresher’ (albeit with a technical flavour) on the Aerospace Systems Course/Program.  It was ironically one of the most disciplined writing courses I had taken, and that includes plsc and pcsc.

Regards
G2G


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Apr 2020)

Ralph said:
			
		

> NCOs can spend their entire career at the unit..



Support trades not so much.



			
				Ralph said:
			
		

> Of course, there are functionally illiterate university grads...



So right!


----------



## Navy_Pete (15 Apr 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Some of the best 'writing training' I ever received was in the Army, well before I got a degree in History (which I paid for myself). The training was a mix of in person and distance/self-directed learning and took about 2 weeks in total, I would guess, over the course of a few months.
> 
> It really helped me at University, you know, 9 years after I had been commissioned and was leading troops - more or less effectively - on operations etc....
> 
> All of this to say the Army (Navy, RCAF etc) can do a really good job ourselves, if we put our minds to it.



I agree, and have found military writing to be totally different from University writing. It's pretty easy to bash out a 10 page paper; it can be really hard to put together a briefing note on a complex subject (with a two page limit, that effectively gives you about four paras of real meat to work with).  That's something I had zero official training on (Navy has no staff officer course), and would be useless except a few people took the time to explain to me what they are looking for and how to put it together.  Big difference between getting a bunch of edits to do, and understanding why those things need changed.

Really helped when I was loaned out to another department and putting together staff work for their chain; even though it was a different focus, it was the same toolkit. Needed some stylistic changes to be less to the point, but again, that was something I learned by some mentoring.

Bits of paper are nice, but doesn't really guarantee anything, or mean we don't need to train people. Does make it more likely you have some basic competencies, but think we should have tools to do an assessment and give people an equivalent check in the box, if they have demonstrated the competencies that you assume people come with a degree. If they can do it for a P.Eng, or an executive MBA, we should give ourselves that option as well.  If it turns out that they could just use a bit more practice writing, makes way more sense to send someone on a short writing course then require a bachelors.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Apr 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I'm not sure about making that a parliamentary function but you may have noticed through my recent missives that I no longer trust the top layers of our military bureaucracy in making the right decisions for our force structure and management. So who does one trust?
> 
> As to the Class B fiasco, (and having been one for three years I know of what I speak), I do agree that we need to re-examine the whole system from top to bottom to determine which jobs in the military are full-time or ought to be part-time. That, however, takes you right back to the need to determine what the roles and missions of the CAF should be and which ones can be left to part-timers (assuming we also restructure the system at the same time to create a viable, equipped, trained and deployable reserve force).
> 
> ...



Each unit needs a core of Class B's and reg force to keep it functioning. You could put limits on continuous Class B to allow turnover, perhaps 5 years max. I would want at least 1 OR clerk, QM person, vehicle maintainer, along with a Reg Force Officer and NCO. those 5 people can effectively keep things running. To be really effective two OR clerks and QM/cook who can prepare meals once a week for training and in the field.


----------



## MilEME09 (15 Apr 2020)

I have known atleast two people who stayed class B long term simply because they didnt want to leave if they went reg force. Whoch I do not see anything wrong with that, particularly at PRes units, where a reg force body may be better used elsewhere. I have also seen it where someone takes an out of trade class B, like say a tech working in transport, or supply, and the army just forgets about it till the person leaves.


----------



## FJAG (15 Apr 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Each unit needs a core of Class B's and reg force to keep it functioning. You could put limits on continuous Class B to allow turnover, perhaps 5 years max. I would want at least 1 OR clerk, QM person, vehicle maintainer, along with a Reg Force Officer and NCO. those 5 people can effectively keep things running. To be really effective two OR clerks and QM/cook who can prepare meals once a week for training and in the field.



I actually take a bit of a different view. 

I don't disagree with the fact that there is a need at the reserve unit level for full-timers. In fact I'm a strong advocate of that in exactly the way that you say, as officers, Snr NCOs, administrators, trainers, and especially as storemen and vehicle technicians (especially if reserve units receive full equipment holdings like I think that they should.) If I had my way and reserve units were fully manned and equipped battalion or regiment of 5 - 600 reservists would probably need some 30 to 40 full time personnel and their posting would count as a regimental tour.

But, by definition under s. 15(1) a person who enrolls for continuing, full time military service is a Regular Force member and by extension of that definition, a position that is intended to be filled full time continuously would be a regular force position. One only uses a reservist (by definition under s 15(3) someone who enrols for "other than continuing full-time serve") in a full time position for temporary periods of time where the position cannot be filled with a regular force person for a limited period of time or in cases of emergency where a force is required larger than the regular force can form by itself.

What we've allowed to happen gradually over the years is to create a larger continuing, full-time force (primarily of administrators) than the size allowed by the government. This was and is being done through hiring reservists, year after year after year (at less salary and, for a very long time, without a pension plan and other benefits) whose salaries are paid primarily out of O&M budgets. It's basically cheating at an industrial level and is essentially (IMHO) in contravention of the provisions of s 15 (2) and (4) which leaves it to the GiC to decide how many personnel shall be in the reg f and the res f. There's a lot of wink-wink, nudge-nudge that goes on here and we've certainly written the personnel policies that make it possible but in effect, it's still cheating.

What we really need is a complete redesign of the structure of DND/CAF from the ground up. We need to define what defence outputs are so immediate or complex that they require full time personnel to develop those skill levels or be available for immediate reaction and which are those which can be fulfilled with a reasonable amount of "mobilization" of reservists. The more remote the possibility of need is (such as a major conflict) the more likely it is that the output is a reserve one. Along the way we need to wean the system of its unsustainable higher headquarters overhead. We can't give any of those "major emergency" roles to the reserves until we rebuild the reserves as a manned, trained and equipped force capable of deploying on its assigned missions.

 :2c:


----------



## dapaterson (15 Apr 2020)

Section 15 is operationalized by QR&O 2.09; unfortunately, I don't think there has been effective ministerial oversight (per QR&O) for decades.

It would be interesting to ask (via ATI?) for copies of any / all ministerial direction under QR&O 2.09, followed a month or two later by an ATI request for all the correspondence surrounding the development of the response to the initial request.



> 2.09 - MAXIMUM NUMBERS OF OFFICERS AND NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS
> (1) Under sections 15 and 16 of the National Defence Act, the Governor in Council authorizes the maximum numbers of officers and non-commissioned members in each component.
> 
> (2) Subject to paragraph (3), the Minister, with the concurrence of the Treasury Board, shall, within the maximum numbers prescribed by the Governor in Council, determine the maximum numbers of officers and non-commissioned members by rank.
> ...


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Apr 2020)

Interesting discussion.  

I will focus on selection and then follow on with the educational bits. 

I have to ask why we still need two distinct rank systems from the ground up.  Why not have one entry system and then a branch level where people are selected officer training and the remainder continue in the ranks ?  Those heading the officer route would, at this time undergo the required educational evolutions.  While admittedly not the perfect example but the process from Medic to PA is an example. 

Perhaps its my simple storesman mind, but I boggles me that we take twentysomethings with no experience and put them in change of thirty and fortysomethings who have been doing these tasks for years, and sometimes decades.  I don’t know any fire dept or police dept that allows direct entry into the higher ranks without some substantial time actually gaining experience at the bottom rung.


----------



## stoker dave (16 Apr 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I boggles me that we take twentysomethings with no experience and put them in change of thirty and fortysomethings who have been doing these tasks for years, and sometimes decades.



That is a good point.  Another consideration is that today's young people can reasonably expect to have a life span approaching 100 years.  Fifty years from now retirement age might approach 70 or 80.  I don't see why there is a big rush to hurry young people along so much.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Apr 2020)

stoker dave said:
			
		

> That is a good point.  Another consideration is that today's young people can reasonably expect to have a life span approaching 100 years.  Fifty years from now retirement age might approach 70 or 80.  I don't see why there is a big rush to hurry young people along so much.



.... because those Dilbert bins at the plehtora of HQs won't fill themselves


----------



## FJAG (16 Apr 2020)

A lengthy but interesting article on the topic of what constitutes the perfect officer:

https://www.hoover.org/research/perfect-officer

 :cheers:


----------



## blacktriangle (16 Apr 2020)

stoker dave said:
			
		

> I don't see why there is a big rush to hurry young people along so much.



While I agree with Halifax Tar and the points he made, I'm not sure I agree that someone's career should be held up arbitrarily due to their age.

Let's face it, some people are "ready" at a young age. Others never will be. In the US military, it's not uncommon to have an E-5 (MCpl equiv) with 4 years of service. Some are E-7 (WO equiv) in a decade or less. I'm not saying it's always perfect (it's not) but they manage just fine. 

If you intentionally hold people up just for the sake of it, you are going to lose some of your top performers. I think in Canada we often lose sight of the fact that the CAF is a military, not just another department in the PS. Not everyone is going to want to or be able to stay for 35 years, nor is that always in the best interests of the institution. You might have someone willing to give 4, 10, 20 years etc and that's it. Not to mention that the human body has limits, do we really need or want Sect Comd in the Infantry that are 50 years old?


----------



## dimsum (16 Apr 2020)

reverse_engineer said:
			
		

> Let's face it, some people are "ready" at a young age. Others never will be. In the US military, it's not uncommon to have an E-5 (MCpl equiv) with 4 years of service. Some are E-7 (WO equiv) in a decade or less. I'm not saying it's always perfect (it's not) but they manage just fine.



I'm not sure that the CAF and the US military are really apples-to-apples in this regard.  We place more responsibility in our MCpls than they do on their E-5s (trade dependent, of course).


----------



## blacktriangle (16 Apr 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that the CAF and the US military are really apples-to-apples in this regard.  We place more responsibility in our MCpls than they do on their E-5s (trade dependent, of course).



Definitely trade dependent, but fair enough.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Apr 2020)

During Vietnam you didn't need a degree to qualify for OCS. After Vietnam the rule was tightened requiring 2 years of college for OCS and now a degree is required because some regard a degree is the mark of a professional. Through the staff and war colleges now Masters degrees are earned.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Apr 2020)

reverse_engineer said:
			
		

> While I agree with Halifax Tar and the points he made, I'm not sure I agree that someone's career should be held up arbitrarily due to their age.



Thank you for your post, and your counter point is valid.  

I think perhaps, I was overstating the age thing when really I was meant to be referring the years of experience.  

My point was and is that we, for some reason, put education of the inexperienced and unproven over education of the proven and experienced.  To sum up,  I feel would get more from substantial and expanded CFR programs and a vastly lessened direct entry commissioning program.  

I didn’t mean to use age that much.  Thanks again for the nudge.


----------



## dimsum (17 Apr 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Thank you for your post, and your counter point is valid.
> 
> I think perhaps, I was overstating the age thing when really I was meant to be referring the years of experience.
> 
> ...



Perhaps following some of our allies and imposing an age limit to become an officer?  I think the US military generally has it at 29 or so.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Apr 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> My point was and is that we, for some reason, put education of the inexperienced and unproven over education of the proven and experienced.  To sum up,  I feel would get more from substantial and expanded CFR programs and a vastly lessened direct entry commissioning program.



I think you're onto something there, but we also have to bring in a fair amount of new blood at the leadership levels to keep the pool from stagnating. If we bias too far over towards experience in the big CAF machine, than we may stop having fresh ideas on how to do things better.

Dimsum: Looked quickly, US Military is 32 to enter OCS. UK Military is 26. Aussies look like 50 is their max.


----------



## Navy_Pete (17 Apr 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Perhaps following some of our allies and imposing an age limit to become an officer?  I think the US military generally has it at 29 or so.



Our recruiting for anyone is you need to finish your initial contract before hitting CRA.  If you start at CRA 60, means a recruit can come in around 55, and an officer at 51 (with a 9 year contract).

Not really sure what the point of bringing in someone to retire as a new Cpl or Capt, but sure there are both success and horror stories.

Time left before CRA (ie your age) comes up in succession management, which makes sense, but the one I saw clear guidelines for was heavily skewed to joining at 18 and going to RMC. If you are an ambitious high flyer that joined a bit later at life (ie late twenties) looking at that, it's not a great leap to see that means you should get out of the mob earlier and got to private industry if you want to go far, and there is enough head hunting going on that there are opportunities like that.

A few years ago someone posted an article here about the US Army officer career, and basically they found out that the career officers were the middle third. The top third jumped ship early, and the bottom third washed out.  The article was about retention challenges, and had an example of a really high flyer that had screamed up to a one star, with expectations that he'd eventually be at the top.  He pulled the plug, went to work for some kind of think tank, and was very quickly advising POTUS. They interviewed him, and he said something along the lines of he wanted to make an impact, and this allowed him to make a difference sooner. Probably let him avoid a lot of the flag officer politics and get a bigger paycheck at the same time, so made sense to me.  Can't remember what thread or anything it was in to put together a search, but this isn't a new problem.


----------



## blacktriangle (17 Apr 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> A few years ago someone posted an article here about the US Army officer career, and basically they found out that the career officers were the middle third. The top third jumped ship early, and the bottom third washed out.



This was similar to my experience during my career as an NCM. The best people I ever worked for or with generally moved on faster than their respective trades may have liked. Several became officers, others went SOF, and many released for civilian positions in Policing, Federal agencies etc.

That kind of goes back to my point that not everyone is interested in a long term career in the CAF, but that doesn't mean these are your slacker types. Also, the longer you have junior members rotting in things like PAT platoons or just sitting around probably doesn't motivate your best to stay.


----------



## Navy_Pete (17 Apr 2020)

Yeah, you're right; have been the divO for a number of people moving on at the end of their contract and a lot of them were excellent.  I know some people were bent out of shape because we 'lost' them, but nothing wrong with someone coming in, kicking ass for a few years and moving on to something else.

We get a good worker for a while, they get good life skills and resume points, so it benefits everyone.

Probably not rocket science to say that high flyers are going to have more opportunities outside the CAF, so they are harder to retain. In a lot of cases, it's also a shift over to a defence contractor, and think they tend to go a bit further then normal, as it's not just a bunch of strangers doing abstract things to them. They also have an easier time calling us out on BS, so good to keep us honest.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Apr 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> They also have an easier time calling us out on BS, so good to keep us honest.



Yeah, about that, I'll let you know when that actually works


----------



## FJAG (17 Apr 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Yeah, about that, I'll let you know when that actually works



 :rofl:


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Apr 2020)

This is a good idea IMHO:

The Army launches plan to give college credit for training soldiers are already doing

The move is part of a broader effort within Army education to find ways to recognize Army training as legitimate experience, applicable outside of the service. It’s an effort that brings enlisted education up to par with officer education, as some of those courses have been accredited since the 1970s.

It’s the “first time any NCO course will be accredited to a degree program,” Guyette said.


https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/06/12/the-army-launches-plan-to-give-college-credit-for-training-soldiers-are-already-doing/


----------



## dapaterson (19 Apr 2020)

Sounds suspiciously like the Canadian Forces Military Accreditation Program (CFMAP), which already existed when I went to work in the directorate responsible in 1998...


----------



## dimsum (19 Apr 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Sounds suspiciously like the Canadian Forces Military Accreditation Program (CFMAP), which already existed when I went to work in the directorate responsible in 1998...



Certain schools (Athabasca comes to mind but I'm sure there are others; I think U of M as well) will also credit your CAF experience.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Apr 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Certain schools (Athabasca comes to mind but I'm sure there are others; I think U of M as well) will also credit your CAF experience.



Take a look at the website below.  It identifies which programs will get you credit for training when you enter, and what your military training and experience can translate into for education and professional credit / accreditation.

https://caface-rfacace.forces.gc.ca/en/index


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Apr 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Take a look at the website below.  It identifies which programs will get you credit for training when you enter, and what your military training and experience can translate into for education and professional credit / accreditation.
> 
> https://caface-rfacace.forces.gc.ca/en/index



Looks like if your not an MP, Aircraft tech, or naval trade, you are mostly out of luck, When was the last time this program was updated? I know MRU calgary offers partial accreditation for project management for Sgt's and WO's


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Apr 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Looks like if your not an MP, Aircraft tech, or naval trade, you are mostly out of luck, When was the last time this program was updated? I know MRU calgary offers partial accreditation for project management for Sgt's and WO's


Just your PLQ was 6 credit hours which is just under half a semester of courses (based on 120 credit hour degree requirement). Not a bad trade off.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Apr 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Just your PLQ was 6 credit hours which is just under half a semester of courses (based on 120 credit hour degree requirement). Not a bad trade off.



That's an excellent deal.

It's almost as if this should be a standard practise for everyone somehow, hardwired into the Pers/Adm processes.


----------



## dimsum (19 Apr 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> That's an excellent deal.
> 
> It's almost as if this should be a standard practise for everyone somehow, hardwired into the Pers/Adm processes.



If it's this hard for the military, imagine trying to get all the universities/colleges onboard  :

I agree with the premise though.


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Apr 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> If it's this hard for the military, imagine trying to get all the universities/colleges onboard  :
> 
> I agree with the premise though.



CFLC has been working very hard it seems with various institutions across the country to get deals in place. However the advanced placement program is still in its infancy. Basically a reverse PLAR, only PLQ credit right now they are working on more.

https://www.military-appl.ca/


----------



## observor 69 (19 Apr 2020)

I had four Queen's U credits, one from RMC and a couple from U of Manitoba. As an avionics tech, it wouldn't have been a long stretch to take a few more courses from U of Manitoba and get a three-year degree. As far as I could see the U of Manitoba military program was designed to allow military personal to relocate and continue their degree program through correspondence.  Close to retirement, I decided to go all-in with Queens U. Lost some credits but finished my degree and learned a lot.


----------



## FJAG (19 Apr 2020)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> I had four Queen's U credits, one from RMC and a couple from U of Manitoba. As an avionics tech, it wouldn't have been a long stretch to take a few more courses from U of Manitoba and get a three-year degree. As far as I could see the U of Manitoba military program was designed to allow military personal to relocate and continue their degree program through correspondence.  Close to retirement, I decided to go all-in with Queens U. Lost some credits but finished my degree and learned a lot.



I'm a graduate of the University of Manitoba's Military program (and Faculty of Law). It was there in my life at exactly the right time with exactly the right program. Can't praise them enough.

 :cheers:


----------

